Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

3-5 blind NL game at a B&M casino in LA. A few players limp for $5 and Player A in the SB raises to about $15 or so. Player B (UTG) and a couple of other limpers call.

Flop comes A-x-x. Player A bets out about $30. Player B raises to $60 or so. All other players fold. Player A (about $250 deep) quickly re-raises “all-in”. Player B (about $230 deep) goes into a short “tank” and calls. Turn and river are two blanks.

Note that using the latest Los Angeles/nationwide rule (if no river action, showdown starts clockwise from the button) or the old Las Vegas rule (if no river action, last aggressor from a previous round shows first) Player A is supposed to show his hand first. This isn’t in dispute for the purposes of this post.

Player A asks: “What do you have?”

Player B responds: “I called your all-in raise.”

Player A repeats: “What do you have?”

Player B continues: “With no river action, the showdown starts clockwise from the button.”

(Note that the dialog above and below was a bit more colorful, but I’ll keep it “Dragnet style” for the purposes of this post) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Player A says: “I’ve got a pair”, still holding his cards face down.

Now Player B says one of two things (which one is in dispute, if you think it matters, state why):

Player B version 1: “Per the showdown rules you are required to show first.” (or something very similar)

Player B version 2: “Show me”

Instead of showing down, Player A now bullet mucks his cards. The dealer stacks off the all-ins, pushes this part of the pot to Player B (who is still protecting his hand) and now starts to push the remaining part of the pot (the pre-flop action) to Player B.

Player A now asks: “I want to see that hand.”

Note that if Player B had bullet folded after Player A mucked, this post wouldn’t even have been written. However, Player B is the careful type who wants possession of the pot before he releases his hand. Also note that if a third party dealt in had asked to see Player B’s hand, he would clearly have to show it under the existing “IWTSTH” rules.

Anyway, Player B responds: “How can you ask to see my hand given you didn’t show me yours when you were required to show first?”

Player A repeats, “I want to see your hand”.

Player B asks for a decision regarding whether he has to show his hand from a nearby floorman who wasn’t very busy. When the floorman comes, the facts are explained as above (though in short form).

You are the floorman. What is your decision under your cardroom’s existing rules?

Bonus. If you are uncomfortable with the rule you had to apply, how would you change it?

I won’t be going out today until 1:00 pm PST, so I’ll post a little follow up and a related post later.

All comments appreciated.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

Hi Rick

I work as floor/TD in Vienna and although we do not have the IWTSTH rule we have a rule that states "a winning hand must be shown to receive the pot". The rule is strictly enforced in tournaments while in cashgames I instruct the dealers to only enforce it when requested by other players.

To answer your question under my rooms existing rules I would have the hand tabled. But I would rather rule that since player A did not show when he was supposed to he has forfeited his right to see player B's cards.

Regards,
RegBarclay

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I work as floor/TD in Vienna and although we do not have the IWTSTH rule we have a rule that states "a winning hand must be shown to receive the pot".

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that rule only apply to hands that reach the river - or do you have to show a hand after a blind-steal (or even if it's folded to your BB)? And do you have to show your hand even if you bet on the river and noone calls?

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

Sorry if this was unclear, the rule applies only in showdown situations. Here is the full text:

"All cards of a called hand must be shown face-up on the table in order to win any part of a pot in a showdown. Players must expose their cards in order to play the board."

Regards,
RegBarclay

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

I think the player has to table the hand, if you want to rewrite the rule to take care of this situation then I would say that a player does not have to show a hand if the other players at showdown surrender, the problem is that it does open you up to some form of collusion.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

I really, really hate [censored] nits who make a bet, get called, and then start a long convoluted series of "What do you have?" "Can you beat a pair?" etc etc questions instead of tabling their hand.

Under the rules Player B has to show as he's collecting a pot and Player A's actions have no bearing on that. The house rule should be that everyone at the table gets to administer a kick in the nuts to Player A.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

I'm still trying to figure out why a hand was power-mucked in 600-700 pot when nobody had shown their cards.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they both muck the cards are in the muck and there is nothing to see. If he still has them and somebody asks to see them they get to see them (in a room/game where IWTSTH is permitted).

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to figure out why a hand was power-mucked in 600-700 pot when nobody had shown their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is very possible that the SB did not even have a pair and was fibbing regarding his hand. Or he had a small one he felt couldn't win.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy,

As mentioned in the related thread I just posted, I'm being pulled off the computer by my Luddite friend. I'll be back tonight. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

I would rule that Player A can NOT claim IWTSTH since he mucked and gave up that right. Another player in the hand might justifibly want to make sure there was no collusion and ask to see BOTH hands.


I am really hoping Player A had pocket K's or Q's and Player B had a missed draw and eventually shows.

That would be funny as hell and serve the [censored] for not wanting to show and then mucking.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

My amateur opinion is to not show for the following reasons.

1) There is no reason to believe there is any collusion involved in the hand, and that is the intent of the IWTSTH rule.

2) People who don't abide by the nitty gritty details of the laws when they don't want to shouldn't be allowed to impose them on others at will.

3) There's an entire other can of worms that could be opened if the mucker sees that he mucked the winner.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they both muck the cards are in the muck and there is nothing to see. If he still has them and somebody asks to see them they get to see them (in a room/game where IWTSTH is permitted).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...so what if Player A mucks, then a third party asks to see Player B's cards, and B responds by mucking?

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

OP, i think where you are going with this is that player B doesn't have to show since when he asked to see player's A hand (rightfully) Player A refused to show.

personally, i still think Player B has to show.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
“How can you ask to see my hand given you didn’t show me yours when you were required to show first?”

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe player A was required to show first or muck.
He mucked (eventually). Dealer should show player B's hand.

If player B gets his hand past the dealer into the muck
he won't have to show his hand.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they both muck the cards are in the muck and there is nothing to see. If he still has them and somebody asks to see them they get to see them (in a room/game where IWTSTH is permitted).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...so what if Player A mucks, then a third party asks to see Player B's cards, and B responds by mucking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they are mucked (too bad the dealer didn't protect the muck). A plyer's action is to fold, not to muck; mucking refers to buring them in the muck so they can't be retrieved.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

In LA a winning hand that has gone to a showdown has to be exposed, however there is the added twist that player A mucked his cards first. Seems to me if player A wanted to see his cards then all he had to do was turn his over first.

I'd bet almost any amount of money that if you asked 10 different floors in LA for a ruling you'd get different answers and reasons why they ruled that way from each of them. This all goes back to earlier posts about why there aren't standardized rules of poker that casino's follow, and more important, why do some casino's have rules but allow their floors to interpret them differently?

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

First of all, what was the dealer doing during all of this, watching the soccer game?

Under the prevalent interpretation of the rules, and if, as a floorman, I chose to follow the letter of the rules, I would make player B show. I say "the prevalent intepretation" because I have read the Commerce rules and it says that if there is a call on the river, any player has the right to see all hands. This is interpreted by the casino as any player has the right to see all hands in any showdown. But the clear meaning of the words contradicts that; when it goes check-check there is no call.

However, now that I think about it, if player A was the only player demanding to see the hand, I would not make player B show. Interpreting the written rule to mean that in the event of a showdown, any player can see any hand, it would seem, at first glance, that he is entitled to see player B's hand. But since he mucked when it was his turn to act, there was not really a showdown. I think if the situation was reversed, player A checked, and then player B mucked, this would be clearer. But it's the same situation: the conversation is irrelevant; player A mucked when player B checked, thus no showdown.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

Here in Indiana, if I understand the rules correctly, in the event of a showdown, you have to show a hand in order to be awarded a pot. I think Caesar's IN uses the last agressive action rule.

I am rarely in this scenario because I flip them over unless the villian is a chronic slow roller, then if I called his bet, and I am weak, I will wait forever for him to show first. If I am strong, I flip them over and against 99% of my opponents, I flip them over quickly anyway. I want to keep the game fast and friendly.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

Andy I understand what your trying to say. But we must look carefully at the action. They were all-in with a bet-call not a check-check. Under what y'all say are the rules of Commerce it seems glaringly clear whether we like the rule or not that player A still had the right to see player B's hand.

We must remember that it isnt about if we "like" or agree with the rule. But that it is properly enforced.

Now for the fun part! If the house also has rules posted that state anything to the effect of "Managements/Floorperson decisions are final". And/or "Decisions shall be made for the betterment of the game", Then as a floor person I may take the players cards myself and quietly place them in the muck and walk away.

Now when the "A" player goes ballistic I quietly pull him aside and tell him to not try to slowroll next time and just turn his cards over and there wont be any further problems. He can play that "what ya got" crap at his home game. This tends to bring them in line very quickly and the game continues on smoothly.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

No controversy here. It's time for a showdown, somebody wants to see the hand. Turn it up, and take the money.

No need to change any rules, for something that happens once every 100 years, and isn't that big a deal when it does happen.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

I typed a long responce to this and then my power went out. My computer stuff still worked fine because I have a good backup, but the cable company appearantly does not becasue I was no longer connected to the internet. There is one thing that has not been mentioned.



[ QUOTE ]
Now Player B says one of two things (which one is in dispute, if you think it matters, state why):

Player B version 1: “Per the showdown rules you are required to show first.” (or something very similar)

Player B version 2: “Show me”

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is ruled version 2 occurred he is invoking IWTSTH. When player A mucks his cards instead of showing when being asks any attempt by him to invoke IWTSTH is going to be ruled against (if I am ruling). There is no written rule I am aware of covering this, but there is no way I am allowing a player to throw his hand away to conceal info and then abuse the same rule to get info.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

i'm pretty sure i already mentioned that.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty sure i already mentioned that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post wasn't there and I didn't refresh my browser when the power came back up.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

I would strangle player A and just beat the sh*t out of B. Get over yourself, show your cards, and move on to the next hand.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

At Commerce, there is indeed a rule that the hosue may make a ruling contradictory to the letter of the rules in the interst of the game.

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am really hoping Player A had pocket K's or Q's and Player B had a missed draw and eventually shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was Player B. I had A2 suited and my read was that Player B's big reraise was BS (if I were deeper I'm not sure I'd have the stomach for the read, that's why I avoid deep stack).

I think Player A had either a small pair or something like KQ and just figured he couldn't possible beat me after I called his reraise.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I work as floor/TD in Vienna and although we do not have the IWTSTH rule we have a rule that states "a winning hand must be shown to receive the pot". The rule is strictly enforced in tournaments while in cashgames I instruct the dealers to only enforce it when requested by other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon quick reflection, this rule appears to have merit (and I like the way you interpret it for cash games). Perhaps worth a thread of its own at some future date.


[ QUOTE ]
To answer your question under my rooms existing rules I would have the hand tabled. But I would rather rule that since player A did not show when he was supposed to he has forfeited his right to see player B's cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using the catch all "management reserves the right to make rulings not listed explicitly in the rulebook that reflect the spirit of fairness" was used by a couple of managers I've spoken with regarding this and a few other problems they are having. But its best to have an explicit rule if the situation comes up often and the rule is a good one.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the player has to table the hand, if you want to rewrite the rule to take care of this situation then I would say that a player does not have to show a hand if the other players at showdown surrender, the problem is that it does open you up to some form of collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. If you have time perhaps you can provide some examples (in this case rewriting the rules to say, in effect, "if you go to the showdown and don't properly show your hand (or make your hand available to be shown) you can't ask to see another hand").

Regards,

Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) There's an entire other can of worms that could be opened if the mucker sees that he mucked the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. Let's fill in the X cards for the board and say it read As-4d-6d-9h-7s. After Player A mucks the floor in fact rules that Player B must show. Player B shows 2d-3d for the worst possible hand, something any conceivable hand held by Player A could beat. That would be fun [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
At Commerce, there is indeed a rule that the hosue may make a ruling contradictory to the letter of the rules in the interst of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a hardcopy of the Commerce Rule Book in front of me but a year 2000 version of the Hollywood Park Rulebook on my hard drive. They are very close and to save typing I'll quote the Hollywood Park version:

"Welcome to the HOLLYWOOD PARK Casino, where we consider fairness to be our primary concern. When making decisions, we try to protect inexperienced players and those unfamiliar with our rules from honest mistakes. Our floorpersons are trained to make decisions based on the spirit of the rule, rather than on inflexible interpretations of this guide. An unintentional error is less serious than a deliberate violation. The intent of an action will be taken into consideration when rendering a decision. The player acting improperly is the person who bears the brunt of the responsibility and will not benefit from an error.

Although HOLLYWOOD PARK Casino designed this rule book to cover most situations, there may be instances where no rule exists for a specific circumstance or when a game structure varies from the one usually played at the casino. During these occurrences, the rules governing the game may be altered for the particular situation.

At all times, the main purpose of our rule book is to provide an intelligent guide for decision-making and a sensible framework for fair play. An unintentional error is less serious than a deliberate violation. The intent of an action will be taken into consideration when rendering a decision. The player acting improperly is the person who bears the brunt of the responsibility and will not benefit from an error."

To the best of my knowledge, just about every card club in town has a similar introduction to the rules.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
“How can you ask to see my hand given you didn’t show me yours when you were required to show first?”

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe player A was required to show first or muck.
He mucked (eventually). Dealer should show player B's hand.

If player B gets his hand past the dealer into the muck
he won't have to show his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

As mentioned elsewhere, I was Player B. I'm not the power mucker some are, and am always careful to see that the pot is pushed my way before tossing my hand toward the muck. So over the years I've traded away a little information for insurance that I always get a pot that is rightfully mine.

But I suppose a better player and faster thinker would be good at both protecting his hand and not giving away information [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
“How can you ask to see my hand given you didn’t show me yours when you were required to show first?”

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe player A was required to show first or muck.
He mucked (eventually). Dealer should show player B's hand.

If player B gets his hand past the dealer into the muck
he won't have to show his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this happened slow enough so that even a plodding thinker like me could have tossed the hand irretrievably into the muck as the pot was being pushed. But I was genuinely interested in what decision I would get, since when I worked the floor years ago I had to use the catch all "in the interest of fairness" justification when I ruled differently in this related thread.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
In LA a winning hand that has gone to a showdown has to be exposed, however there is the added twist that player A mucked his cards first. Seems to me if player A wanted to see his cards then all he had to do was turn his over first.

I'd bet almost any amount of money that if you asked 10 different floors in LA for a ruling you'd get different answers and reasons why they ruled that way from each of them. This all goes back to earlier posts about why there aren't standardized rules of poker that casino's follow, and more important, why do some casino's have rules but allow their floors to interpret them differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've actually spoken (cordially) to two different floors in two different clubs (one is more of a pure shift manager, one is a lead floor in a top section and part-time shift manager) about this and a bunch of matters, especially those that affect the new no limit games. They did in fact have different opinions on the question posted in the lead post, but they both stated them eloquently.

The problem in LA and everywhere else is the rulebooks aren't as well written and clear as they could be. They will never be perfect, but IMO they could use a lot of work and people in one club or region need to build on the better work done by others. To make matters worse, they are often interpreted by inexperienced floor staffs.

I will probably be involved in the industry again, and one thing I hope to do is work on writing a better, shorter, and more easily understandable set of rules. If I get the chance of course I'll look to 2+2 for help.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, what was the dealer doing during all of this, watching the soccer game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why anyone would watch a game where a score of 2-0 half-way through is a blowout is beyond me. If I posted on the sports forum I'd blather about this but my guess is it's already been done. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Anyway, IMO the dealer was doing his job here. The original conversation went pretty fast, after Player A folded he stacked up the all-ins efficiently, returned a few chips to Player A (he had me slightly covered) and started pushing the main pot (from the pre flop action) to me. He quickly called the floor when I requested (I'm going to post the result and a few more thoughts elsewhere).



[ QUOTE ]
Under the prevalent interpretation of the rules, and if, as a floorman, I chose to follow the letter of the rules, I would make player B show. I say "the prevalent intepretation" because I have read the Commerce rules and it says that if there is a call on the river, any player has the right to see all hands. This is interpreted by the casino as any player has the right to see all hands in any showdown. But the clear meaning of the words contradicts that; when it goes check-check there is no call.

However, now that I think about it, if player A was the only player demanding to see the hand, I would not make player B show. Interpreting the written rule to mean that in the event of a showdown, any player can see any hand, it would seem, at first glance, that he is entitled to see player B's hand. But since he mucked when it was his turn to act, there was not really a showdown. I think if the situation was reversed, player A checked, and then player B mucked, this would be clearer. But it's the same situation: the conversation is irrelevant; player A mucked when player B checked, thus no showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis, but if you were this wishy-washy in a public cardroom you'd get killed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Also think how hard it must be to make decisions like this while five people are screaming for deck changes and getting seats filled elswhere in the room!. Then think how much harder it would be if one of them were "I__s" or "A____e"

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here in Indiana, if I understand the rules correctly, in the event of a showdown, you have to show a hand in order to be awarded a pot. I think Caesar's IN uses the last agressive action rule.

I am rarely in this scenario because I flip them over unless the villian is a chronic slow roller, then if I called his bet, and I am weak, I will wait forever for him to show first. If I am strong, I flip them over and against 99% of my opponents, I flip them over quickly anyway. I want to keep the game fast and friendly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was Player B holding A2 suited and thought I was only a 60-40 favorite when the showdown conversation began. As it went on I realized I was a bigger favorite.

I agree with your showdown philosophy, and it the one I normally use. That night I got curious regarding what would be the decision and had already been slowrolled (at another table) three times that day so I guess I was feeling sassy.

~ Rick

Re: Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now Player B says one of two things (which one is in dispute, if you think it matters, state why):

Player B version 1: “Per the showdown rules you are required to show first.” (or something very similar)

Player B version 2: “Show me”

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is ruled version 2 occurred he is invoking IWTSTH. When player A mucks his cards instead of showing when being asks any attempt by him to invoke IWTSTH is going to be ruled against (if I am ruling). There is no written rule I am aware of covering this, but there is no way I am allowing a player to throw his hand away to conceal info and then abuse the same rule to get info.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I believe I said something similar to version 1. But during an ensuing discussion, another player mentioned that he thought that I in fact said "Show me" at this juncture. His opinion was that I was invoking IWTSTH, and thus should have also shown my hand in fairness.

This reminds me that I have to email him and another player in that game a link to this thread.

~ Rick

The Decision
 

The decision was that I had to show my hand because the "action was equal" on the river and anyone dealt in has a right to see my hand. Of course anyone else I agree with per existing rules (although IWTSTH when it is a losing hand should be curtailed as we have often discussed elsewhere on this forum). Still, since he didn't show his hand when he was supposed to I'd make the opposite decision in the spirit of fairness as described in the similar situation in this related thread.

I'm sending a link to this thread to two players in the game who expressed interest in the discussion (I'll also send them Tommmy Angelo's IWTSTH article, since it's cool and sort of related).

I'm usually only involved in a longish floor decision as a player about once a year or so. That said, calling the floor over this wasn't good for the game as Player A appeared to be an action player who shortly thereafter took a change to another table. To the other players in the game I apologize; but in my defense I was having a tough day and have been out of sorts lately.

Regards,

Rick