[Brettski]

Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand. I'm sure the dealer had the best of intentions by pulling Seat 1's cards away from the muck. However, if those cards hadn't been physically retrievable, the floor probably wouldn't have been called to make a decision. And if they had, the decision would have been a lot easier.

But this is moot.

Question 1: Was the right call made? It's not an unreasonable call, provided that it's consistently applied. Some places have rules that say if it touches the muck, it's mucked. Some have rules that say different. The more important point is that whatever the rule is, it should be consistently applied in every similar situation at that venue.

Question 2: Should a deal like that be made? I'm strongly of the opinion that this is very wrong. Pots should always be awarded to pot winners. When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game, and opening a whole can of worms.