[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a Nit Award of some kind that we can give to this poster?

"dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand" The dealer is not a hired assassin, trained to kill hands at every opportunity. If you think he is, then it sounds like you hate the idea of awarding the pot to the best hand, whenever possible, in the interest of fairness.

When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game This line alone sewed up the Nit Award for you. There's no "slippery slope" in the OP's story. Unusual circumstances sometimes call for unusual solutions.

I can just imagine both players agreeing to chop the sidepot; the entire table relaxes, relieved that a fair solution was reached; the calm is then shattered by The Lone Nit, who rises out of his seat to give a fiery speech about life, liberty, truth, justice, and "jeapordising the integrity of the game..."