Re: Need help with ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In case 2, another player helped someone read their cards, breaking one player to a hand. Since Player B showed no claim to the hand ("Wait, I think I have a flush"), we can't assume he'd have figured it out in another second or two.
[/ QUOTE ]
In Case 2, what did Player B do wrong? If he's going to be penalised by having his hand killed, he deserves to know what crime he has committed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Player B didn't commit a crime; he simply overlooked his winning hand and it is highly unlikely he would have retrieved it without help from his neighbor. At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced. My first post in this threat is an example where it can be enforced fairly. In the other two cases I mentioned Player B either retrieved his hand on his own or could have conceivably figured out he had a winner without the help from a neighbor (since he had possession of his cards).
I've always been a "best hand wins whenever possible" type when I worked the floor or as a NL host. But as mentioned in my follow on Scott Olson at the Bike makes a good case for where to draw the line.
~ Rick
|