Need help with ruling

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
lets start from the begining here. She was not facing a bet here, verbal concession is irrelevant (At showdown you announcing you got me or I missed does not constitute a fold).

Next if a player releases there hand but then reaches out and grabs it and turns it over the hand is live in most rooms I've played (I have seen this called differently but it is a bad ruling).


If you believe that either announcing "I'm no good" or releasing your hand is the immediately kills your hand then you are are correct.

But neither of those things constitute the killing of a hand in the rooms I have dealt in or most rooms that I have played in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's back up even further to a more general set of examples (I've written about this before but it's easier for me to retype than search for old stuff [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

We probably agree that the best hand should get the pot whenever possible. We also probably agree that sometimes rules collide or contradict. In this case it's "one player to a hand" versus "best (clearly identifiable) hand gets the pot". Here are some guidelines I learned for good rulings when these two rules collide:

In all cases there is equal action on the river. That means bet/raise-call or check-check. In all cases Player A shows first and announces two pair or something similar. Player B sits across the table from Player A, holds his hand up in clear view of his neighbors and shakes his head in disappointment (let's say he missed his straight draw).

Case 1: The player sitting next to Player B says "Hey, you back-doored a flush; you have the best hand." Player B now tables the flush.

Case 2: Player B sighs and pushes his hand toward the muck. Now the player sitting next to Player B says "Hey you had a flush". Player B reacts quickly and pulls back his hand. It never intermingled with the muck. He now tables the flush.

Case 3: Player B sighs and pushes his hand toward the muck. It touches the muck but is clearly discernable. He wakes up and quickly retrieves it and announces "Hey, I just realize I back-doored a flush". He tables the flush. There is no dispute that these are his cards.

From what I've learned a reasonably competent floorman thinking and ruling reasonably would make the following rulings:

Case 1: Player B gets the pot. Reason: Who could say that player B wouldn't have eventually figured out he had the best hand on his own?

Case 2: Player A gets the pot. Reason. Player B's hand was on it's way to the muck. It's highly unlikely he would have realized he had the best hand without help from his neighbor. Even though the hand was easily discernable there was a clear and consequential violation of "one player to a hand".

Case 3: Player B gets the pot. Reason: Although it touched the muck it is clearly identifiable. He retrieved it with no help. Best hand wins the pot.

Hope this helps.

~ Rick