[LiveInPeace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally that rule only says "may", which means probably that it's still at floor's discretion whether player loses the right to act. I still say that SB has not done enough wrong to warrant losing the right to act, and that dealer's mistake should not cost SB the right to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem is that you're still wrong. At least when I showed you the rule you started to get it, but then you nitpicked about it HAVING to be 3 players, and it doesn't. Robert's Rules aren't hard and fast, and "significant action" basically means action that most players should be able to stop should they see it happening. SB allowed the dealer to ship the pot, and but for his cards being invisible to the 2 people seated DIRECTLY NEXT TO HIM, this could not have happened.

Dealer may have made a mistake, but it was SB's mistake that started this mess.

Seriously, you seem nice enough. If you live close enough to an actual live cardroom, go visit and chat up the floor if you get a minute. If you ask pretty much any floorperson about this situation, they'd tell you everything we've already said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone allowed dealer to ship the pot this was not SB's fault exclusively. All we have from the OP as far as I can tell is that the cards were not visible to poster. WE do not know if they were invisible to the dealer. More likely the dealer was simply not paying enough attention. Probably some other players could see them but didn't speak up. I agree it is a players responsbility to keep his cards visible but this sounds much more like simply lack of attention on the part of the dealer and opening poster regarding who has acted/who's left to act, than any deliberate attempt on the part of SB to hide cards.

We know if SB is not paying attention it is the responsbility of dealer to bring his attention to the game, and failing that take his cards. So imo, the first significant mistake by players was by other players involved not standing up for their rights to have this proper procedure enforced. In particular seat 1 acting out of turn, quite probably deliberately out of impatience with SB. That violation and the subsequent awarding of the pot are in my view much more serious than the relatively minor issue relating to SB's card visibility. I agree to some extent it does depend just how hidden they were, but for all we know everyone else at the table could see SB's cards, and poster probably could too if he'd made an effort to look.