[LiveInPeace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had I mucked my hand as soon as I saw the bb fold (assuming I was the only one left), I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Seat 10 gets the blinds AND my raise.

But what I learned from posting this, is that the dealer awarding me the pot makes all the difference in the world. Seat 10 must speak up BEFORE the pot is shipped!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The dealer makes yet another mistake and this should work in *your* favor, not SB? This kind of ruling just invites collusion and cheating between a player and dealer. The dealer could be shipping a person early pots once a night (missing players "inadvertendly" because they were talking/half-hding cards/insert excuse of choice) and the player slipping him a few bucks outside for the benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why should I be penalized for the dealer's mistake, the 10 seat's hidden cards, not to mention his inattention to the game? So you'd rule that I lose 2 small bets because of this and the 10 seat gets rewarded 3 1/2 bets, because he didn't even realize there was a hand in progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

The cards are mucked. So someone has to be a loser, particularly if SB is holding AA and we know it's not going to be the house that loses anything. So I'm just saying that IMO your inattention to who remains in the pot and taking the pot you had no right to take (albeit inadvertently) put you much more at fault than SB not having his cards way out there where everyone can see them easily. I see no good reason why a draconian punishment like losing an entire pot should be enforced on SB given his relatively minor transgression. Imagine this was a critical stage in a tourney with big blinds, and SB did pick up a big hand like AA or KK. Imagine you were SB and someone on the rail distracted you with a question for a second. You're at the table - you'd have a right to action regardless of what anyone else does. Turning around and talking is not illegal. Inadvertently not having cards in full view of everyone should not be significantly penalised on first offence. I don't agree with any rule that says players have a responsibility to "protect their action", if that was even practically possible. No-one can enforce that others do not act out of turn behind them. That rule is just asking for trouble. It's the dealer's job to protect the order of play. If you make players responsible for those players who act out of turn behind them, it puts those player in the wrong automatically, which is clearly nonsense. Its a bad rule to have because it's very ambiguous - what exactly does a player need to do in order to protect their action? Sometimes you can have three people fold behind you before you've even had a chance to look at your cards.