[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
During the play of a hand, I believe it is a player's responsibility to protect his hand. I also believe it is his responsibility to protect his rights. Many may disagree. I would imagine it's a matter of opinion.

But let me make a different case for the silence of the would be do-gooder. He may not be doing good. In the 1st story, it could be the case (though rare) that player C was super slowplaying a great hand and hoping that further action would come from player A.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, many will disagree. Like me. This hits on a couple of my favorite concepts: help the newbies, and consenting adults...

When you're playing NL1/2 with tourists and such who don't know all the specific rules of the cardroom, or of NL, or of poker in general, they cannot protect themselves. I believe the world of poker will be better off if the newbies go away with the impression "those are standup guys who play by the rules" rather than "those dicks cheated me". I'm trying to fleece the sheep repeatedly, some people are trying to skin 'em.

As for whether it was in player C's best interests... It really doesn't matter. There's also player B to be concerned with. Letting player A raise when he didn't actually have that option impacts a third player in the hand. Perhaps B has a monster and he WANTS player C to stay in the hand (but he doesn't know the rule about what kinda raise reopens the wagering to player A). Letting A push here is potentially gonna push C out and impact B's ROI.

Generally the way I phrase it is something like "if any of you guys still in the hand don't like that, you should ask for the floor--I don't think that's allowed in this situation" (or something like that). I am not going to INSIST the floor get called. Long as the involved players understand they have that option, I'm a-ok with consenting adults agreeing to play by adjusted rules.