Need help with ruling

[Brettski]

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that he makes a good case, and that the "one player to a hand" principle must be enforced.

I do believe, however, that one should try to avoid penalising a player for crimes they didn't commit (it seems to me that the only thing the player in Case 2 did wrong was to have good hearing!). I acknowledge that this is not always be possible, and players will be disadvantaged through no fault of there own. An example of this might be where a player picks up his opponent's cards, throws them in the muck, and they are irretrievable. In this case, the player who's hand was mucked didn't do anything wrong (except not protect his hand) but his hand would still be dead.

I also believe strongly in the principle that hands should not be killed by Tournament Directors if there are other remedies and penalties that can be used.

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there are a number of principles that have to be carefully weighed when making decisions such as these.