This is a new one to me...
I'm playing 20/40. 2 players in the pot at
the showdown with a full house on the board.
First to act in seat 9 says "I'm playing the
board" and drops his cards face down on the
table towards the upper right hand corner of
the tray.
Second player is sort of hesitating waiting
for first player to turn his hand over but
ends up exposing his hand but not releasing it.
Some other player tells the first player that
he has to show his hand (thought he was helping
him).
Dealer says that the verbal declaration of playing
the board is sufficient and he doesn't have to show
his hand. Qualifies it by saying that if someone
explicitly asks to see the hand it will be mucked
and exposed but that he doesn't have to show it to
get his portion of the pot.
I immediately perked up on this and asked what
the ruling would be if:
1) First player declares he is playing the board.
2) Second player shows his hand and is playing the board.
3) First player then tables his hand which betters the board.
Dealer says "cards speak". I said that didn't sound
real consistent.
Discussed it with Steve later. Steve says there has
been a good bit of discussion about that rule and
the dealer was essentially correct. If things were
a bit more complicated he would make a subjective
ruling based on the circumstances -- something like
if the dealer was already in possession of the hand
or had already mucked it, etc.
My thoughts were:
1) Rather ill defined rule and seemingly contradictory.
2) What happened to showing hands to verify they are
legitimate and not the result of a bad deck or misdeal?
Like finding two 4 of spades in the deck or finding
three cards in your hand?
Steve's closing comment was that he didn't necessarily
think it was a good rule or completely agree with it.
thoughts?
-Quick