In my day job, I’m required to follow various ethical guidelines. I have a license, and the Office of Professional Responsibility, the agency which administers my license, could  revoke it if I don’t follow the rules.
 
My background in games comes from bridge. In competitive bridge, there are specific rules that all players are required to follow. Every player at the table is required to point out errors they witness. Lying and cheating is strictly against the rules. In poker, of course, lying (bluffing) is one of the actions you must do to be successful.
 
Scott called me about a hand he witnessed in a $2-$5 no-limit hold’em game at the Venetian in Las Vegas. On the river, the board read 8s-8h-4h-4d-9h. Two players were all-in for a $1,500 pot. The first player tabled Ah-Kh for the nut flush. The second player turned over his cards but did not table them, showed Scott and two other players Ad-4d for a full house, and then said, “Well, I guess you beat me on the river,” turned his cards face down and slid them towards the muck. The cards did not reach the muck until the dealer slid them on top of the muck. One of the other players then said, “Dude, you had a full house!” The cards were retrievable, and the floor was called.
 
Scott and the other player who saw the cards verified that there was a full house, but the cards were not tabled. The dealer stated that he never saw the cards. The floorman ruled that because the cards were never tabled—putting them face-up on the table so that the dealer can read them—the pot would be awarded to the nut flush.
 
Back in 1999, there was a controversy regarding a slightly different situation that was discussed in the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker. (While the controversial hand occurred in an Omaha/8 tournament, it doesn’t change the story.) After the river, the first player had a full house. The only other player contesting the hand had a straight flush. Both players tabled their hands, but neither the dealer nor the second player realized he had a straight flush. His hand was mucked.
 
The person who posted this hand was at the table but did nothing to point out the errors. A huge argument ensued over whether that individual was ethical. Most of the professional players surveyed back in 1991 felt that the conduct was ethical; after all, you are not required to say anything and the player with the straight flush should be able to read his hand.
 
Ethics is defined as conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct. This is situational. Consider a very low-limit (or low blinds no-limit) hold’em game. It’s possible that some players will have trouble reading their hands. The dealer is expected to help out on each hand, and mistakes would be pointed out. Now assume that at the very next table is a $25-$50 blinds no-limit hold’em game. If I were playing in that game I know that I’d be solely responsible for reading my hands.
 
What Scott witnessed today was different. The hand was never tabled, and it’s a violation of the rules (ethics) to say anything while the hand is in progress. If Scott had said anything he would have been violating ethical standards. As to whether players should be required to point out errors that they witness, that’s another question for another day..
 
Russell Fox is the co-author of “Mastering No-Limit Hold’em,” “Why You Lose at Poker,” and “Winning Strategies for No-Limit Hold’em.” He’s a federally licensed tax preparer specializing in gambling, with a blog at taxabletalk.com. E-mail Russ at rcfox@claytontax.com