There were many intriguing issues raised by my column entitled, "Legal? Immoral? or Just Tricky?"-including:
• Should cards ever be retrievable from the muck?
• Should a liar be reprimanded or punished?
The usual rule is that once a player's hole cards touch the muck, his hand is dead-out of play, and that player is no longer competing for the pot.
Is it ever OK to retrieve cards from the muck and put them back into play? Reader Bob Martin is a poker supervisor floorperson who could be confronted with such situations. Bob says, "In spite of the fact that one shouldn't retrieve dead cards from the muck, we in the industry try to always award the pot to the best hand." After discovering that Jill did not have the straight she claimed, which led Jim to muck his hand, if Bob were the dealer he "would ask Jim what his two cards were and if they would have won the hand, retrieve them from the muck and award the pot to him." Furthermore, "since the woman tried to cheat, I would ban her from the poker room for 30 days with the warning that if she did that again after returning, that ban would be permanent. If Jim's hand would not have won the pot, I would award the pot to the woman, and still ban her from the poker room . . . with the same warning."
However, based on the comments we received, most poker players disagree with Bob. (Maybe our poker industry should vote on this.)
Not Unique. Several readers have experienced similar incidents. One even admitted that he tried the tactic on one occasion ... and failed.
Another player, trying to bluff, observed his opponent hesitating while deciding whether to call on the river. He looked at his opponent and said, "I have you beat. You better fold ... I'll show you my hand after you fold." The opponent folded. The player showed his hand as promised. He was bluffing! The opponent became angry. "You lied to me," he shouted. That occurrence is analogous to the situation involving Jim and Jill. Deception and lying was used in both cases. Should that player have been reprimanded too?
Should Cards Ever be Retrieved from the Muck? T. Michael Smith described his experience: "I had a dealer muck my cards after I had shown them on the table. I had jack-king that gave me a straight and the winning hand. The dealer just had not seen the straight." (We all make mistakes.) "I pointed out that I thought I had a straight." (I would have shouted aloud!) "Another player agreed." The manager was called. "Did any other players see his K-J?" Yes! Two players acknowledged his hand. Then the dealer dug Smith's hole cards out of the pile together, and the manager declared, "Yeah, we could call the hand back since it was the house that mucked the winning hand, and it could be verified." That's one case for retrieving the cards from the muck: It wasn't the player's fault.
Going yet further, Ken Costanzo of San Diego, offers his perspective. If Jim's cards are clearly identifiable even though they are in the muck, "the floorman could invoke the 'best interest of the game rule' and declare the hand to be live, and award the pot to Jim if his hand is best." Otherwise, "Jill has the only remaining live hand; and the pot must be awarded to her." Again, this is a minority position.
George "The Engineer" Epstein is the author of The Greatest Book of Poker for Winners! and Hold'em or Fold'em?-An Algorithm for Making the Key Decision and teaches poker at the Claude Pepper Sr. Citizen Center in Los Angeles. Contact George at geps222@msn.com.
