I agree that we can't be going around checking player's hands without an extremely strong cause. I can't ever see myself asking the dealer to hold a folded hand for me to check unless I knew the two players were at least related.
The more interesting situation that I've heard about is along the lines of: "I am chip leader and by keeping this small stack in, I can continue to put pressure on all the remaining stacks at the table, who are all also short and playing scared, hoping that this 9th player will bust. They can always try to take the short stack out themselves if they want but I am not going to waste my chips." There was an interesting debate on this situation, and I'm not sure if a consensus was ever reached. Personally, I don't mind that strategy that he claims to be using -- as long as he's taking advantage of the stack situation and not favouring that individual in particular, he's earned those chips so who am I to tell him when to call or fold.
Now this is a sticky situation. Is this collusion? I don't think so. Is this soft play? Not exactly. It's actually great strategy and shouldn't poker players be allowed the full use of their faculties to try and win? (without overtly crossing the line) I think my hands are tied here. If a player really said to me that his strategy was to keep the short stacks alive I wouldn't be able to stop him. Maybe that's the point to make. If there are several short stacks it is okay as no one single player will benefit from this strategy. Is that enough?
