Probably the most interesting discussion that I've read in quite some time. It does give me pause to think of what is the best course of action. I am on the side of Nick C and Ricky9, in that, I don't like the way the question is worded. The question asks one to presume that because the cards were "flashed for all to see", that all the players, and more importantly the dealer, actually were able to
read these flashed cards. Furthermore, the question also asks one to read the board for player A, prior to the hand being tabled. Clearly player A has the best hand, BUT they have also misread their hand. When did we stop people from misreading their own hands?
I was waiting for anyone to reply with the response "One player to a hand" and finally diz475 put it out there.
if i had a player flash a winner and throw it in the muck the guy with the tabled hand would win the pot.
what ever happend to one player to a hand,
if you seen him muck the nuts and think he is dumping chips give him a penalty
So far everyone has ignored this response. Why? It's certainly relevant to the question.
Too many of the replies so far in this thread have posed "what if" responses. Very few to none have tried to use the rules of the game to come to their conclusion. By answering with the question with more "what ifs" does not lead the answer to the question. Answer the question.
Many have tried to use TDA Rule #15 to answer.
15: Killing Winning Hand
Dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was tabled and was obviously the winning hand. Players are encouraged to assist in reading tabled hands if it appears that an error is about to be made.
The first half of this rule states Dealers cannot kill winning "
Tabled" hands. Pretty cut and dry. The question arises, as Nick C stated, what constitutes a tabled hand. I think term "
Tabled" is pretty self explanatory. At least I thought it was until I read some replies here. Tabled to me means: Two cards face-up (or all hole cards depending on game variation) on the table for the dealer to read and all other interested players before the pot is pushed.
The second half of this rule I think is being misinterpreted as to its real intention. It asks players to assist in reading "
Tabled" hands if an error is about to made. I believe this to mean; assist the dealer if the dealer misreads the hand and begins to push the pot to the wrong player. I don't take this to mean assist the player in reading their hand simply because they flashed it.
I can tell you for 100% certain that if this situation happens in a cash game, especially in underground games, that if the dealer or any player for that matter pipes up to tell player A "Hey you don't have trip Aces, you have a Flush" and tries to stop them from mucking their hand, there would be hell to pay.
Some brought up chip dumping, rule #53. A concern to be sure. But no one has brought up rule #48, Protecting your own hand. In this situation player A clearly mucked of their own volition. Also there's rule #51-3: Players "may not" read hands that have not been tabled.
This rule alone means that the TDA must address what constitutes a tabled hand.Then of course there's rule #1. The trump rule of all rules. This rule allows us to look outside the norm and make decisions in the best interest of the game. The question you have to ask yourself is, do you think protecting player A from mucking a winning hand in more in the best interest of the game because they flashed it? OR Do you think protecting player B who tabled their hand to be read by the dealer and thereby protected their right to pot is more in the interest of the game and to let player A misread their hand and muck because it wasn't tabled.
Personally, not only do I think the latter is the best answer but I think it's more in line with established rules #48, #51-3, #15 and it is also what we teach our dealers. If the TDA Rules are going to use the language "
Tabled" hand within the guidelines then we as a group need to come to a resolution as to what a "
Tabled" hand is. I know that doesn't sit well with Chet and possibly others, but I think it needs to be done now that we've adopted the term into so many rules.
I think use of the word "Flashes" leads one to believe they were briefly viewable. I think a better term to use to make the question just as problematic and not easy to answer is to use the term "Exposed". When you have exposed something, that leaves less doubt as to whether it was viewable rather than saying they flashed something.