So I'm in no way in favor like you and many others, of letting the SB win the hand in this spot.
Just so that we are clear, as far as characterizing my position, you mean letting the other player win the pot (the player that still has cards), yes?
No I mean, not letting the small blind win the pot entirely.
This is a situation where a bet was called verbally, heard by two players, but not the whole table and not even the dealer, nor were there any chips pushed into the pot to make the call.
So, are you saying that IF the chips had been pushed into the pot to make the call, you would let the player still with cards win the whole pot?
[/quote]
Yes, because as many TD's like to say, "It's a visual game." Nobody says "It's a verbal game". They say, "Verbal is binding" but that is in regards to binding action.
Dealer had looked for other hands, did not see any, pushed the pot to me
So, what if there was NO evidence that the other player's cards were covered or hidden?
Let's change the situation slightly -- what if the player who was pushed the pot even admitted as much (e.g. "I didn't notice if he had cards still, I wasn't looking"; "Yeah, I saw he still had cards, but so what, the dealer pushed me the pot"), would you still allow the pot to be awarded as pushed or split the pot?
[/quote]
These are the question I like to ask too. A mini interrogation.
For #1 - "I didn't notice" - my next question is going to be, "Well were they hidden?" That usually leads to my decision one way or another and I'll probably ask another question based on their response, before a final decision.
For #2 - "I saw he had cards" - my question is going to be, "And what made you think they folded?". If I get this response, they just lost the pot. It's no different than a judge listening to someone plead their case. So many times on these TV court shows you see Party A suing Part B. Party A says, "I loaned Party B money". Party B denies this. The judge then says to Party B, "Tell how it came about that Party A gave you money?" "Blah blah blah and I said I'd pay them back, but I didn't sign any papers that said it was a loan!" Uh..... ya pal. You just said you'd pay them back. That's a loan. You lose Party B.
pushing someone a pot simple because they have cards, when they haven't called all bets and the pot has been pushed, is absolute craziness.
In making your point, you very cleverly ignored the most important part of my summary:
"if an opponent's cards are in plain view, and especially if the called chips were put forth in plain view, I believe players have a responsibility to know what that means... there is still action pending"
IMO, all of these types of situations are... situational. I don't think that someone should be pushed the pot simply because they have cards; on the other hand, I don't think the player who doesn't have cards should automatically deserve any protection simply because the dealer makes an error.
If a player's cards aren't hidden (unlike your situation, there was no evidence that cards were hidden in the original post, and if there was, the decision would be different), but the pot is about to be pushed elsewhere because the dealer isn't paying attention, you really don't think the player about to receive the pot has any obligation to point out the error to the dealer and the table before allowing the dealer to take his cards?
[/quote]
I think they a responsibility if they are aware. Because this is a post and we weren't there we have to presume that the SB player is unaware. We do know that it was a multi-way pot. It wasn't heads up. That's a factor to me. In heads up I fully expect the SB player to know if the other player has cards. In a multi-way pot, not necessarily the case.