Interpretation of Robert's Rules Help please

[Poola]

In the showdown section,

8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay. If there are one or more side pots (because someone is all-in), players are asked to aid in determining the pot winner by not showing their cards until a pot they are in is being settled. A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so.


So here is the scenario guys:
I am the dealer, and it's NL holdem. Only two players are in the hand. Myself and SB. The hands are not too relevant to the question but Villain, bets 60 dollars on the turn with his two pair essentially putting me all-in as I only have 38 dollars behind. River is a blank, I have second nut straight. I show my hand to the table. Villain mucks his hand.

A player who was not in the hand then quickly snatches up the Villain's two cards and flips them over. This creates a major ruckus at the table (surprise surprise). The player that flipped over the cards says that because I was all-in and the Villain did the last betting action, he is obligated to show his cards to the table.

As the winner of the hand/dealer, I did not have any interest in seeing my opponents cards. I was too busy getting ready to scoop the pot.

Here is my question:
"However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so."

Do you guys interpret this as the other players in the pot, or the other players at the table?


In the end, we agreed that the player showed extremely poor etiquette by picking up another player's cards. But does he have an argument? is he right in saying that once a player is all in and another player calls the remaining players have to show their cards?

Footnote: The guy that interfered with the cards had no money in the pot on any street.

[Sea Vulture]

Regardless of the answer, no player has the right to dig into the muck and pull out another players cards, just my two cents.

Also, I believe only a player involved in the hand may "request" to see the cards. Maybe this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_(poker)

Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that is eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the hand has been mucked. This option is generally only used when a player suspects collusion or some other sort of cheating by other players. When the privilege is abused by a player (i.e. the player does not suspect cheating, but asks to see the cards just to get insight on another player's style or betting patterns), he may be warned by the dealer, or even removed from the table. [1]

[abby99]

Any player who was dealt in the hand (not necessary still in at showdown) can request that the folded cards be shown. However, he should keep his freaking hands off another player's cards. Either the player who mucked, or the dealer, should expose the flded cards.

If you would have made the request, Villain's hand would have been live. If the request comes from another player no longer in the hand, Villain's folded hand is dead.

Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

The rule allowing players to ask that a folded hand be exposed is thought to be in place in order to help detect collusion, and as stated elsewhere in RROP (IIRC), the right to see folded cards can be revoked if abused. There are many reasons not to ask to see another player's cards once they've been folded. My house rule is that players are NOT entitled to request that a folded hand be exposed unless collusion is suspected. Other hosts use show'em chips, which minimizes the number of such requests.

[bergs]

Just remember that all of Robert's rules can be amended as follows:

", or hit the other player(s) in the back of the head with a chair" - or some slight contextual variation thereof.

Example:

"If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins, or hit the opposing player in the back of the head with a chair".

Another example:

"This option is generally only used when a player suspects collusion or some other sort of cheating by other players. When the privilege is abused by a player (i.e. the player does not suspect cheating, but asks to see the cards just to get insight on another player's style or betting patterns), he may be warned by the dealer, or even removed from the table, or hit in the back of the head with a chair".

Last example:

"A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot, or get hit in the back of the head with a chair".

[Poola]

LOL,

Well believe you me, these two guys don't particularly like each other that much and they did start to threaten each other. "Show my cards again and I will punch you" etc etc...

It was alot of nonsense to me, and grown men just being ignorant. So I picked up my chips and cashed out immediately. (Hence why I am now back home posting about the night's events)

Even though this game is super soft, I hardly ever go to it because so many of the players don't even know basic poker etiquette.

My main reason for this question was really to find out if the Villain has to show their hand no matter what.

So if for example, I didn't table my hand. As the dealer, based on the rules, villain would have shown his hand first. Then I would have shown mine.

Correct?

[abby99]

Originally Posted by Poola

My main reason for this question was really to find out if the Villain has to show their hand no matter what.

So if for example, I didn't table my hand. As the dealer, based on the rules, villain would have shown his hand first. Then I would have shown mine.

Correct?

Technically, you could have waited for Villain to table his cards, either because he was the last aggressor or because he was closest to the button (pick either one depending on house rules, the result is the same). Villain has the option to show or fold. If Villain folds, he gives up his claim to the pot, you win the pot uncontested, and you do not need to show your hand.

[wafflestomper]

Originally Posted by abby99

If Villain folds, he gives up his claim to the pot, you win the pot uncontested, and you do not need to show your hand.

I've always wondered about this part. If Player A was bluffing the entire time and was called down on the river, and he chooses to fold his hand into the muck, is Player B required to show his hand or can he just scoop the pot? I feel like our group says you have to show, but is that correct?

[squiggly]

Originally Posted by wafflestomper

I've always wondered about this part. If Player A was bluffing the entire time and was called down on the river, and he chooses to fold his hand into the muck, is Player B required to show his hand or can he just scoop the pot? I feel like our group says you have to show, but is that correct?

You HAVE to show a valid hand to win the pot. Period.

[bergs]

Originally Posted by squiggly

you have to show a valid hand to win the pot, or get hit in the back of the head with a chair. Period.

fyp!!

[eM etiB]

However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so.

I don't think the person was right in grabbing the cards and flipping them over but it was within his right to request to see them if they were easily identified in the muck. IMO the other players is all seated players.

The main purpose of this rule is to minimize collusion and shouldn't be abused.