Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore
Correction. Seat3 re asked and objected immediately. then decided to fold without calling floor. Seat 2’s cards had been mucked and were not identifiable.
If the dealer announcement was immediately followed by an objection, then I can agree that the action should be corrected.
If seat 2 folded concurrent with the objection, then I would give him his cards back if they are retrievable. If not, apologies, but nothing we can do.
If seat 2 folded after seat 3 objected, while they were waiting to figure out how to deal with it, basically saying he's folding to a bet or call of any size (though this makes me wonder why he bothered asking in the first place), then his hand is dead and we're still waiting to resolve the issue of seat 1's action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore
But I would say seat 3 and everyone else with cards DESERVES to see a cheap flop. They should not be punished for seat 2 not protecting his hand.
I don't disagree with the endpoint given how you've enhanced the OP, but I would caution about using language like "deserves to see a cheap flop." No one ever deserves to see a cheap flop, unless, perhaps, they are closing the action on the flop. If there are players to act behind you, you don't deserve anything.
At best, you could say the ruling should be that seat 1's action was a call, and then go from there. I know this is a bit of semantics, but the language used hints at misunderstandings or biases held somewhere deeper that could lead you into wrong territory in some other situation.