This is a good one.

2 players HU up on the river. Player A checks, player B tanks for a 30 seconds or more and checks, Player A then puts out chips, player B folds, dealer pushes chips to Player A and everyone says WTF?

What's the ruling if cards are retrievable and if they aren't (in this instance player B was in the 9 seat so it was close).

Weird one. I'm torn between saying B mucked at showdown and A wins with last live hand, and pushing A's bet and B's cards back to them and starting showdown over. Probably go with the latter absent any guidance from dealer on WTF happened.

What this sounds like to me is that player A didn't check. Maybe he moved he made a motion that you and others thought was a check. Maybe player B thought it was a check or wasn't sure, maybe player b just acted out of turn. When player A then bet player B realized that player A had not checked.

Perhaps if player B said something it would have been ruled that player A checked but in as much as he seems to be accepting the bet I see no reason not to think of it as his agreement that Player A had not checked.

Obviously this is just my guess based on a vague description.

Both were recs. player A one hundred percent checked and stayed after the hand he was just confused and felt a bit silly about his mistake.

Fun Fun ... Lots of potential stuff going on here .. .
1) Angle by Player A ... unlikely but possible. He may have wanted Player B to bet and was putting them out there the way he should've.
2) Dealer needs to pause before pulling B's cards into the muck, giving him a chance to catch up with what's going on.

3) Dealer needs to ask Player A to 'show first' or say 'showdown' while pausing before mucking Player B's cards.
4) Player B needs to pay attention and loses right to pot by mucking at showdown.

In all of this Player B may know he's beat and is mucking at his own choice anyway. Player A's actions just reinforce B's thought that he's beat ...

All in all I think you lean towards B's choice to muck at showdown and give A the pot. GL

Sounds like a shot by A.

What if:

Player B - All in.

Not sure what you're getting at with Player B 'already' all-in .. Perhaps you are suggesting that Player A is 'finally' putting out the calling chips? Player B can't 'check' after 30 seconds when he's all-in ...

Even in a different spot, if Player B was all-in, he mucked his cards at showdown which really shouldn't be affected by any other actions on the table, except in a tournament where both sides of a showdown are shown when someone is all-in. GL

Think he means:

A: Check
B: Check
A: Bets 100
B: All in for 300 more

Judging people by their responses is a good way to get reads on their intentions.

If A is vehemently calling for B's hand to be killed, I'm a lot more inclined to rule that he knew exactly what he was doing. If he is apologetic and is willing to just show down, I'm inclined to just let them do whatever they can agree to do.