I agree. But if the last decision maker believed there was no reason for her to misunderstand the action had she been moderately careful (note that no chips were moved and her opponent didn't say anything close to "all in") then his decision makes more sense.

On the showdown there was a clear violation of "one player to a hand" (see the link in my post made a few minutes ago).

~ Rick

Really?

is like

You think the best interest of the game is served by a player losing a pot because they didn't understand the action to them?

I think that is as far from the best interest of the game as you can get.

Angus - My guess is that if the final decision maker probably didn't get the same fact set used by the original floor (i.e., what was posted by Sparks/Hank).

If he decided she had no good reason to misunderstand the action and only retrieved the hand with help then it lines up most closely with case 2.

I do think the original floor could have prevented this if they emphasized that a misunderstanding of action in a noisy casino was the basis of their decision.

~ Rick

When I first read the OP, I was torn and couldn't decide who's side to take.

I considered that the girl's appearance might be reason for bias and that if the exact situation involved two crusty, Grumpy old men, people's opinions might sway....

I considered the fact someone involved themselves in the hand by asking her why she was folding. Even though most would agree that it is a no-no, it is also too common to penalize the player involved in the hand for another person at the table stepping on the rule.

For anyone that has ever been in a busy poker room, they know how loud it can get and how difficult it can be to hear what a person 5 seats away is saying. This is why it is important for the dealer to ask the players to not only state their intentions, but also use physical motions to show their intended action. (ie-Tap the table, move chips forward, etc.)

In the end, I decided to consult the Rules Bible to help me decide how I felt.

http://www.goldenruleofpoker.com/poker-rules.htm

Under "Etiquette":

Considered improper, but not actually against the Rules

"Telling anyone to turn a hand faceup at the showdown"
"Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot"

Under "Decision Making"

"Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling"

Under "Dead Hands"

"You fold or announce that you are folding when facing a bet or a raise"

And most importantly....

"Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player."

Hot Girl or Crusty old Grumps involved doesn't make a difference in my opinion. The Supervisor's decision was incorrect.

The person not in the hand getting involved is not reason for the person in the hand to be punished.

The slight movement forward of her cards due to misunderstanding should not have been considered a fold.

Lastly, if I made a decision as the floor person's did and my Supervisor reversed it in front of a room full of people, that would be my last shift.

And this is why one suit shoulda stayed with the table while the other two managers went off to get the uber-boss to discuss it with him. When they tell him the facts and he says "she folded" they get to say "I don't think you understood something, let's go over it again." Then when they are in agreement, go back to the table, let the table repeat the story for uber-boss, get everybody nodding, and then he can make the decision.

The suits can argue with each other in private, but doing so at the table is not cool, so do the discussion elsewhere. And it's really uncool for uber-boss to overrule three of his managers without having a very compelling reason to do so.