Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex
Even if it went down 100% like OP said, I think the ruling would be justified by being in the best interest of the game.
Just imagine the following scenario: Cocktail waitress comes over, Bud Light in one hand, Heineken in the other and asks OP if he wants to have a beer. He answers "yes, Heineken please". Her response is "I don't want to give you the Heineken" and a couple seconds later "and since you have a picture of your dog on your phone, you're not getting a beer at all".
Now OP complains to the floor about the waitress and he makes her hand over the Heineken. Sounds reasonable to me.
For this to be a valid, though, the waitress never offered a heineken. She would have said 'Do you want a beer', player would have said 'Yes, a heineken (though why, I can't figure)'. The waitress would have said 'All we have is bud', then said 'Since you a left handed I am not going to give you a beer at all'. Then the floor comes and binds the waitress to an offer she never made or agreed to.
If it went down exactly as OP said, floor held the player to a deal he never offered or agreed to.
I suspect that the communication on what was offered and what was accepted was not nearly as unequivocal or clear as OP thought it was. I can see it as
Player one 'How many times do you want to run it?'
Player two 'Lets do twice?'
Player one, after thinking a bit mumbles 'No' (and tables hand)
In that exchange player two could very well have thought the deal was agreed to.