Reading a Player's Hand at Showdown

[Steven]

If two players are in (but not all-in) at showdown, should the dealer read the hand of the "first to show" if the "second to show" asks before tabling his hand?  Or should the dealer just announce the 2 cards if asked?

[K-Lo]

A hand is entitled to be read by the dealer as soon as it is tabled.  That's pretty much the dealer's job, although all players have an obligation to correct the dealer should it appear that the dealer has made an error in reading the hand.

[JasperToo]

What K-lo said but going a little further, the "second to show" shouldn't/doesn't need to ask.  As soon as the hand is tabled the dealer should read and announce the hand.  Subsequently, if there were more players tabling their hand the dealer should be reading and announcing the hand (typically, if the first hand is still the winner, the dealer will/can announce something along the lines of "two pair still good" or whatever).

Since a subsequent player has the right to muck a losing hand without showing in a NON all-in situation they are entitled to know/hear what the "first to show"'s hand is.

[Nick C]

Gentlemen:

I don't know about you but, when I see a hand that has me beat, I toss mine in the muck and wait for the next deal.

This has always raised the question of; the ease to dump chips. What could be easier? Your friend bets, you call, he shows...and you muck!

What protection has been given to all the tournament players? Isn't it quite possible that the best hand was mucked? Intentional, or otherwise.

[diz475]

i agree with nick that does seem like a better way to dump chips but everyone is so Concerned about people dumping chips only in all in situations (which doesnt seem to be a good way to dump chips to me)

[JasperToo]

I have always understood that chip dumping can occur in the fashion you two just described in the non-all in situation.  But when a player is all-in, the chances of their buddy trying to keep them in presumably goes up and therefore the "all hands shown" rule prevents the buddy dumping to save the player when everybody would benefit from the player being eliminated.

That may seem like a thin reason to have a different set of rules for all-in and non-all-in, Nick, but that is the reason as I see it.

[Nick C]

Jasper,
I can appreciate  your logic. However, the reason that is usually given, whenever I challenge the ruling is; "the cards are tabled to protect the integrity of the game."
I just don't get it. The integrity of the game is only secured when a player goes all-in

Yet, the same players that defend this rule, object when a player wants to see a called hand at the showdown