What should be the correct judgement in this situation:
The river has been dealt and player A places a bet. Player B then re-raises player A, and turns both of his cards over and places them into the muck before player A can act.
Does this situation:
*simply give an advantage to player A in his decision, whether to fold, call, or re-raise player B?
*mean that player B has folded his hand, and player A wins the pot?
I played a 20 man tournament at my local casino; hit a set on the turn. I bet on the river, the villain re-raised me and opened his cards and placed them into the muck. He had slowplayed his kings and showed down a full house. At first the dealer pushed the chips my way, but he table was divided on this matter, and the villain obviously protested and more people sided with him, as did the dealer (the senior dealer, or acting floor manager). Thus I was left with the option to fold, call, or re-raise. I folded.
I did not think of re-raising at that time, but could I have done that, and could he have called me with his cards in the muck?
