[Siegmund]

If that was somehow reflected in the wording of the rule, I think we could all accept "bettor shows, everyone else mucks or beats." Poker is an interesting game, either way; most of us who play B&M and online have tried it both ways, and gotten used to having to play two different ways depending where we are.

The problem is that there is nothing in Robert's, and nothing on the wall of most cardrooms to educate anyone as to the spirit of the rule. We all have to learn one at a time, either from the forums or from some ornery old man cursing at us for accidentally calling him a cheat.

Admittedly there isn't an easy way to reword the rule - in part because we don't want the wording to be so strong that asking to see cards becomes an outright accusation and grounds for defamation suits. (Not a joke: the laws of contract bridge actually WERE reworded several years ago because someone who received an adverse floor ruling sued the bridge league, claiming false accusation of cheating damaged his reputation and caused loss of income as a pro. Now in bridge there is a very unwieldy law that says "if a player could have known, at the time of his infraction, that it may work to his side's benefit" he is subject to the same score penalty as someone who deliberately bids or plays out of turn to gain unfair advantage - and no two tournament directors anywhere agrees on how to apply this law.) Based on that experience, I really don't see a satisfactory middle ground between "all hands that call the final bet must be faced" and "only hands attempting to win the pot must be faced".

I have no strong views as to which of those two rules would be better for the game. Obviously you do. Fact remains, in most rooms the words on the wall allow something many players think is wrong to do.