[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Some version of that rule has been in every set of poker rules I have ever seen. It is there to protect someeon that isn't familiar with poker that doesn't know he has to show his hand toplay the board.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with that logic is that such a player wouldn't know he has to say "I play the board".

I've seen scenarios like this many times: final board is AKQJT, no betting on the river three-handed, two players turn their cards face up, the third player (who does not have much experience in public cardrooms) releases his cards without saying anything, dealer mucks the third player's hand and splits the pot between the first two players.

If we think there should be a rule to protect the inexperienced third player in this scenario, then it defeats the purpose to require him to utter a certain formula. The whole point is that he's inexperienced, so he can't be expected to know the formula.

If you want a rule to protect players in that situation, the rule should be as follows: "At the showdown, if nobody shows a hand that beats the board, then the pot shall be split evenly among all players who had a live hand at the moment the showdown began." Simple. But I'm not advocating such a rule; as I said earlier, I think players should have to show two cards to be entitled to a share of the pot at showdown. That concept is well known to anyone who has played in a public brick-and-mortar cardroom more than once or twice, and I believe that any exceptions to that concept will ultimately cause more harm than good.