Cards in the muck - dead hand?

bernie,

Yes you are absolutely right about the ruling . . . if you make two assumptions.

First you are assuming that the original post did not give us all the information. Certainly if the floorman gets to the table and the dealer tells him "Well player B said You've got it . . . but I want to see it and before he even finished Player A had tossed his hand in the muck" then it would not appear to be an angle by Player B. But that is not what we were told happeend. I assume that we were given all the facts in the original post.

Your second assumption was cards were not clearly identifiable. In This case the Dealer clearly stated that knew which two cards were Players A hand. There is no reason to pretend that this hand is now in doubt. Of course if the dealer indicated some uncertainity your point would have validity. But i object to the view of the muck as some sort of magical card killing pile.