Rules question, drawn from ToP

[CountDuckula]

[cross-posted from Poker Theory forum, where I'd initially posted because it was from ToP]

I was just re-reading Sklansky's The Theory of Poker, and I came across the anecdote about his friend (whom he identified as N.S.) that lost with a royal flush, because he was not fully familiar with the rules. The situation was that in a Jacks or Better 5-card $2-$4 draw game with a bug (a Joker that could be used with an Ace or to complete a straight or flush), he was dealt A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], the bug, and Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], giving him a nut straight to open. He was 3rd to act and opened the betting for $2, whereupon everyone except the 1st two who had checked then raised and re-raised (and I believe he capped). Neither of the other 2 players took a card, which made him think that at least one of them probably could beat a straight. So, he discarded the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and took a single card, which turned out to be the A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], giving him the royal. The betting was maxed, with N.S.' entire $40 buy-in ending up in the pot. After the cards were turned over, one player showed Kings full of 9s, and as N.S. was about to scoop the pot, the player with the full house asked, "Where's your openers?" The reply was, "What do you mean; I had a straight?" The player with the boat said, "You only drew one card; you don't have openers." The royal was declared dead, and the boat won the pot, as the card room's posted rules stated that splitting openers had to be handled by turning the card face up and putting a chip on it, rather than just mucking the discard.

My question is this: Given that the bug could form a pair with an Ace (only), could N.S. have claimed that he had a pair of Aces to open (even though that wasn't his actual opener) and held onto the pot? If that were the case, should the dealer (or floor) have upheld the "no openers" claim, or should he/she have denied it on the grounds that a legitimate opener besides the royal was possible at the showdown? Or did N.S. have to actually claim a pair of Aces to begin with, instead of saying, "I had a straight"?

Obviously, it's academic now, but that story did get me thinking about the situation, and I wondered if N.S. could have recovered his error and won the pot by pointing out that he had both an Ace and the bug, even though he'd mucked his original Ace.

-Mike

[Toonces]

I don't know why that would have made the story any different. True, he had both 2 aces and a straight, but he couldn't prove either.

From what I remember about reading the story, the proper thing for him to do is leave the card face DOWN with a chip on it, to verify that he had openers. Short of that, he could not prove that his opening was legal.

[CountDuckula]

Someone on Poker Theory pointed out that it wasn't the A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] that David Sklansky's friend picked up; it was the K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], which meant that there were, in fact, no visible openers. Sorry, I'll shut up for now.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-Mike