The last (?!) word on 'I want to see that hand'

[AKQJ10]

I certainly don't claim to have said the last word on the topic, but I'm inviting everyone to critique and edit my summary on the topic, and hopefully what emerges will be a consensus "last word".

For convenience I'll reproduce my text below for comment, but I'd prefer you just edited on the wiki. Feel free to hack up my prose -- that's what a wiki is for.

http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/I_w..._see_that_hand

I want to see that hand (abbreviated IWTSTH) is a name for a poker rule that is hotly debated, poorly understood, and at times flat-out abused. The specific rule states that, upon showdown, any player involved in the hand -- even one who mucked on the first betting round -- may ask to see any calling hand. Keep in mind that the usual order of action at showdown is for the last bettor or raiser to show her hand. At that point each caller has the option of showing his hand or mucking. Therefore asking to see the called hand should be uncontroversial, although occasionally someone will muck a blatant bluff with no hope of winning at showdown.

Seeing a calling hand, however, requires invocation of this rule. This topic is a touchy one for many experienced casino players such as those on the Two Plus Two forums, because they assert that the rule was only intended to detect collusion (e.g., by two players conspiring to raise a third one out of the pot despite one of the raisers having a junk hand). Indeed, long-time players assert that this rule is of fairly recent vintage.

The problem comes not when a player invokes this rule to detect collusion, but when she asks to see the hand merely to gather information. Some players assert that this is such an egregious violation of the spirit of the rule that the appropriate response is to ask to see every one the asking player's calling hands at showdown in order to annoy that player into repentance. Others advocate a more incremental approach, warning the player of the rule's intent the first time but retaliating after future invocations.

Specific observations

The rule's origins and intent are far from universal knowledge among poker players, dealers, or indeed floorpersons. Pointing out the supposed intent of the rule in low-limit games can result in bafflement (observed in Foxwoods $2/4 limit hold'em) or even outright hostility (observed at Foxwoods $1-3 seven-card stud). When asked by this author, a particular Foxwoods floor nicknamed Spike disavowed any knowledge of the intent of IWTSTH to prevent collusion, but affirmed that he would be disinclined to allow the rule's invocation multiple times in a day or session