Show Hand if Not Challenged in hi-lo?

A group of old guys get together for a friendly game of dealer's choice once a month. A few like to deal Hi-Lo split the pot. At the end of Hi-Lo the players reveal which way they're going by simultaneously unfolding a fist with either one chip HI, two chips LO, three chips Both Ways.

Now let's say only one player went Lo and the rest went Hi. The Lo caller wins half the pot automatically. BUT, now one of the other players (who went Hi) wants to see what the Lo caller held in his hand. No one else went Lo so he doesn't believe he has to reveal his hand for that reason; he wasn't challenged. The Hi caller says he paid in the pot, so he has a right to see the unchallenged hand.

What do you think?

It has been AGES since I have played a declare game. But, we always played that you must show a hand to win. Somewhere I have/had a poker book with a bunch of rules, and that book was old enough to include details about high-low declare. I don't know where it is.

I would make a house rule, in either direction, and put it in writing for the future. Either:

* If more than one player has a valid hand at showdown, the winning hand must be shown to win a portion of the pot, even if you are the only person eligible for that portion.

OR

* If there is only one valid hand contesting a pot, or a portion of the pot, then it does not need to be shown.

Personally, I am a fan of the second rule, for the same reasons that you don't have to show a hand if you get everyone else to fold. But, the first rule also makes sense, as showdown does require a winning hand to be shown.

The most important thing would be agreeing to what the rule should be, in advance, printing out a copy of the rules you agree on, and having them on hand for the future. I have played in games with rule variations that I disagreed with, but the rule variations were in writing and agreed on in advance. I agreed to them when I decided to play in that game.*

* The specific rule, that I didn't like, was the minimum raise/reraise rule. They said that a raise or reraise had to be double the total amount of the last bet. So, if the big blind is $200 and I make it $600, the normal rule says people can raise to $1,000 but this game required a raise to $1,200. And, the min-raise after than would be to $2,400 (not $1,800 like you would expect). I suspect this was to avoid min-raising collusion (someone min-raises and gets callers, a second person min-raises that, first one min-raises again, and you have people getting trapped for never ending small bets).

Thought the rule, the cards speak for themselves applied, especially in split pot games. If they have some special home rules, who cares.

Kenzie 96 said:

Thought the rule, the cards speak for themselves applied, especially in split pot games. If they have some special home rules, who cares.

Click to expand...

In high-low declare, there is no qualifier. You need to state if you want your hand to compete for the low end, the high end, or both. Once you have stated which portion of the pot you are trying to get, then the cards speak to determine if you won it.

Thanks, think I played this many, many moons ago. Guy who liked it, we stopped inviting him to the game.

Only is a rule was declared that one must show if asked, otherwise no way. Doesn't matter if a player paid for part of the pot, it doesn't give him the right to see. No different than poker you don't need to show a win or bluff if uncontested.

I think it should have to be shown. For all the rest of the table knows he might not even have a low hand and is pretending to because nobody else tried to claim it

So the consensus here is to not show a hand if you don't want to because NO ONE has declared against you... it's an automatic winner. Good point to have a rule everyone agrees with. In our case the vote was tied, that's why I put the question in this Forum... to get a tie breaker.

Thanks for the responses!