Yesterday the following happened:
On the river player A bets and after some tanking player B calls. A mucked his cards and player B takes the pot. Player A insistented that B shows his cards but B refused.
A: No, showdown can be won without showing
B: You have mucked, I won without showing any cards
Who is right?
--In all cash games I have ever played, if one player folds while heads up, at any time, be it for a bet on the flop or not wanting to show his called bluff, the other player is pushed the pot and has absolutely no obligation to show the hand they bet or called with.
--In all tournaments I have ever played in for a hand to win a called/all in pot at showdown the winning hand must be shown.
Are you playing cash or tournament?
I may be wrong but once A mucked he lost all right to demand B show his cards IMO
Yep, if playing cash. But in a tournament the dealer would announce "Call. Both hands please." and not push any pot until she sees a winning hand. If one player shows a hand and the other player decides to fold the pot is pushed to the exposed winning hand. The hand that was folded can be asked to be turned over, but that gets into the whole "douchey" (i hate that word) side of things.
Player B has to show his cards to win the pot. Outside of a fold when facing action, the winner always has to show his cards****************There's video on YouTube in which JRB and Helmuth argue about this very issue, the whole table siding with Helmuth who was caught bluffing and mucked his hand... Yes, JRB can insist on seeing the mucker's hand but it's a little of a DB's move...
Not if playing cash, if playing a tournament by RRoP player B would have to show.
The thing about the Helmuth/Belande video is that Helmuth does NOT fold his hand (for the dealer to muck), he holds onto it and expects JRB to show his hand so he can then fold his face down. This is why, while I understand what is being said about the "usual" way and "etiquette" and agree that's how it is usually done, I don't think it's the right thinking on it being bad etiqute. I believe, in reference to the video above, that PH should be the one looked at as using bad etiquette. He holds onto his cards and says "nope, you got it. nice call." and waits for JRB to table his winning hand, be it an Ace for trips, a 9 for a mid pair, or a hand that is air but better than his own air, he wants , and expects per etiquette, that JRB show his hand to win. When he does show his hand, and it is better than his, he will fold. Now JRB has paid to see Helmuths hand, but not only does he not get to see Phil's cards he is forced, by etiquette or phil holding onto his cards and still being live, to show his own hand. He pays for information, doesn't get what he paid for, and has to show his own cards?? I've always thought that was wrong.
Also, one other reason I believe JRB isn't wrong in his thinking is something that is said in the video itself by Sheiky. He says to JRBsomething to the effect of "let me tell you how stupid you are, why would you want Phil to turn his hand up. What if he has misread his hand and has the winning cards, you would lose the pot.", to which JRB responds "i don't want to see his hand, I want his hand to hit the muck so I can throw away mine.", in other words so JRB himself doesn't have to show what he called with. So, let me get this straight, the "etiquette" in this situation dictates that PH's bet is called, and he is able to say "nice call, you got it.", hold onto his cards, and then after seeing what JRB is calling with throw his cards away for no one to see? Ok, so JRB had 9's, but lets say he had an even worse holding than PH. Somehow JRB is on god-mode level 4 thinking and knows that PH is betting with cards that are bad enough that a call alone signifies to PH that he is beat so he calls with worse for PH to throw away his cards. He makes the hero of hero calls, but etiquette dictates he would have to show his "bluff call" first? Really? Because as soon as JRB tables the hand that he called with, and it's worse than PH's holding, Phil would excitedly exclaim "oh wow, I do got you" and turn his hand over to win the pot... That has never sat right with me. I feel if you want a shot at winning the pot turn your hand over, otherwise you are being the jerk if you wait to see if your called bluff is really the worst hand.
Do you think there is any possibility in any universe that PH would, after seeing JRB's hand and realizing his hand that he thought was a busted bluff was actually the best hand, then folds and says "I had the best hand, but it would be bad etiquette to say "you got it" and then win the pot..."??? No way. To win the pot show your hand, and if you are called that means turning it over first. If you don't want to do that then fold and have zero rights to the pot and zero expectations of seeing the hand that called you.
(that's a lot of etiquette, sorry.

)
this is the rule on the east coast rooms and in most vegas rooms, but is not the rule in california or in many tribal casinos. in those rooms, the last one with a hand does not have to table his hand to win. all the home games i play in use the east coast/vegas rule, however.
For what it's worth, my opinion and way I've seen it done is home games and tribal rooms up here in Washington. I have played plenty of poker outside of WA, but not enough to know how they handled a situation like this. Either I never saw it happen or CRS. I'm going with CRS.
At showdown, the winning hand must show to be awarded the pot. Makes no difference if the other player attempted to fold (which technically, he can't do - since with a bet and call, the hand is at showdown with no further player action). Only a dealer can muck a hand, not a player.
In the OP's 'showdown' situation, the dealer should instruct player B to show the winning hand prior to awarding the pot.
Again, I think this might come down to missing information in the OP. If they are playing cash I disagree with you, if they are playing tournament I think you are correct.