You make the call
 

10 handed 10/20 HE in a well-known Biloxi casino. Players are all dealt in, and action begins around the table preflop. Action gets to the BB who looks down to check his hole cards and finds that two cards have stuck together giving him 3 cards total. BB alerts the dealer who has no clue how to handle the situation, since there is already action on the table. The floor comes over to make the call. Whats the decision? Is the hand a misdeal? Is the blind dead money? Is it the BBs fault that he didn't realize he had 3 cards until it was his turn?

Re: You make the call
 

Personally, I would randomly pick one of the three cards, expose it, and give it to the dealer as the burn card.

Action already, so no misdeal. BB has not acted on his hand (from your description...if he had acted on his hand "blind", then his hand is dead and money forfeited), so I would not punish him.

Re: You make the call
 

Since no one wants to answer I'll go ahead and let you all know what happened. Floor decided that I should have noticed that I had 3 cards before the action, so my BB was ruled dead money. I didn't argue my case but I thought that the decision was a bit ridiculous. The two cards were stuck one on top of the other and I had my hand on top of them until it was my turn to act. I just think it was unfair to penalize me for a house mistake...

Re: You make the call
 

The floor was correct.

Roberts Rules of Poker Section 3 Misdeals Rule 1(e)

"1. The following circumstances cause a misdeal, provided attention is called to the error before two players have acted on their hands. (If two players have acted in turn, the deal must be played to conclusion, as explained in rule #2) ....

"(e) An incorrect number of cards has been dealt to a player, except the top card may be dealt if it goes to the player in proper sequence."


Roberts Rules of Poker Section 3 Misdeals Rule 2

"2. Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. In stud games, action is considered to occur when two players after the forced bet have acted on their hands."

Re: You make the call
 

So, first two players act very fast, call, call. Just as the dealer gives the Button two cards stuck together. Hand instantly dead?

Dealer made a mistake, so player has to pay the price.
Nice.
Don't forget to tip.

Oh, by the way. There is now one extra card dealt. Does the dealer burn before putting out the flop?

I think my solution is fair and in the spirit of the rules (including the fact that the flop is now "correct".

Re: You make the call
 

It has fallen out of fashion, but I have seen rules that state it is a misdeal if either blind has the incorrect number of cards, regardless of how much action has occurred.

Re: You make the call
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, first two players act very fast, call, call. Just as the dealer gives the Button two cards stuck together. Hand instantly dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I hear you, but that's not what the OP says happened. The floor always has the right to disregard the rules in the case of an injustice, and probably should in the case you describe.

However ... the case described seems to be exactly what was contemplated by the rule. I'm not even saying it's a good rule, just a rule right on point.

In other words -- regardless of when you look at your cards, as soon as they're dealt, check to make sure you've received the right amount of em.

Re: You make the call
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, first two players act very fast, call, call. Just as the dealer gives the Button two cards stuck together. Hand instantly dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it is writeen anywehre, but no action can occur until the the deal is complete. That is if you are UTG and act whiel the dealer is still dealing you do so at risk of a misdeal being declared.

kick them all in the nuts, then sort them out later
 

There are several possible solutions here, but I think you have to go with some sort of solution that is within the spirit of fairness, more so than the exact interpretation of whatever rule you can dig up that might apply here.

If the big blind waited till his turn to act (i.e. look at his cards), the normal rule of "you've gotta have the correct number of cards, otherwise you're screwed, BITCH" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] doesn't necessarily apply. I don't look at my blind cards till it's my turn to act (in case I am offered a chop), so it doesn't seem so unreasonable for someone else to act in a similar fashion.

Now if you're going to declare a misdeal because of two cards stuck together, I don't mind, even if there's "significant action." However, if you're going to call the "significant action" clause into effect in this situation, you've gotta give some reasonable leeway to the big blind, since they've acted in a reasonable fashion, and were in and of themselves at no particular fault.

Damn, I sound like a friggin' half drunk Magoo who's posting in the friggin' afternoon again! I guess I need psandman to analyze my "lawyerisms" to see if they meet up to harvard/princeton standards! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Anyway, don't be a hardass here, use good judgement and common sense. It's an irregular situation that's not going to be EXACTLY covered by any particular rule/rulebook.

What would I do, now that I've totally avoided the whole subject with a bunch of legalese mumbo-jumbo? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'd either declare it a total misdeal, regardless of action, or I'd allow the big blind some leeway, probably refunding their money and killing their hand (obviously the big blind cannot play their hand).

It would depend on the exact situation when I got to the table. As a floor, you've got to read the table and make your decision based not only on the purely techincal interpretation of the rule(s), but also on what you believe would be the fairest / most amicable way to resolve a particular situation. The exact same problem could have several possible correct solutions, depending on the lineup at the table at the time. Reading people is sometimes cruicial to finding the best possible solution to a given problem, particularly when there is no "exact" solution that's obvious and inarguable.

As for the burn card, obviously this is a PROBLEM. This is where the whole "generic universal solution" of KICK THEM ALL IN THE NUTS, AND SORT THEM OUT LATER comes into play. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

al

Re: You make the call
 

Your decision is not unreasonable. I wouldn't personally go with it, but there's nothing unfair about it.

al

Re: You make the call
 

The floor was not completely unreasonable for ruling the matter as they did in this case. There are certainly plenty of rules to back up this decision. I just would have shown a little more flexibility if I had gotten there and been able to ascertain with certainty the info that was presented in your OP.

al

Re: kick them all in the nuts, then sort them out later
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are several possible solutions here, but I think you have to go with some sort of solution that is within the spirit of fairness, more so than the exact interpretation of whatever rule you can dig up that might apply here.

If the big blind waited till his turn to act (i.e. look at his cards), the normal rule of "you've gotta have the correct number of cards, otherwise you're screwed, BITCH" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] doesn't necessarily apply. I don't look at my blind cards till it's my turn to act (in case I am offered a chop), so it doesn't seem so unreasonable for someone else to act in a similar fashion.

Now if you're going to declare a misdeal because of two cards stuck together, I don't mind, even if there's "significant action." However, if you're going to call the "significant action" clause into effect in this situation, you've gotta give some reasonable leeway to the big blind, since they've acted in a reasonable fashion, and were in and of themselves at no particular fault.

Damn, I sound like a friggin' half drunk Magoo who's posting in the friggin' afternoon again! I guess I need psandman to analyze my "lawyerisms" to see if they meet up to harvard/princeton standards! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Anyway, don't be a hardass here, use good judgement and common sense. It's an irregular situation that's not going to be EXACTLY covered by any particular rule/rulebook.

What would I do, now that I've totally avoided the whole subject with a bunch of legalese mumbo-jumbo? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'd either declare it a total misdeal, regardless of action, or I'd allow the big blind some leeway, probably refunding their money and killing their hand (obviously the big blind cannot play their hand).

It would depend on the exact situation when I got to the table. As a floor, you've got to read the table and make your decision based not only on the purely techincal interpretation of the rule(s), but also on what you believe would be the fairest / most amicable way to resolve a particular situation. The exact same problem could have several possible correct solutions, depending on the lineup at the table at the time. Reading people is sometimes cruicial to finding the best possible solution to a given problem, particularly when there is no "exact" solution that's obvious and inarguable.

As for the burn card, obviously this is a PROBLEM. This is where the whole "generic universal solution" of KICK THEM ALL IN THE NUTS, AND SORT THEM OUT LATER comes into play. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

al

[/ QUOTE ]

To begin with, just because you wait until its your turn to act before you look at your cards doesn't mean its reasonable. Lets face it Al, you are not the yardstick by which we measure reasonableness.

Although it may not be entirely unreasonable to wait until its your turn to act to looka t your cards, their is absolutely no reason why you can't take control of youyr cards and make sure you have the correct amount of cards as soon as they are dealt to you. If the situation arose where the BB only got one card would it seem just as much as reasonable for him to not notice until it was his turn to act.

I am concerned about giving the BB to much chance to angle shoot in this instance. Lets suppose that you are the Big Blind and you get three cards and you notice it immediately. You can tell the dealer before there is action and their will be a misdeal. But if you don't say something right away and it folds are around you and the Sb chop and you quickly shove the three cards into the muck, Now you get to skip your BB.

Of course if you look down and see AA2 you might even try to slide the 2 into the muck if you are sitting next to the dealer.

Maybe in a no limit game there is a large raise, and your buddy comes over the top. You know that your buddy has to have a monster here because he is super tight. Now rather than declare that you have three cards you quickly muck them scarificing your BB for the benefit of your buddy, but if it had been the other way around, your buddy made a raise and got reraised by the tightest guy at the table suddenly you realize that it is misdeal.

Refunding the BB's money from the rack is a reasonable solution small cash game, not going to happen ina $2k $4k game. It also is a problem in a tournament.

One reason I stopped playing in the Sahara Tourn was because of a bad ruling on this type issue.

One or two callers, SB calls, BB raises. SB now announces that he has three cards. Dealer is auditioning and players try to tell her how to fix this problem, I tell her to call the floor and she eventually calls the floor. Floorman comes over and rules the SB hand is dead. Then he correctly states that he can not refund the bet out of the pot. Then seemingly without any thought whatsoever he directs the dealer to give the SB back his bet from the extra Tournament chips she has in her rack.

I didn't argue at the table, but waited to the break to discuss the ruling with the floor, it became apparent to me that the floor had no grasp of the concept that giving additional tournament chips to a player was signifcantly different then the housing refunding cash value chips in thsi situation. the Floor also didn't seem to think that the fact that the SB actually acted on his hand and waited for a raise before he spoke up was at al relevent to the ruling.

I don't think the burn card presents any problem at all, I don't buy the whole "you ruined the order of the cards argument".

Re: You make the call
 

I agree that hand s/b dead. Bad break for BB, but I believe those are rules.

I had similar situation where button didn't move and cards dealt out as though I'm BB twice in a row. I made sure to speak up before UTG could act, as I knew action would make the hand good.

Misdeals are for games w/ grandma and drunk buddies. Just like you don't see "do overs" in football or basketball games (except 10 year old backyard games or 1972 Olympics vs. Soviets).

Re: You make the call
 

Had this happen to me at Sandia when I was in the small blind, with a twist. Players UTG had started to call when the dealer dealt me a third card. Dealer ruled it a misdeal, take your bets back. My first two cards: AA

Think this is the best action preflop? EDIT: I tried to give it back, but it was on top of my other two cards and he wouldn't take it back. If the player doesn't realize it until the flop, then what?

ScottieK