[ 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".