A crazy situation - What's the decision?

[bobbyi]

Here's an article on this topic:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...amp;m_id=65546

[sirpupnyc]

What level table?

If it's a drunk-happy 2-4, toss the rules and give the guy the burn card.

If it's a drunk-happy 10-20, isn't it more likely there's someone there who'll insist the guy's card is dead? (Or who'll make a stink later if they lose to his one card?)

Seems like either his hand is dead or he has to get another card. Letting him continue with only one card runs the risk of him having the best hand but technically not having a claim to the pot (assuming the room says if you don't have two cards you can't win).

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
If the floor can get away with it, have the dealer give the drunk another card and play continues.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is my thought as well. Nothing pisses me off more than nits who complain the five random cards on the board aren't the ones that should have been there. I mean, if you're so pissed that different sets of random cards change who the winner is than you have no business gambling!

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
His hand is dead and no money comes out of the pot. All he gets is an apology. If the floor wants to be real nice they can refund his money out of house funds. Anything else is a huge mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, thats whats 'right', but Al is trying to make the point that a good card room manager will make a decision based on what is best for business, which is not always what roberts rules sez.

[Photoc]

[ QUOTE ]
CALL THE WAITRESS OVER AND KICK HER IN THE NUTS

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the cardroom...West Virginia? If so, then the above statement makes sense.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
KICK EVERYONE IN THE NUTS AND KICK THE DEALER IN THE NUTS AND THE FLOOR KICK HIM IN THE NUTS CALL THE WAITRESS OVER AND KICK HER IN THE NUTS AND KICK ALL THE PLAYERS IN THE NUTS AND KICK THE GUY WITH ONE CARD WHERE? IN THE NUTS AND THEN HAVE THEIR NUTS KICK EACHOTHERS NUTS RIGHT NUT KICK LEFT NUT AND VICE VERSA UNTIL EVERYONE NUTS HAVE BEEN KICKED AND THEN KICK NUTS KICK NUTS NUTKICKING KICK NUTS BUY A BAG OF CORN NUTS AND KICK THAT AND THEN FIND A GUY WITH THE LAST NAME GNUTTS (SILENT G) AND KICK HIM PREFERABBLY IN THE NUTS AND FINALLY KICK YOURSELF RIGHT IN THE NUTS

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're talkin'. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

al

p.s. I almost spit beer out my nose when I read this, hilarious!

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It was a 3-6 game with entirely inexperienced tourists. Yes, that makes a difference.

In a 10-20 game the decision would be easier - a strict interpretation of the rules would probably suffice (in most cases). The strict interpretation should be that the button's hand is dead, he doesn't get his money back, and the flop stands because their is significant action on it. That's not the right choice for this situation tho.

IMO there were several possible choices here:

1. Give the guy a card and let the hand continue as is
2. kill the button's hand and give back his money
3. give everyone back their money and start over with new cards since the hand is so frigged up
4. allow the button to play with only one card
5. "fix" the cards, give button his proper card (which actually would have been the burn card, but you'd have to fix the flop too), and continue the hand
6. start kicking people in the nuts [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Depending how the night has been going...

#6 might be the most appealing choice! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

#5 is too problematic at this point

#4 is potentially problematic as well

#3 is a possibility I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing

#2 is another possibility I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing

#1 would require a judgement call on whether anyone would react poorly to this, but wouldn't be a terrible choice if the players accepted it.

Another choice I might go with would be to give the players a "choice" as to the solution, thus giving yourself "outs." I have on occasion proposed a solution that seemed best, giving anyone with a hand a chance to object, and letting them know (before they decided) that if anyone objected I would simply rule it "my way" and that would be the end of it. In all cases the proposed solution bent the rules a little, but seemed the most likely way to please everyone and keep the game fair. In all cases (so far, knock on wood) my proposed solution was accepted, and became my "final decision."

Basically, my philosophy is that the first choice should usually be the one that makes everyone happy, unless that choice interferes with the fairness or integrity of the game. If it's impossible to make everyone happy, you have to go with whatever keeps the game fair and impartial and best fits with the established rules. The experience of the players in question and the level of play should always be considered when the decision is not clear cut.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

In all cases the deck must at the very least be counted down immediately (or replaced) after the hand is complete to make sure a card didn't disappear. That is what happened here. At this particular cardroom there was no chance the card was under the rail, and it wasn't on the floor either.

al

[Rick Nebiolo]

Great thread Al (for a rule thread anyway [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Anyway, I see the merit of trying to keep everyone happy and just give the button a card (the burn would be best but then the next card should be a burn for the turn) but IMO too much has transpired. Because it's a fun table I'd try to work it so the button gets his money back - if your description of the table is accurate I'd say this is not going to be a problem.

That said, the O'Malley link and most of the other suggestions (including yours) are very interesting and not without merit. But it's also hard to go against the advice of Matt Flynn.

~ Rick

[MegumiAmano]

Just out of curiosity, what would happen if he instead had too many cards? Say he forgot to muck his last hand and suddenly realizes that he now has 4 cards. I realize that his hand is dead no matter what, but what about the rest of the hands?