Would be TD's. Ruling Question.

Fatboydim · 06-11-2006 12:34pm #1

A hand at the Galway Poker Cup – That I was not involved in but caused some controversy – was as follows.

Dealer deals out and all cards are dealt but no action has taken place. [Although conflicting accounts say that there were some folds but no bets] Small Blind announces that he only has one card as the button has taken his card and looked at them but doesn’t know which card is his. [Again unclear as to whether the button pulled in three cards or not.] The hand was declared a miss deal. Was this the correct ruling?

Mr. Flibble · 06-11-2006 1:30pm

Is it clear that the button looked at 3 cards, his 2 and the SB's 1?

If so, I would imagine that the button and SB cards are dead and action continues. Button may suffer further punishment.

If the button doesn't admit to seeing/touching the sb's card and no body can verify that he did, and the sb ends up with 2 cards then the game should continue as normal.

This is just my take, not 100% on the rules.

5starpool · 06-11-2006 1:44pm

If no significant action has taken place then it is a misdeal. Folds do not count as significant action IMO so this should declared a misdeal.

jem · 06-11-2006 2:03pm

5starpool wrote:

If no significant action has taken place then it is a misdeal. Folds do not count as significant action IMO so this should declared a misdeal.

i agree.

Mr. Flibble · 06-11-2006 2:54pm

jem wrote:

i agree.

Me too.

bohsman · 06-11-2006 3:27pm

5starpool wrote:

If no significant action has taken place then it is a misdeal. Folds do not count as significant action IMO so this should declared a misdeal.

Nothing to agree or disagree about, 2 callers would amount to significant action, this has not. Its a misdeal

Mr. Flibble · 06-11-2006 3:59pm

bohsman wrote:

Nothing to agree or disagree about, 2 callers would amount to significant action, this has not. Its a misdeal

I agree.

TheDuck32 · 06-11-2006 5:00pm

Fatboydim wrote:

A hand at the Galway Poker Cup – That I was not involved in but caused some controversy.

You’re a master of the understatement

carrigeen · 06-11-2006 5:03pm

TheDuck32 wrote:

Fatboydim wrote:

A hand at the Galway Poker Cup – That I was not involved in but caused some controversy.
QUOTE]

You’re a master of the understatement

im waiting for ur blog on it duck;)

bohsman · 06-11-2006 5:09pm

Does anyone want to start a book on who will be the first to post what happened?

carrigeen · 06-11-2006 5:15pm

bohsman wrote:

Does anyone want to start a book on who will be the first to post what happened?

its worth the wait and i wasnt even there:D

TheDuck32 · 06-11-2006 5:23pm

I wont be adding that incident to my blog. Not even in the least bit entertaining. But of course i counld resist blabbing about what happened so i posted it on the pokerevents forum

shoutman · 06-11-2006 5:32pm

Linky?

El Stuntman · 06-11-2006 5:35pm

linked

I am genuinely shocked (not easily done)

I hope this a$$hole is barred from every poker room in the country :mad:

Mr. Flibble · 06-11-2006 5:36pm

Mr. Flibble wrote:

I agree.

On second thoughts. Is it not unfair letting the button's mistake cause the game to change? I wouldn't like a mistake by the button cause a misdeal if I had a nice hand - only dealer errors should cause this. It would leave the door open for angle shooting too - just grab somones card 'accidentally' if you don't like your hole cards and get a redeal.

Fatboydim · 07-11-2006 11:01am

The way I see it... is that everyone has the hand that they were due to get except the SB and Button. The button has either taken three cards or the wrong card. His hand should therefore be ruled dead. The SB has a duty to protect his hand. Once he has been issued with two cards they become his responsibility. This is his fault and no one elses. Therefore his hand is either dead or he get's to play the board with one card. The card he protected.

So in this case I think a misdeal is wrong. But I'm not 100% on it. Certainly I've learnt that if a misdeal is declared don't look at your cards.

NickyOD · 07-11-2006 11:34am

Fatboydim wrote:

The way I see it... is that everyone has the hand that they were due to get except the SB and Button. The button has either taken three cards or the wrong card. His hand should therefore be ruled dead. The SB has a duty to protect his hand. Once he has been issued with two cards they become his responsibility. This is his fault and no one elses. Therefore his hand is either dead or he get's to play the board with one card. The card he protected.

So in this case I think a misdeal is wrong. But I'm not 100% on it. Certainly I've learnt that if a misdeal is declared don't look at your cards.

I agree that it shouldn't be a misdeal. A fold is an action, and I think once 2 players have folded preflop sufficent action has taken place. I would rule that both the button's and SB's hands are dead and the pot is awarded to the BB as the last player standing.

TheDuck32 · 07-11-2006 11:36am

What if the dealer has deal the cards on top of each other and the players simple cannot tell which cards are which, should they be excluded from the hand because of a dealer error? the exact details of what happened are vague at best. but if this happened due to a dealing error it should be a redeal.

if it was the players mixing their hands up then fair enough, kill both hands and carry on.

Fatboydim · 07-11-2006 12:22pm

TheDuck32 wrote:

What if the dealer has deal the cards on top of each other and the players simple cannot tell which cards are which, should they be excluded from the hand because of a dealer error? the exact details of what happened are vague at best. but if this happened due to a dealing error it should be a redeal.

if it was the players mixing their hands up then fair enough, kill both hands and carry on.

I think this is the biggest problem. A friend of mine was the small blind and he said he didn't know what happened he just looked down and saw he only had one card and that the Button had taken it. But that the button didn't know which was his card. The controversy is because [as you know Duckie] a player in the cut off [or late position at least] Looked at his cards and had kings. Which lead to lots of unhappiness.

In some respects though I don't think that Pete had any option but to call a misdeal as no one could give a definitive version of what went on.

bohsman · 07-11-2006 12:24pm

NickyOD wrote:

I agree that it shouldn't be a misdeal. A fold is an action, and I think once 2 players have folded preflop sufficent action has taken place. I would rule that both the button's and SB's hands are dead and the pot is awarded to the BB as the last player standing.

2 folds is not seen as significant action in the Fitz at least, nor is a single raise. Had there been significant action I would also rule both hands dead

NickyOD · 07-11-2006 4:34pm

bohsman wrote:

2 folds is not seen as significant action in the Fitz at least, nor is a single raise. Had there been significant action I would also rule both hands dead

Yeah that's the real dificulty with making the ruling, and different clubs and TDs have different opinions as to what constitutes significant action. I've looked through some rule books and while they all mention "significant action" none of them seem to define it. I would have thought that a single raise and one fold or call would definitely be enough action, and I think if it's folded to the button it should be enough also, as it would leave the misdeal rulie open to abuse.

TheDuck32 wrote:

What if the dealer has deal the cards on top of each other and the players simple cannot tell which cards are which

I don't think I've ever seen a dealer do this and not pause to seperate the cards before continueing to deal.

Would be TD's. Ruling Question.

Comments