Important Ruling Question

ITT-Pat

OK we're down to the last 4 in the €50 Double Chance in the Fitz on Tuesday,and its folded around to the SB, who completes, then the BB shoves All-In and the SB says: "OK, I'll play with ya" they both then turn over their cards(SB has A10, BB has A9)

Next of all the dealer takes in and mucks both hands and goes to fan+wash the deck. The 4 of us + people on the rail start to scream/alert the dealer of the mistake.

Next of all she takes the the top 2 cards off the deck and its the BB's A9, she then goes to get the A10 but says: "I cant just look through the deck for the hand"

Ruling Please??

Cuban Son

Any idea what suits the A10 was?

I think in this situation, if its known what the two players cards are, the cards have been declared so she can fish them out.
If she has already washed the discards back with the deck, she must re-shuffle the whole deck and run the flop, turn and river using all the cards bar the two players hole cards, the A9 and A10.

MadsL

Luke being missed already?

RoundTower

I would take the 4 cards out of the deck, reshuffle the rest, and deal the flop turn and river as normal. I've never seen this happen before though.

bops

RoundTower wrote:

I would take the 4 cards out of the deck, reshuffle the rest, and deal the flop turn and river as normal. I've never seen this happen before though.

i hope the above is correct, but it has happened to me in the past and the hand was declared null & void

5starpool

Apart from the fact that there aren't amny female dealers in the Fitz, this has to have been Grace.

Flushdraw

5starpool wrote:

Apart from the fact that there aren't amny female dealers in the Fitz, this has to have been Grace.

What about the Lily, the short haired foreign one with the great body and the errr long haired foreign one with the great body?

Is Grace the only one that deals tournaments?

Cuban Son

5starpool wrote:

Apart from the fact that there aren't any female dealers in the Fitz, this has to have been Grace.

I've seen Grace do some mad things Dom, but to be able to mess up a hand all the way from China!?! Not even she can do that..:p

It was neither Grace or Lily.

5starpool

Cuban Son wrote:

I've seen Grace do some mad things Dom, but to be able to mess up a hand all the way from China!?! Not even she can do that..:p

It was neither Grace or Lily.

Hmmm, if she is in China then I'll let her off. These things happen anyhow, I've seen the best of them make fúck ups.

NeVeR

RoundTower wrote:

I would take the 4 cards out of the deck, reshuffle the rest, and deal the flop turn and river as normal. I've never seen this happen before though.

This would be how I think it should have been done,

Was there an outcome to this?

what happen in the end ?

bohsman

Would guess it was Denise.

DeVore

Can we stop guessing who the dealer is (theres no need for it in Poker and we have yet to have a Gossip & Bitching forum).

If the deck is recoverable then recover it. Fish the hands out since there is no ambiguity about which cards they were (hence touching the muck is unimportant). If the deck isnt recoverable then wash and riffle the muck and the deck and deal a flop turn and river as normal.

Seen it a dozen times btw...

DeV.

Lplate

Personally I would rule a split pot. If you fish the 2 hands out what about the other two hands that nobody has seen? One of the other players could have folded a 9 or T, or say, a 6 and that 6 helps the A9 to make a straight. Too many imponderables imo.

NickyOD

If we know what all 4 cards were then I don't see any problem with doing exactly what RT said.

You can't void the hand after this much action, and splitting the pot is basically doing the same thing.

boba_fett3099

I think Dev and RT have it right. I was on the rail for this hand and was dissapointed and shocked with the ruling that was given.

ditpoker

wp pat onmaking last 4 tho

DeVore

Lplate wrote:

Personally I would rule a split pot. If you fish the 2 hands out what about the other two hands that nobody has seen? One of the other players could have folded a 9 or T, or say, a 6 and that 6 helps the A9 to make a straight. Too many imponderables imo.

What anyone folded is not really a concern. The flop turn and river are 5 random cards. You cant say "well one of the folded hands might have a 9 and so the deck would have been short a 9" because the opposite also applies that perhaps none of them had a 9 and now what was a very 9-full deck before has now had those 9's watered down by the muck. This is why when we work out odds of a "card to come" we always count unseen cards, not just cards left in the deck.

BTW if only the top half of the deck can be retreived then obviously you do that as only the top 8 cards are going to matter anyway.

DeV.

ITT-Pat

The 2 players that were all-in had almost identical stacks and there was a pretty big jump in the prize money between 3rd and 4th so i was tryin my best to get the hand played out.

I started to call for a ruling and after waiting about 2 minutes some other dealer(richard i think) comes over to try make it, but when he seen the seriousness of the situation, he decides someone will else will have to do it.

Then Denise comes over and says that the hand cant be played out. I claimed that if the SB was all-in without cards, would she not play the board? To which i was informed in a very very smart-a*sed manner that the ruling was none of my business!:mad:

Its then decided that the SB has to pay the price of the big blind and the pot is awarded to the man in the BB as his cards are the only live cards. I then try to explain that his cards were mucked, and retreived by the dealer, but the dealer then denies this and claims that his cards were face up at all times. I was once again told to keep quite in a very disrespectful manner, at which point my head nearly exploded!:mad:

mdwexford

thats a farcial ruling

phantom_lord

jaysus, place is falling apart already.

Ace2007

ok, i was in the fitz on that night- thought not in tournment, however i think i know who the dealer was... and it wasn't denise(96% sure) but i'm not going to say who....

As for the hand... you say that the "pot is awarded to the man in the BB", what exactly was awared to him- just the blinds, or the enitre stack of the SB?

DeVore

Nobody should make this personal. We're discussing a ruling.

I havent heard any serious argument against the ruling RT and I proposed, which I'm very confident is the correct one. Normally in such situations I'd ring Luke to check my facts but, well....

DeV.

Ace2007

just wonderin is there anyplace where i can catch up on the "lingo" - i.e RT, etc, as u can probably imagine i don't post much and therefore am kinda lost when readin posts with have these things....

Rb

ITT-Pat wrote:

Ruling Please??

P45 in the post

Stupid thing to have happened though.

P.s Dev, check your pm's.

Cuban Son

DeVore wrote:

Nobody should make this personal. We're discussing a ruling.

I havent heard any serious argument against the ruling RT and I proposed, which I'm very confident is the correct one. Normally in such situations I'd ring Luke to check my facts but, well....

DeV.

I gave the same ruling before the two of you Dev, if you read the thread again. Not that it matters, it is the right ruling.

DeVore

Cuban Son wrote:

I gave the same ruling before the two of you Dev, if you read the thread again. Not that it matters, it is the right ruling.

So you did!

But when you started the response "Any idea what suits the A10 was?" I kinda skipped it as it seemed unlikely to shed serious light on the ruling
My bad...

DeV.

Cuban Son

DeVore wrote:

So you did!

But when you started the response "Any idea what suits the A10 was?" I kinda skipped it as it seemed unlikely to shed serious light on the ruling
My bad...

DeV.

Yeah, the only reason I asked was if its unclear what the suits are they can't be retrieved from the deck.

Shadowless

Ace2007 wrote:

just wonderin is there anyplace where i can catch up on the "lingo" - i.e RT, etc, as u can probably imagine i don't post much and therefore am kinda lost when readin posts with have these things....

Try this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52904546&postcount=5 or just google Poker jargon.
Think RT just stands for RoundTower btw.

Oh and I agree with DeV, RT (and Cuban Son ) on the ruling.

Kimsang

My interpretation of this rule is that the dealer CANNOT muck a hand that is showndown; e.g. the dealer cannot muck the winning hand.

Once the cards are shown down and the cards were accidentally mucked(IMPORTANT: when they are at a showdown) then they must be fished out and re dealt the flop turn and river.

A hand happened here in letterkenny last Sunday. Two players are all in pre-flop. A-4 and A-5. A-5 had a pair of 5's and A-4 hit a straight on the river, yet no one realized. Someone from another table actally had to point it out. Once the player from the other table pointed it out everyone at the table suddenly realized it. But the pot had been awarded to the A-4 and had the chips already mixed up in his stack.

What ruling would you make here??

Ruling : the pot was recontructed and awarded to the a-4 from the a-5 player's stack, due to the interpretation of the rules that a dealer CANNOT muck a winning hand.

Cuban Son

Heekim1 what's the point in asking for a ruling if you've already given the answer?(in white underneath your question). Its right btw.

bohsman

Unless the dealer has riffled, once the hand is over and the next hand has been started its too late.

DeVore

As bohs says, if the next hand hasnt started (defined by the dealer riffling the deck) then the pot should be reconstructed and awarded to the A4 player.

DeV.
ps: its important that others do come in and give their ruling or support for the ruling so that the OP sees that its a common agreement as there is little else to go on as far as official rules are concerned!

ITT-Pat

Ace2007 wrote:

As for the hand... you say that the "pot is awarded to the man in the BB", what exactly was awared to him- just the blinds, or the enitre stack of the SB?

The BB was awarded his own big blind back and the completion of the big blind from the SB, which is a disgrace since his cards were originally mucked too!

DeVore wrote:

If the deck is recoverable then recover it. Fish the hands out since there is no ambiguity about which cards they were (hence touching the muck is unimportant). If the deck isnt recoverable then wash and riffle the muck and the deck and deal a flop turn and river as normal.

The problem with DeVore's, RT's and Cuban Son's suggestion is that we did not know what the suits of the A10 were.

ditpoker wrote:

wp pat on making last 4 tho

making the last 4?? Split it 3-ways thank you very much:p

phantom_lord wrote:

jaysus, place is falling apart already.

That hand was only part of the problem on a shambles of a final table:mad:

DeVore

No one (including the player) could remember the suits of the cards?!
Could they not go to the cameras?

If it was completely impossible to be verify the hand then I guess its mucked and the players take their stacks back and split what is already in the middle.
If I was holding the AT I'd insist on the club going to the cameras as its a pot worth a lot of money.

DeV.

bohsman

DeVore wrote:

No one (including the player) could remember the suits of the cards?!
Could they not go to the cameras?

If it was completely impossible to be verify the hand then I guess its mucked and the players take their stacks back and split what is already in the middle.
If I was holding the AT I'd insist on the club going to the cameras as its a pot worth a lot of money.

DeV.

Even if the ft was held in a place with cameras overlooking, chances are the tape will have run out, but even if it hasnt the cameras wont catch the suits or even the numbers on the cards.

DeVore

bohsman wrote:

Even if the ft was held in a place with cameras overlooking, chances are the tape will have run out, but even if it hasnt the cameras wont catch the suits or even the numbers on the cards.

You sure about that? I've only seen them once or twice but I thought they could be zoomed in enough for suits to be visible in the playback.

Presuming they cant, would you agree its a split pot then?

DeV.

bohsman

I had to get a camera check once above the poker desk - the camera showed a yellow note being handed in and a blue one being handed out, but if the notes had been a similar colour not a hope. There is a better camera above the gaming floor but Id be fairly sure it wouldnt be able to pick out card suits that far away. And if the ft was held upstairs forget about it.

Cuban Son

ITT-Pat wrote:

The BB was awarded his own big blind back and the completion of the big blind from the SB, which is a disgrace since his cards were originally mucked too!

The problem with DeVore's, RT's and Cuban Son's suggestion is that we did not know what the suits of the A10 were.

I think that was the first question I asked before I gave the ruling. 'What suits was the A10?'

This has changed it now because the player can't remember his own cards.

Because the two players announced all in, really the whole pot should go to the last player with cards.
I think the ruling Denise gave is the fairest to both players under the circumstances.
Dealer errors happen, but its up to each player to protect and be responsible for their cards at all times.

ITT-Pat

Cuban Son wrote:

I think the ruling Denise gave is the fairest to both players under the circumstances.

I'll have to disagree with ya there. I think it was the most disgraceful ruling i've ever seen.


The player in the SB was never given the oppurtunity to say what suit her A10 was. They just kept saying, "we cant fish through the deck for her hand"

Kimba

the zoom camera can only zoom in on real time and not playback. if it was zoomed on the table at that time you would be able to see everything (even what someone is writing!) but they are rarely used for poker. they also last for seven days. would agree to split pot though.