PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: WSOPMcGee on April 25, 2012, 03:24:58 PM
-
Taking a survey ;D
I could swear that I've either read, heard or discussed with many esteemed poker vets that a boxed card on the initial deal is also a misdeal.
Pouring over my rule books, including my own, I have seen some say it is a misdeal in tournament only and others say it is a misdeal only if 2 cards are boxed.
I am failing to the see the difference between 2 boxed cards being a misdeal upon the initial deal and 2 boxed cards being a misdeal at any point during the entire hand.If that's the case the rule should read "Two boxed cards are a misdeal regardless of when they occur" and there shouldn't have to be a description of two events where the result is the same.
The more I think it over, the more I'm inclined to have a misdeal declared in these two situations regarding boxed cards:
- Any boxed card on the initial deal.
IMO if it's possible to redeal the hand before action takes place because of a boxed card being exposed, I think we should do it. Why risk having action take place after the initial boxed card, only to have another boxed card at some point later in the hand and therefore have all the action nullified. I'm all for treating a boxed card like a piece of paper after action has already be taken place.
- Two or more boxed card are found at any point during a hand.
Standard rule already used.
[/list]
Opinions please
-
First, I have to respectfully disagree that it is a misdeal when two or more boxed cards are found at any point during a hand is the standard rule. Although there has been some discussion as to whether or not the rule should be changed, I think the rules are actually clear that the two or more boxed cards must be found during the initial distribution of cards, and before substantial action pre-flop has taken place. In my opinion, the overriding general principle is absolutely clear: once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called (the exception being if the deck is 'fouled').
Since no action has yet to take place, it is easier at that point in time to "restart" the hand when two boxed cards are found or similarly, two cards are exposed by dealer error, during the initial distribution. At this point, no one is reasonably certain how many opponents there will be in the hand, what the betting will be like, whether they are favored to win, and so on. So this is a fine compromise rather than trying to force the deal continue.
Second, once the deal is started, any further boxed cards are treated as a scrap of paper. Even if there are 2, 4, 6 or 8 boxed cards found, the rule can be applied uniformly, and no subjective assessment is required. A misdeal, in my opinion, should not be called. One might say "well the player would have hit a flush, or would have hit trips", etc., but it was just as likely that a card that would not have helped might appear boxed, so I do not find that argument persuasive. My biggest concern is that if there is an automatic rule that says that there will be a misdeal upon finding a second boxed card in the middle of a hand, then it would be too easy for a rogue dealer to manipulate the deck to kill the hand. I would have the same concerns if there was a rule that a second card exposed anytime during a hand would result in a misdeal. Once there has been action, the hand is much more defined: we have limited the number of opponents, and there will be one player typically that is favored to win... sometimes they may even have the other player drawing dead. The hand should be permitted to proceed to completion. Calling a misdeal at this point can be highly prejudicial to the player most favored to win at that point. This is much different than discovering the boxed cards during the initial deal.
In summary, I would respectfully disagree with calling a misdeal in the situations that you describe. However, what I would support, is that if a boxed card is found at any point in the hand, that the floor should be permitted to ask the dealer to spread the deck to check for a second (or more) boxed cards. Since it is highly likely that a second boxed card will follow a first, and one player might be an advantage because it was his hand in a previous deal and only he knows the second card, then looking to see if there are other boxed cards before continuing would not advantage any particular player. But then, I would still insist that the hand proceed to completion after the check is done.
-
Hello Thomas, welcome back. I've just read your post along with the excellent reply from K-Lo. I have to tell you that the standard rules for boxed cards have been the same for as long as I remember. The first boxed card is treated like it does not exist and is replaced by the card directly beneath it. If a second boxed card appears at any time during the deal, all bets are returned to the player's and a new hand is dealt. I will find the rule I'm sure, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.
-
Come to think about it, I think a long time ago, two boxed cards at any time in the hand would void the hand completely. One of my older books seem to have that provision. But I think we have moved away from that interpretation now, and I think the most recent version of RROP supports not calling a misdeal after substantial action has occurred.
-
Come to think about it, I think a long time ago, two boxed cards at any time in the hand would void the hand completely. One of my older books seem to have that provision. But I think we have moved away from that interpretation now, and I think the most recent version of RROP supports not calling a misdeal after substantial action has occurred.
Ya I don't have all my resources at my disposal, however, I have tracked down a few varying interpretations available to me online.
=========================================================================================================================
MISDEAL IF:
TDA rules: Any two boxed cards on the initial deal is a misdeal. Once substantial action occurs the hand must play out.
European Poker Tour rules: If (a boxed card) discovered in the deck it is removed and treated as a non-existent card. Four or more boxed cards will result in the hand being misdealt. *Note it does not specify whether on the initial deal or during the hand in total and does not say if after substantial action whether or not to return all monies wagered.
International Poker rules (FIDPA): Upon the initial deal - Two or more improperly faced cards are found. After the initial deal, a “misdeal” will only be declared in the event a “fouled deck” is found. Once action has occurred, a “misdeal” cannot be declared.
RRoP rules: Two or more boxed (improperly faced) cards are found. 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.
Rules of Poker by Chuck Ferry: Two or more boxed (improperly faced) cards are found. The hand is declared a misdeal and all monies are returned to all players.
Venetian Room rules: More than one boxed card on the initial dealing round is a misdeal. Three (3) or more boxed cards appearing in the course of playing a hand (not including within the remaining deck after all cards have been distributed) is a misdeal.
The ROPE: Presence of two or more boxed cards during the deal. A misdeal cannot be called once substantial action has occurred. The deal will be played and no chips will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled.
WSOP: Surprisingly misdeals relating to boxed cards are not covered in WSOP tournament rules. They are covered in "live action" rules and reflect RRoP and ROPE.
==========================================================================================================================
Still wondering why two (2) boxed cards and not just one (1) on the initial deal? Nip the headache in the butt and redeal the hand. JMO. Your going to redeal in stud, I don't see why not to redeal in Flop games :-\
-
Still wondering why two (2) boxed cards and not just one (1) on the initial deal? Nip the headache in the butt and redeal the hand. JMO. Your going to redeal in stud, I don't see why not to redeal in Flop games :-\
Really nice work on the research, Thomas. This is a great example of why a unified set of rules is needed.
My guess is that the reason that a misdeal wouldn't be called unless two boxed cards are found on the initial deal is probably based on the same reason that they don't call a misdeal when just one card has been exposed by dealer error on the initial deal; it is likely just for game flow reasons - to keep the game going. Perhaps a compromise by taking corrective action on one hand rather than killing potentially 9 other "good" hands, and upsetting players who may already have seen their hand and who will b**** when a misdeal is called.
As I think about it some more though, I do feel that it is more likely that a boxed card found on the initial deal is a hint that the remainder of the deck is not in a perfect state, so even if the TD were permitted to check the remainder of the deck for additional boxed cards (which I would propose as a recommended procedure), if the first boxed card is found in the initial deal before action begins the hand would probably take just as long as it would take to redeal the hand. So, I can accept that the boxed card situation is arguably a different type of situation than the situation where a deal flashes a card during the initial deal. If you were to push for a change that any boxed card found during the initial deal is a misdeal, I would back you on that. But I still wouldn't call a misdeal due to the presence of boxed cards once action has begun for the reasons I pointed out in my earlier post.
-
Thomas and Ken,
I would not object to taking a good look at this rule (as we are) and coming to a solid answer. I can only confirm the inconsistencies that currently exist. It is not clear, as both of you have stated, whether another boxed card should be considered and looked for, once the first one appears. I know it would be a bit nerve racking continuing the deal with one boxed card already discovered. I always wondered, based on Chuck Ferry's excellent writing, if the last card on top of the deck after the river were dealt, and after one boxed card already discovered, (whew! can you follow?) if that would count as the second card? Boxed cards are very rare so that might have something to do with the lack of discussion on prior posts.
I did find it interesting that there was no real mention of "substantial action" it was described as action from two player's that would allow the hand to play-out.
I would be in favor of calling a mis-deal if a boxed card were discovered before the flop, or before all door cards are dealt in stud. Period. This would prevent a high percentage of the possibility for the second boxed card appearing. There are other serious consequences that boxed cards create. Saying they are non-existant and should be treated like a piece of paper does nothing to protect player's from the information obtained from an exposed card.
-
I think the current RROP provision for boxed cards is adequate:
1 Boxed Card is treated as a meaningless scrap and the deal continues, 2 or more and a mis-deal is called.
My interpretation is that RROP "Once action commences a mis-deal cannot be called" stands irrelevant of 2 or more boxed cards being discovered, and the hand should be played out, as "Once Action Occurs" is No 1 in the Irregularities Section so is an overriding consideration.
Regards
Stu
-
Stuart,
What is your definition of action? Also, do you rummage through the deck looking for another boxed card after the first one is exposed? Or, do you just play out the hand and hope that there are no others?
-
Action is prescribed by current TDA rules as 2 actions involving chips or 3 not.
I think you answered the second question yourself, by suggesting that anyone in their right mind would 'rummage' through the stub to identify the possibility of further boxed cards.
Regards
Stu
-
Action is prescribed by current TDA rules as 2 actions involving chips or 3 not.
I think you answered the second question yourself, by suggesting that anyone in their right mind would 'rummage' through the stub to identify the possibility of further boxed cards.
Regards
Stu
We do have a procedure in my cardroom where if a boxed card is discovered on the deal, the dealer will quickly fan the stub to see if any more boxed cards will appear and if there are any more we will call it a misdeal, if not the dealer picks up the stub and play continues. If a boxed card is not found until after significant action (such as on the flop, turn or river) we do not call a misdeal, even if there are several in a row, we just keep going until an unboxed card is found.
The boxed card is NOT treated the same as an exposed card, it is treated like it never existed, therefore the player with the boxed card will receieve the next card off the top of the deck.
-
I would be in favor of calling a mis-deal if a boxed card were discovered before the flop, or before all door cards are dealt in stud. Period. This would prevent a high percentage of the possibility for the second boxed card appearing. There are other serious consequences that boxed cards create. Saying they are non-existant and should be treated like a piece of paper does nothing to protect player's from the information obtained from an exposed card.
This is really the nuts and bolts of the argument Nick. Basically preventing substantial action from taking place on a deck that you already know is technically short (because of the exposed boxed card that cannot be reshuffled at any time if a situation for a reshuffle occurred).
Keep in mind I'm only talking about boxed cards on the deal during stud games that are delivered as the door card.
IMO, a boxed card on the deal (Stud) is changing the order of the bring-in. If we already call a misdeal for any exposed cards (boxed or flipped cards) that are dealt as down cards, why not the door card? The door card is part of the initial deal. The reason we call misdeals for exposed cards in stud is because it changes the order of the bring-in.
Well guess what folks, so does a boxed card on 3rd street. ;)
I understand trying to continue play when substantial action has taken place. I get that. I agree play should continue, but only to a point. So the next question is, to what point?
This years WSOP rules set says:
Rule 86 - Misdeals: In stud-type games, if any of the Participants' two down cards are exposed due to a dealer error, it is a misdeal. In flop games, exposure of one of the first two cards dealt is a misdeal. Participants may be dealt two consecutive cards on the button. The following situations may also be cause for a misdeal but are not limited to: a) two or more extra cards have been dealt, b) two or more boxed cards, c) the first card was dealt to the wrong position d) cards have been dealt to an empty seat or a Participant not entitled to a hand or e) a Participant has been dealt out who is entitled to a hand provided substantial action has not occurred. Substantial action is considered: three folds, three checks, or any two actions consisting of a check/bet/call/fold except for two folds or two checks.
There's no rule set that I've found other than the Venetian, that differentiates "On the Deal" and "During Play of the Hand". I think we should explore those options and incorporating some similar rule. Most only cover the deal meaning 'deal of down cards'.
-
To further complicate the matter, here's a situation that happened recently at the MGM Challenge.
Seven Card Stud Hi/Lo during a HORSE event.
On the initial deal, a boxed card is discovered while dealing out the door cards. The TD treated it like a piece of paper (fairly standard, though I disagree) and play continued.
On 7th street with a player all-in, 4 way action, two more boxed cards appear. At this point in the hand, the deck is now 3 cards short.
Should play continue?
What are the consequences of play continuing?
What are the consequences of play not continuing?
-
Hello Thomas,
The rules pertaining to boxed cards will always cause confusion because we are asking players to not recognize a boxed card as an exposed card ??? A flipped card or a flashed card is considered exposed, a boxed card is treated as a non-existing card (even though everyone has seen it).
I hope I can help clarify the differences. First, the exposure of one of the first two cards dealt in a flop game does not pertain to both of a players down cards, it refers to exposing one of the first two cards off the deck. Example: Flop game; dealer exposes either the first card dealt to the SB or the first card to the BB...this would call for a re-deal.
My thoughts on boxed cards in stud games depends entirely on when they occur. A single boxed card on the initial deal (two down and the door card), does not change the bring in because it is not an exposed card, it's non-existent ??? This occurs before any action has taken place.
Thomas, to answer your question about multiple boxed cards on 7th street. I am against any re-deal if substantial action has occurred. Therefore, I am in favor of allowing players the option to declare themselves in for the pot, or the option to continue betting. I think this is the best way to protect any players from further damage caused by the dealer.
The consequences are: If betting is suspended, The best hand will win, but the bluff is taken away.
If betting continues it could put players in an unfair advantage over others.
-
Two small points.
If you found a boxed card during regular play after the initial dealout (as a burn card let's say) Would you still fan the deck out? My point being that if you are not definitely calling a misdeal than you are only giving more information away and causing further harm to the hand.
Thomas, to answer your question about multiple boxed cards on 7th street. I am against any re-deal if substantial action has occurred. Therefore, I am in favor of allowing players the option to declare themselves in for the pot, or the option to continue betting. I think this is the best way to protect any players from further damage caused by the dealer.
The consequences are: If betting is suspended, The best hand will win, but the bluff is taken away.
If betting continues it could put players in an unfair advantage over others.
Nick, I've taken issue with preventing more bets before but as I thought about it more it does make sense but only under the condition that the last card has been dealt and players have called all bets to legitimately see all cards. Only then would I restrict betting. In that circumstance the best hand does win. I would never restrict betting or allow a player to call himself all-in before calling to see all cards due to the fact that a bad draw will get to see free cards and has the potential to win over the currents best hand(on the turn or 5th street)
-
Spence,
The situation that I was responding to was 7th street in stud. I agree it would change my opinion on early rounds of betting. I am against automatically calling for a mis-deal when a second boxed card appears after substantial action. The question is, how many boxed cards can be ignored and looked at as "non-existent?" I believe that substantial action should have precedence over the number of boxed cards that appear. Therefore, suspending any further betting seems to be the most logical way to complete the hand without further damage to any players.
I can't imagine being involved in a hand, holding a powerful hand and having all bets returned because a second boxed card appears on the last betting round. Needs some work, if you ask me.
-
Spence,
The situation that I was responding to was 7th street in stud. I agree it would change my opinion on early rounds of betting. I am against automatically calling for a misdeal when a second boxed card appears after substantial action. The question is, how many boxed cards can be ignored and looked at as "non-existent?" I believe that substantial action should have precedence over the number of boxed cards that appear. Therefore, suspending any further betting seems to be the most logical way to complete the hand without further damage to any players.
I can't imagine being involved in a hand, holding a powerful hand and having all bets returned because a second boxed card appears on the last betting round. Needs some work, if you ask me.
Agreed. If I make a royal on the turn and as the dealer goes to peel off the river there is 2 boxed cards, I would lose my mind. That much more so if there were a Bad beat Jackpot involved. These circumstances are rare of course but anytime that we return bets for the hand there has to be a serious issue with the deck. We had a thread last year about handling a deck that had a very large number of boxed cards in Omaha and how the hand would be brought to conclusion. The only possible solution there was to reshuffle. I can’t remember what we agreed would be shuffled together but bringing the hand to conclusion is the foremost in my thoughts.
-
I can't imagine being involved in a hand, holding a powerful hand and having all bets returned because a second boxed card appears on the last betting round. Needs some work, if you ask me.
Holding my thoughts here hoping for some more responses. I like the dialogue going on. Hopefully we can provoke more thought to some of these archaic rules we have that some of have been taught that "we do it this way because that's the way it's always been done!" :-\
Just a reminder that it was 3 boxed cards in total. One on 3rd street, 2 on seventh street.
-
Nick, when you say all bets will be returned to the players, why? Its the deal nob
ody has bet yet. In that sense if it was a cash game and their was a straddle would the straddler have to take his straddle back?
-
Wolfster,
I am not in agreement with the current rule. I just stated what it implies: When more than 1 boxed card appears in a hand, it's a misdeal and all bets are returned. Why? and how time consuming and difficult could that become in a hand with multiple players, and substantial action? If you look back on my replies on this post, you should understand how I feel about boxed cards. In a nutshell; if a boxed card is discovered on the initial deal (before action has occurred) re-deal. Once substantial action takes place, I feel there are much better alternatives.
-
I know this is kind of old but I would like to clarify some things here.
I have always been under the impression that 2 or more boxed cards found at anytime was a fouled deck and all money put in the pot would be returned and a new hand dealt.
The tda seem to say only during the delivery of the hole cards. (I’m thinking flop games here)
The question I was originally trying to answer was if one exposed card by the dealer and one boxed card would be a misdeal during the initial deal or anytime during the hand
-
diz475,
I believe exposed cards and boxed cards are two different situations...completely. During a deal, if the dealer exposes a card he replaces it with what would be the burn card; if a boxed card is discovered it is replaced by the card beneath it.
Even though both cards are exposed, the solution is not the same as 2 boxed cards. If that's what you are referring to.
-
That is the way I feel also nick
But
The wording makes it sound like one of each would also be a misdeal
And how do you handle a second boxed card being found after a
Significant action has taken place
I treat it as a fouled deck and all money returned
It seems others disagree with that
-
diz475:
I'll repeat my reply from an earlier post: I can't imagine being involved in a hand, holding a powerful hand and having all bets returned because a second boxed card appears on the last betting round. Needs some work, if you ask me.
I also understand why you feel the way you do about the wording in TDA #31...b) two or more exposed or boxed cards...I never looked at it that way but, the correct interpretation could easily be (incorrectly) considered. Perhaps adding: this does not apply when 1 card is exposed and 1 boxed card is discovered.
Many feel that rules should remain the same at all times, to keep them consistent, however; the number of player's and when the exposed or boxed card occurs should have a definite affect on the decision from the floor. I would hate to have a "nut hand" cancelled out because a second boxed card shows after the river card is turned. >:(
-
"If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed." - That is the last sentence of rule 31.
I would have to have a pretty significant reason to justify stopping the action and returning money to players.
-
Tristan,
Take a look at TDA #31 b) two or more exposed or boxed cards.
Are you saying that substantial action takes precedence over 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards? I like it but, that would be more practical if we specified that the exposed cards or boxed cards must occur on the initial deal of all starting cards; e.g. before the bring-in in stud and before action from the under the gun position in flop games.
So if your interpretation is correct; why not just add this to the last line: If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed, even if 2 or more boxed cards appear or multiple cards are exposed! ;)
-
Take a look at this.
32: Substantial Action.
Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
So, by reading this we know that substantial action must happen within the first 3 actions preflop: Fold, fold, fold or any combination of a fold and an action that includes putting in money.
So, we already have established a time frame; I don't see why anything needs to be added to this rule. A misdeal can only be called within the first 2-3 actions of a hand or else substantial action HAS occurred and a misdeal can not be called.
-
Tristan,
Why are you skipping TDA #31 and going to #32
We are discussing (#31) boxed cards and you are looking at (#32) Substantial action. I'm going to write in my suggestion again and see if it would comply with your view on this situation.
Here it is again: If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed, even if 2 or more boxed cards appear, or multiple cards
are exposed! ;)
-
i agree thats how it is worded not sure why ive never noticed it before
my question is how many boxed cards before it is a fouled deck after substantial action
the rule i use is 2 boxed cards anytime in a hand is a fouled deck, with a fouled deck all money is returned. what nick is saying
i understand that this could be ugly when you put out a turn card in a large pot and the next 2 cards in the deck are boxed.
but consider if you put a A spades on the turn and a player said i have the A spades in my hand that is a fouled deck (maybe not the same but at some point so many boxed cards has to be a fouled deck) or do you not consider them as fouling the deck.
and tristan do you consider (before substantial action has taken place) if you had one boxed and one exposed by the dealer a misdeal
-
There is a difference between a deck that is defective (e.g. 2 Aces of spades) and a deck that has a number of cards boxed.
Even if cards are boxed, there is an equal probability of drawing any given card for your hand, and you proceeded in the hand on that basis. Although it is true that if a card that improves your hand later appears and is boxed, or is prematurely put on the board, etc., it may change the flow of the hand, that exposed card could have equally been a card that did not help your hand. According to random card theory, there is no unfairness here as the affected card will have an equal chance to be a winning or losing card for all players.
A defective deck on the other hand (e.g. two Aces of Spades) means that the player who has one of the Aces of Spades, or who needs to draw one of the Aces, had/has a greater chance of drawing it and therefore, the deal is not truly random.
A defective or "fouled" deck has a very specific definition in my view.. I like the Hilton's rule here: "missing, mutilated or marked cards, one one or more jokers when none are in use, do not constitute a defective deck...", and boxed cards are treated separately (as a scrap of paper).
With boxed cards, I see no reason why the hand should not be played through when there already has been substantial action. Nick's suggestion to clarify the language is well taken. However, as Tristan pointed out, I'm not sure if we even need this - Rule #31 specifically outlines the conditions for a misdeal, and any misdeal cannot be declared once there has been substantial action.
With respect to the one boxed/one exposed card by the dealer situation at the beginning of the hand, strictly by the book, there is no misdeal; but if no one has yet to act, I'd personally be tempted just to call it a misdeal to avoid the bad situation potentially snowballing especially if there are further boxed cards in the deck.
During the hand, (after substantial action has occurred), if my dealer finds a boxed card and lets me know, I'd also be tempted to check the rest of the deck before action continues to see if there are any other boxed cards, and if there is more than one additional boxed card (i.e. three or more in total), I'd be inclined to turn the boxed cards over and reshuffle, not much unlike a prematurely exposed flop. This is a bit unconventional, but I think it is fair and addresses the issue of a deck having a whole clump of boxed cards, and then having to expose them to all the players and expect them to continue with knowledge of those cards.
-
The thread started out specifically focused on boxed cards and has expanded to discuss misdeals and fouled decks generally...
So...
1: Is there a need to introduce any new specific misdeal conditions other than those of "longstanding poker convention"... OR
2: To clarify longstanding convention on specific misdeal conditions OR
3: LIST those longstanding conventions specifically (b/c different historic rule sets may list different conditions). OR
4: Specifically distinguish in the TDA rules between fouled deck conditions and misdeal conditions OR
5: Are misdeals and fouled decks being adequately handled house-by-house now... with the TDA definition of Substantial Action sufficient for establishing a cutooff point for whatever the house rules are...
Undoubtedly there will be discussion on misdeals, fouled decks, and substantial action at the June Summit to see if theres significant interest on any of these, yes?
-
Tristan,
Why are you skipping TDA #31 and going to #32
Because #31 references #32 and if you read both of them it gives you the time frame you were asking about.
With respect to the one boxed/one exposed card by the dealer situation at the beginning of the hand, strictly by the book, there is no misdeal; but if no one has yet to act, I'd personally be tempted just to call it a misdeal to avoid the bad situation potentially snowballing especially if there are further boxed cards in the deck.
I agree.
1: Is there a need to introduce any new specific misdeal conditions other than those of "longstanding poker convention"... OR
2: To clarify longstanding convention on specific misdeal conditions OR
3: LIST those longstanding conventions specifically (b/c different historic rule sets may list different conditions). OR
4: Specifically distinguish in the TDA rules between fouled deck conditions and misdeal conditions OR
5: Are misdeals and fouled decks being adequately handled house-by-house now... with the TDA definition of Substantial Action sufficient for establishing a cutooff point for whatever the house rules are...
I like #5.
-
Tristan,
I believe diz475 was trying to decide if TDA #31 b) two or more exposed or boxed cards. Should we consider 1 boxed card and 1 exposed card equal to: 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards? That (I believe) is a legitimate question based on the way the rule is written.
Earlier on this post, Stuart defined substantial action: "Action is prescribed by current TDA rules as 2 actions involving chips or 3 not." Now, how do you interpret that?
The two actions must both put chips into the pot? or at least one of the two? Interesting because the rule was changed from version 1.0 to 2.0 after the 2011 Summit.
I also have a new question: Why do we mention; players may be dealt two consecutive cards on the button? Perhaps, under the title Misdeals we should only list the conditions for a misdeal. :-\
Am I correct that the majority agrees that, when it comes to boxed cards or exposed cards, a. misdeal should only apply on the initial deal of all starting hands, prior to any further action? If so, then we should change it.
-
I also have a new question: Why do we mention; players may be dealt two consecutive cards on the button? Perhaps, under the title Misdeals we should only list the conditions for a misdeal. :-\
I believe this is because some places would call a misdeal if the dealer flipped the first card to either the small blind, big blind, or button. The reasoning behind misdealing a flipped card to the button was the button would get two cards in a row. It was most likely added to this rule for clarification.
-
If so, then we should change it.
No need to change what is already stated.
Let us, for illustration, replace the words 'substantial action' in rule #31 with the TDA definition of 'substantial action'
31: Misdeals
In stud-type games, if any of the player’s two down cards are exposed due to dealer error it is a misdeal. In flop games, misdeals include but are not necessarily limited to: a) exposure of one of the first two cards dealt; b) two or more exposed or boxed cards; c) first card dealt to the wrong seat; d) cards dealt to a seat not entitled to a hand; e) a seat entitled to a hand is dealt out. Players may be dealt two consecutive cards on the button. If either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold) occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed.
Does that help explain my point Nick?
-
Tristan,
I want to thank you for all of your feedback but, you didn't answer our question about boxed cards and exposed cards. " I believe diz475 was trying to decide if TDA #31 b) two or more exposed or boxed cards. Should we consider 1 boxed card and 1 exposed card equal to: 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards? That (I believe) is a legitimate question based on the way the rule is written."
In addition, what didn't you like about my earlier suggestion; If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed, even if 2 or more boxed cards appear or multiple cards are exposed!
-
Tristan,
I want to thank you for all of your feedback but, you didn't answer our question about boxed cards and exposed cards. " I believe diz475 was trying to decide if TDA #31 b) two or more exposed or boxed cards. Should we consider 1 boxed card and 1 exposed card equal to: 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards? That (I believe) is a legitimate question based on the way the rule is written."
I did answer this question in #31 of this thread. I agreed with what K-Lo said. (see below)
With respect to the one boxed/one exposed card by the dealer situation at the beginning of the hand, strictly by the book, there is no misdeal; but if no one has yet to act, I'd personally be tempted just to call it a misdeal to avoid the bad situation potentially snowballing especially if there are further boxed cards in the deck.
I agree.
In addition, what didn't you like about my earlier suggestion; If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed, even if 2 or more boxed cards appear or multiple cards are exposed!
It's not that I don't agree Nick, I'm just trying to point out to you that TDA already states exactly what you are trying to add. There is no reason to add what is already there!
-
My original question was if you should treat one boxed and one exposed by the dealer on the initial deal as a misdeal
Technical answer no
But I was shocked to see that 2 boxed cards found anytime during the hand is not a fouled deck.
Is my joint the only place that uses 2 boxed cards is a fouled deck and all money returned and a new hand dealt, I don't think so but would like some feedback on that
With respect to the one boxed/one exposed card by the dealer situation at the beginning of the hand, strictly by the book, there is no misdeal; but if no one has yet to act, I'd personally be tempted just to call it a misdeal to avoid the bad situation potentially snowballing especially if there are further boxed cards in the deck.
How can this snowball if its not a fouled deck and not a misdeal if you find the second boxed card after the flop.
I think maybe there needs to be some wording added for fouled decks,
-
Hey diz,
You really need to think this one out a little. K-Lo, Tristan, myself and others have pretty much agreed on a misdeal when 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards occur before action has taken place. I also agree we could tweak our rules a bit but, honestly; how many boxed cards do you experience? I can count the occurrences on my fingers (of one hand) in 40 years of dealing. Re-dealing is not in the best interest of the game, especially after 3 or 4 rounds of betting.
If I were working the floor and was called to the table because the second boxed card appeared, I would only apply the rule in it's strictest form, on the initial deal before any action takes place. You can easily justify the decision to continue because of substantial action.
As far as a straight forward answer to your original question, I would say the misdeal would not apply with 1 exposed card and 1 boxed card (as defined in TDA #31)...So, it looks like it would require 1 boxed card, followed by 1 exposed card and then either another exposed card or another boxed card. ::)
-
I think we should probably simply change the rule to calling a misdeal -- if substantial action has not occurred -- if one boxed card appears during the initial deal.
-
I also agree we could tweak our rules a bit but, honestly; how many boxed cards do you experience? I can count the occurrences on my fingers (of one hand) in 40 years of dealing. Re-dealing is not in the best interest of the game, especially after 3 or 4 rounds of betting.
With he prevalence of automatic shufflers now and the lack of money coming into many casino poker rooms I see more boxed cards all the time. Auto Shufflers aren't cleaned, and old decks are not replaced. Boxed cards will get worse before they get better. As for Mike...
The thread started out specifically focused on boxed cards and has expanded to discuss misdeals and fouled decks generally...
So...
1: Is there a need to introduce any new specific misdeal conditions other than those of "longstanding poker convention"... OR
2: To clarify longstanding convention on specific misdeal conditions OR
3: LIST those longstanding conventions specifically (b/c different historic rule sets may list different conditions). OR
4: Specifically distinguish in the TDA rules between fouled deck conditions and misdeal conditions OR
5: Are misdeals and fouled decks being adequately handled house-by-house now... with the TDA definition of Substantial Action sufficient for establishing a cutooff point for whatever the house rules are...
Undoubtedly there will be discussion on misdeals, fouled decks, and substantial action at the June Summit to see if theres significant interest on any of these, yes?
I think #4