Author Topic: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors  (Read 25452 times)

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2013, 01:03:10 PM »
Nope, that isn't what K-Lo is saying either.

We are saying that if no action has happened and the error is spotted, you go through the proper premature burn and turn procedure and allow the skipped player to act.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2013, 02:22:07 PM »
Tristan,

 There are 9 players in the game. The button is in seat 1...after the flop...the dealer burns and places the turn card on the table, he then realizes that the button did not call the last round, (before he burned and turned). The way you explain the situation, the action is backed-up to the skipped player (as long as no one acted yet) the card stays and betting resumes as usual? Is that how you handle this?

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2013, 02:46:08 PM »
No Nick, I would go through the proper burn and turn procedure: Example: "Alright folks, the 9 of spades is going to get shuffled back in and have a chance to come out on the river".  "Let's finish the action from the previous round".  "Ok, now we are going to burn and put out what would have been the natural river card".

The reason I said proper burn and turn procedure is that I didn't want to give an example for each street, just tried to generalize it.  Obviously it didn't work!  ;)

I'm not sure where you got confused in thinking I would keep the card.  I only ever talked about not retracting the card in the case that there is already action on that card.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2013, 03:28:54 PM »
Tristan,

 
okay, good! You had me worried there for a while. :o Now, lets take the same scenario only there is substantial action. Would you agree that the skipped player from the previous betting round has a dead hand?

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2013, 08:21:06 AM »
Yes.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2013, 08:51:07 AM »
Ken,

 Looking at "action" and "substantial action" I can't help but question our current definition for Substantial Action. I believe that the dealer should be recognized as 1 of the persons if they condone, or prompt action from a player. This would better support your stand on only 1 player's action.

 By the way, how many other rule-sets define "substantial action" the way we do? Any 3 actions, I understand. However, 2 actions (both) involving chips is out there somewhere. Of course, ours (The TDA) requires 2 actions with at least 1 involving chips. There is no mention of the dealer counting in the equation.

 Possibly a subject for the summit ;D

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2013, 01:33:06 PM »
I don't think there is any ambiguity in the wording of Robert's Rules.  If there has been action on a board card, the card must stand.  The idea of "substantial action" originated from rules on (pre-flop) misdeals, I believe, which is a wholly different type of scenario.  Now, would it be nice and convenient if we simply applied the definition of substantial action to other situations?  Maybe.  But it's the lazy way out, IMO.

I should point out that the original post dealt with the dealing of premature board cards, as well as no burn/multiple burn situations.  For the reasons Tristan gave, allowing a reshuffle if someone has acted on an improperly dealt board card, but when there technically has not been "substantial" action is plain wrong, and not within the spirit or the language of the original rule.

A related, but also different situation is when a player was skipped within a betting round.  When does a skipped player lose the right to act?  After any action?  After substantial action?  We discussed this in another thread.  I think most of you are leaning towards applying "substantial action" in these situations (which I don't like but I can support), but let's recognize this is a different scenario altogether, so let's not assume that it should be treated the same as premature dealing of board cards.

In my original reply, I set out what I think is the current standard for dealing with these types of situations. BUT, if it were up to me, I would implement a rule that results in less reshuffling.  This entails not trying to fit in the dealer's burn and turn into the definition of substantial action.  At least not as one of the "actions" involving or not involving chips.  I think it unnecessarily muddies the definition of substantial action.

In my personal view, the dealer dealing a new street is a key event that should have its own significance.  If a dealer deals a new street, all action up until that point should stand unless an irregularity is brought to the attention of the table without delay.  This means that once that 'fence post' is passed, I think play should stand unless there are extenuating circumstances.  

I feel the old Robert's Rules formulation that the current standard is based on is way too liberal - namely that anytime action from the previous street was not complete, we need to reshuffle.  Sure, sometimes a reshuffle is warranted if the dealer truly made an error by dealing the next street prematurely AND there was no delay by the skipped player in trying to stop it... But in most cases, when the dealer properly collects the chips, announces the number of players, taps the felt, and burns a card, this is more than sufficient warning for anyone to say something.

So if I had my way, I would say that if a new street is dealt, the presumption is that any player who had not yet acted on the previous round of betting is deemed to have either checked, or folded if facing a bet.  Sorry, if you were missed, you've lost your chance.  Now, if you had a turbo dealer and you spoke up as soon as you thought you were being missed, I might apply Rule 1, but that should be the rare exception and not the norm, especially when it comes to a premature flop. (I really, really do not like redealing flops, and with all the dealer's actions that precedes the dealing of the flop, there really is plenty of time to speak up).

Right now, the rules do not explicitly give the dealer's tap and burn such importance and distinct status.  But I think they should, and I do not think we need to touch the definition of substantial action to make it happen.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 03:20:35 AM by K-Lo »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2013, 03:55:52 PM »
K-Lo:

Well said.

FWIW, I agree w/your last post in its entirety.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2013, 09:56:31 PM »
Ken,

 You comments are well taken and well written, as always. What you suggest, however is not the way the rules are written. I don't agree with many, as you know, but we can certainly voice our opinions, and that's what I'm doing.

 I'm glad that everyone understands exactly what you are saying but, your suggestions require change to existing rules for premature dealing.

  Ken, I will quote a line from your most recent post: "A related, but also different situation is when a player was skipped within a betting round.  When does a skipped player lose the right to act?  After any action?  After substantial action?  We discussed this in another thread.  I think most of you are leaning towards applying "substantial action" in these situations (which I don't like but I can support), but let's recognize this is a different scenario altogether, so let's not assume that it should be treated the same as premature dealing of board cards."

 You don't want to assume that these different situations be treated the same as premature dealing but that is exactly what current rules  imply.

 This is an example of how I've always interpreted premature dealing: After the flop, the SB bets and is called by 3 players, the proper bettor (6 seat) is skipped by the player (seat 7) who calls, and the dealer burns and turns...the skipped player (seat 6) has a dead hand.

 Same deal but the last player (seat 7) has not called the bet and the dealer burns and turns...the premature board card can not play even if the player decides to fold!

 Do you agree?


K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2013, 03:18:12 AM »
What you suggest, however is not the way the rules are written.

Are you referring to my reply to the original question?  Or my opinion in the last post on how I'd like to see the rules changed?

Quote
... your suggestions require change to existing rules for premature dealing.

If you are referring to the part in my last post on how I'd like to see the rules changed, then yes, they would require a change to existing rules.

Quote
 Ken, I will quote a line from your most recent post: "A related, but also different situation is when a player was skipped within a betting round.  When does a skipped player lose the right to act?  After any action?  After substantial action?  We discussed this in another thread.  I think most of you are leaning towards applying "substantial action" in these situations (which I don't like but I can support), but let's recognize this is a different scenario altogether, so let's not assume that it should be treated the same as premature dealing of board cards."

 You don't want to assume that these different situations be treated the same as premature dealing but that is exactly what current rules  imply.

There's no mention of skipped players (within a given betting round) or reshuffling after prematurely dealt board cards in TDA rules.  And for those who rely on Robert's Rules for guidance, we have:

"If the dealer prematurely deals any cards before the betting is complete, those cards will not play, even if a player who has not acted decides to fold."

and

"If the dealer fails to burn a card or burns more than one card, the error should be corrected if discovered before betting action has started for that round. Once action has been taken on a boardcard, the card must stand."

vs.

"To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act."

Within the same rule set, only the last excerpt talks about "three or more players have acted".  This is close to the idea of substantial action (note the other excerpts do not have that language).  I am saying that the last situation (skipping a player within a betting round) is treated differently from the others, at least according to RROP.  Sorry if I was unclear.

Quote
This is an example of how I've always interpreted premature dealing: After the flop, the SB bets and is called by 3 players, the proper bettor (6 seat) is skipped by the player (seat 7) who calls, and the dealer burns and turns...the skipped player (seat 6) has a dead hand.

 Same deal but the last player (seat 7) has not called the bet and the dealer burns and turns...the premature board card can not play even if the player decides to fold!

 Do you agree?

Yes.  

Note that in your first scenario, there is technically nothing currently in TDA or RROP that says seat 6 should have a dead hand.  You have to stretch "substantial action" or RROP's "three or more actions" to include dealer's actions to get there.  

I say the rules should (but they do not currently) simply, explicitly, set out that with respect to skipped players from previous rounds of betting, once the dealer deals the next street, any player that was skipped should be deemed to have checked, or to have folded if facing a bet (as in your first example).  This would also mean that in your second example, such a rule would suggest that the premature board card WILL play, given the player's failure to stop the dealer from burning & turning even if he was the last one to act.  IMO he should have a good reason why he allowed the dealer to continue the burn & turn before we allow retraction of the board card.


Nick - I don't think we are in disagreement? Are we?  ??? ::) :P   I think there may be confusion because the original post had questions about dealing board cards prematurely and no burn/burn multiple card situations.  To sum up my POV - let's stop trying to fit in dealer's actions within any definition of "substantial action", and just say that once the dealer burns and deals any board cards, the default ruling should be that skipped players from the previous round should have no recourse.  And as far as no burn/multiple burn situations go, we can correct this so long as there has be no action on the incorrect board cards that have been exposed.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 03:24:18 AM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2013, 07:46:40 AM »
Ken,

 There are many situations that require us to look to Robert's Rules because they are not covered in the TDA. The difference in our thinking is the action of the dealer. I feel that the dealer must be considered...and you do not.

 I will look to the Hilton Poker Room Rule Book A15. Premature Dealing: A player is not allowed to put chips into the pot knowing any of the cards that are to be dealt for the next round....
a.Any card dealt before everyone has acted may not be used.
d. A player who has not called a bet and allows the dealer to deal a new round of cards without comment has a dead hand.

also part of A13. Action Out Of Turn: ...."Substantial Action" means either three players acting, or two players acting by putting money in the pot. The dealer counts as a person if he has condoned the action, and is considered having acted if he has dealt the burncard off the deck or pushed the action past the proper player.

The dealer must count, in my opinion, and this is where we disagree.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2013, 09:21:25 AM »
Oh Nick... I have to admit... You are a good guy, but sometimes you frustrate me to no end!

Quote

I feel that the dealer must be considered...and you do not.


How can you say this?  You have totally mischaracterized what I said.  I am saying that the dealer's action should take even MORE precedence!  If you try to tweak the definition of substantial action to count the dealer as one action, then arguably you still need another action to call it substantial action. Why not just say that once the dealer acts, effectively, that alone is substantial action?  Is it not like point d from the Hilton rules??

Am I really not expressing myself clearly?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2013, 01:35:48 PM »
Well old buddy :) I guess not. The rules are too complicated and we need to simplify them with specific examples for every situation. Without the action of the dealer is substantial action possible in head's-up poker?

Ken, you said: "To sum up my POV - let's stop trying to fit in dealer's actions within any definition of "substantial action", and just say that once the dealer burns and deals any board cards, the default ruling should be that skipped players from the previous round should have no recourse."

This is correct but, saying no recourse does not explain the action that must be taken, the hand is dead. If defining a dead hand means the same as no recourse then I'll agree. As you stated, substantial action is not required in the instance of a player not in for all bets from the previous round, once the dealer burns and turns, that players hand is dead.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2013, 04:45:42 PM »
Well old buddy :) I guess not. The rules are too complicated and we need to simplify them with specific examples for every situation. Without the action of the dealer is substantial action possible in head's-up poker?

Ken, you said: "To sum up my POV - let's stop trying to fit in dealer's actions within any definition of "substantial action", and just say that once the dealer burns and deals any board cards, the default ruling should be that skipped players from the previous round should have no recourse."

This is correct but, saying no recourse does not explain the action that must be taken, the hand is dead. If defining a dead hand means the same as no recourse then I'll agree. As you stated, substantial action is not required in the instance of a player not in for all bets from the previous round, once the dealer burns and turns, that players hand is dead.

Yes, in the previous post, I mentioned what I defined as "recourse", the skipped player is deemed to have folded if facing a bet (I.e. dead) or to have checked otherwise (I,e. if everyone else checked, I am not going to kill the missed player's hand, we just deemed him to have checked).

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Misdeals, Premature Flops, Burn & Board Card Errors
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2013, 05:24:56 PM »
Ken,

 I like what you suggest about the skipped player on a round that is checked. However, what do you rule when all players check and after the dealer burns and turns, the last player says he did not act yet?

 The rules do cover any player not in for all bets, but there is no mention of the checked round.

 Don't give up on me ;D I need to be very exact when I try to break down these rules for my students. I mostly echo their questions and misunderstanding of our rules.
Thanks for being patient...and thanks for always being there whenever anyone is looking for an intelligent answer. Your answer is usually better than the written rule...even when you're wrong :D...I couldn't resist!