Hello all!
I manage sometime huge tournaments outside any casino & room as commercial events in SELF DEALING (so the strange question following):
1) After de blinds had been payed, the cards had been dealed and BEFORE any action: A player announces he saw the SECOND card of the deck (the "poor" dealer was moving them in his hand) but the card was NOT dropped nor shown face up. The player said he saw "a black queen". I did rule that the deck and hand must stand because that information was not sure enought to cancel the hand. Right or wrong?
2) Close case: Another amateur dealer did burned and placed the flop faces down on the table BEFORE the start of the betting round and ... accidentaly turned up the middle card of the flop (so the third of the deck and second of the flop): I did declare a premature flop, I did let the burned card but retook the all 3 flop cards to reshuffle them all with the deck. Right or wrong?
TY for the help.
GG
Hello Guillaume,
I would agree with both of your decisions, especially when the deal is passed among amateurs.
the decisions sound right.
I'm with everyone else that you handled this correctly.
GG: Interesting situations as always.
Case 1: This was the subject of a proposed rule topic at the 2015 Summit. Something like "unsubstantiated exposed card" or something to that effect. Can't recall offhand if there was actually discussion at the Summit on this but I do recall that Board members generally agreed with your solution with a few minor differences. Neil Johnson suggested saying "It's been announced that Player X may have a black queen... play continues". Neil's points being that we're not going to declare a misdeal or require Player X to show his hand just because one player speculates on what the card may be. On the other hand, everyone at the table should be informed as to what was said. Other boardsters as I recall said they would not even announce it unless a player asked what was said. But nobody was in favor of asking Player X to confirm or deny that he has a black queen, nor in favor of any other remedy such as a misdeal or "replacing" the card. So, generally consistent with your ruling.
Case 2: Your ruling is consistent with TDA Recommended Procedure RP-5 "Prematurely Dealt Cards" as adopted at the 2015 Summit: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=462.0 The Recommended Procedures are found in all "longform" versions of the rules: http://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/
TY Gentlemen to have spend a moment on my questions.
Happy to see I was in your line for the rulings.
If not, I would have appreciate to follow your recommandations in the futur anyway and as usual.
Long live to the king game!
With best regards,
GG