Apologies if this is 'basic', or if I'm posting in the wrong place. I just wanted some clarification.
48: Accidentally Killed / Fouled Hands
Players must protect their own hands at all times. If a dealer kills a hand by mistake, or a hand is fouled, the player will have no redress and is not entitled to a refund of bets. If the player initiated a bet or raise and hasn't been called, the uncalled bet or raise will be returned to the player.
That was the basis for a ruling last night in a tournament. Essentially, blinds are 800/1600, and action folds to the 11(11 handed at this tournament) seat, and he goes all-in. His hand was killed prior to any action being made by the other players. Of course, one person attempted to call that all-in bet. Using the italicized quote as a basis, the ruling was made that seat 10 owed a call of the big blind, and his remaining stack was his.
I'm just double-checking that this was correct, as of course a few at the table disagreed. Thank you!
Welcome MrFnClean,
I am a bit confused with your question. How does seat 10 owe a blind when seat 11 went all-in? Can you explain?
Mr. FnClean:
I am confused as well.
Some questions:
1. What were the circumstances that caused player 11's hand to be mucked. Generally speaking, once a player has gone "all-in" that hand CANNOT be killed by the dealer or anyone else, including the player owning the hand until the hand is over and the pot is to be awarded. I can see where TDA Rules 11 and 15 might come into play here as well as TDA Rule 1.
2. Which player called the all-in bet? That player's chips need to go into the pot.
3. Why does player 10 have to put chips into the pot equal to the BB?
There are numerous posts on this forum where, in the interest of fairness and for the best interest of the game, cards that have been incorrectly mucked and which can be identified with 100% certainty (both in terms of face value and suit) have been returned to the player and the hand is live. I wouldn't say this is the "norm", but there are circumstances where a strict interpretation of TDA rule 48 has been superseded by the application of TDA Rule 1.
Chet
I understand exactly at what you are saying as I've seen this plenty of times before. Yes, seat 11 owes just the calling amount (a big blind) but the remainder of his stack is to be returned. The player who tried to call after the hand was mistakenly mucked is not able to force the players chips in by calling after the error in question happened.
Under normal circumstances an all-in players hand would not be mucked but I am assuming that this is irretrievably in the muck and you don't feel like fishing for it. I try not to as well and this seems like an easy enough call to just put the amount owed in the pot, return the uncalled portion, and give the player a warning to better protect his hand. You will always get a bunch of people who disagree with integrity and fairness. It's all just part of the game. Looks to me like you have a good grasp on the TDA rules and I hope you continue to rule in a fair and honest manner.
Good Luck! ;)
I agree with Spence (and thus the decision made by the original poster). That's how I understood the question as well - Seat 11's hand was mucked due to dealer error (I think the subsequent reference to seat 10 was a typo).
Yes, apologies on the possible confusing 'Seat 10' reference. I meant seat 11. For all intents and purposes, we can just say Seat 10 was walking, as he/she was irrelevant in this discussion. :)
I try to basically never go into the muck unless it's the last possible choice, as I feel it sets a terrible precedent and will make things explode in my face. I made the ruling (based on Rule 48), and kept a little back-and-front printout of the TDA rules on my clipboard. I typically do that in case there's a need of further explanation.
I appreciate the backup and welcoming, gang! I know it's somewhat of an unorthodox situation, but I tried to rule in fairness to the game and the TDA rules set.
I must add, however, that my touch of grey is a wee bit stronger after that day!