PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: MikeB on March 16, 2013, 09:27:33 AM
-
The TDA received the following inquiry from a TD planning to work an upcoming tournament. The discussion will undoubtedly help others.
Message Body:
I am acting as TD for an upcoming tournament and I want to be sure of the misdealing rules on the flop, turn and river. Could you please tell what the procedure is for the following circumstances.
1. The dealer burns and turns the flop cards (or the turn or river card) before the previous rounds betting is complete.
2. the dealer fails to turn over a burn card before the flop (or turn or river) cards are dealt and the error is spotted before action is taken.
3. same as Q2 but the error is noticed after action has been taken.
4. What is the definition of action for Q3, ie is a fold action or just a bet?
5. The dealer burns two or more cards. Again the error is noticed either before or after action has occurred.
Many thanks,
Name withheld.
-
I will attempt to answer the questions, as I understand them. #1 I believe you are looking for an answer relating to premature dealing of the flop, turn or river before the action is complete on the "current " betting round. If that occurs; the prematurely dealt board cards must be handled in the following manner: The flop will require the cards be reshuffled along with the deck stub, (no muck) and a new flop will be used. However, this is the only method I've ever used. It is important to note that the new flop will be dealt even if the skipped player (or player's) decide to fold.
The premature turn card could be handled in a few different ways. Begin by explaining to the player's that the (premature turn) card will not remain, whether the skipped player calls or folds. The method I prefer is: replace the turn by: first) setting the exposed turn card off to the side (for a possible reshuffle) burn again and replace the turn with the proper river card. If action continues to the river, reshuffle the exposed turn that was set aside and, reshuffle the card with the remaining stub only (no muck), and without a burn, place the new river card on the table.
#2 is a bit confusing, also. I don't think the question is worded properly; "the dealer fails to turn over a burn card ??? I will assume we are looking for an answer if the dealer fails to burn a card. If noticed before action is taken, I would follow the above procedure, that is: Noticed before action; reshuffle the deck stub along with the incorrect flop.
After substantial action, the cards remain.
Question #4. I will give the TDA ruling a check is action...so if one player bets, and the next player calls, or raises or folds...that's action.
If a player checks, and the next player bets...that's action. Finally; any 3 actions...even 3 checks (post flop, of course).
Finally, the TDA does not cover this particular situation. TDA #33 covers a Four Card Flop but not multiple burns. IMO, the best solution is to always try to assure that the proper cards will always be the community cards. If substantial action occurs, the hand should play out.
Hope this makes sense.
-
The general principle is to try to preserve as much of the original board as possible, where possible, in these situations. However, if action has occurred based on the wrong board cards, the plays must stand.
I'm sure someone on the Board will step in to correct any errors I may have made below:
1. The dealer burns and turns the flop cards (or the turn or river card) before the previous rounds betting is complete.
Premature flop: Complete action, leave existing burn, flop cards get shuffled back into deck, cut, deal new flop without burning. Continue as normal.
Premature turn: Complete action, leave existing burns (2), burn and turn new card (what would have been river) in place of existing turn. Continue action. Old turn card gets shuffled back into deck, cut, deal river without burning.
Premature river: Complete action, leave existing burns (3), river card gets shuffled back into deck, cut, deal new river without burning.
(Variations: There are some TDs who take a more strict approach with the premature flop situations, by dealing out what would have been future burns and board cards face down before reshuffling, to preserve those board cards. For example, before reshuffling flop cards in the deck, one might deal out what would have been the correct second burn, turn, third burn, & river cards face down onto their expected positions on the table, and then shuffle to redeal the flop. This preserves the correct turn and river cards, which can be flipped up later if necessary. However, this practice is not standard, not great for game security, and under random card theory, probably unnecessary. Another alternative is to always burn a card whenever one is dealing new flops, turns & rivers, even if it means ending up with 4+ burn cards. This is better for game security, and I believe is enforced in some EP rule sets - however, this practice has not really caught on on a broader scale. Some also propose to reshuffle the incorrect turn back into the deck without dealing the "proper" river in place of the turn; this also has not been widely followed.)
2. the dealer fails to turn over a burn card before the flop (or turn or river) cards are dealt and the error is spotted before action is taken.
No burn before flop: If it is possible to know which card should have been the burn, use that as the burn card, and complete the flop with the next card. If it is not possible to know which card should have been the burn, scramble the flop cards and choose one to be the first burn card, complete the flop with the next card. Continue as normal.
(Variations: some TDs will simply apply four-card rule here using the next card from the deck. However, this means that 1/4 of the time, you will get the same 'incorrect' flop. But the rule is more straightforward to apply and I think there is some value in keeping less cards exposed. I have also seen some TDs return the flop cards into the stub and reshuffle, but this seems a bit drastic when we know that at least two of the three flop cards are correct.)
No burn before turn: Use the turn card as the second burn card, deal new turn, continue as normal.
No burn before river: Use the river card as the third burn card, deal new river, continue as normal.
3. same as Q2 but the error is noticed after action has been taken.
After the flop: Complete flop action. Burn twice (#1, #2). Deal turn card. Continue as normal.
After the turn: Complete turn action. Burn twice (#2, #3). Deal river card.
After the river: Complete river action with existing river card. The exception is if both players were all-in before the river, in which case you would correct the error (i.e. use the river card as the third burn card, and deal the proper river).
4. What is the definition of action for Q3, ie is a fold action or just a bet?
Any action on the board, including check, means that the existing cards must stand. Does not necessarily have to be "substantial action". You probably wouldn't run into the issue of whether a fold is action for this purpose, since presumably he'd only be folding when facing a bet.
Variation: Some TDs interpret 'action' as needing to be substantial action. That is, presumably, "check-check" facing an incorrect board would be ignored, and board cards may still be redealt in those cases. I personally do not agree with this as it may give the players who haven't acted an unfair advantage over the players who have already checked.
5. The dealer burns two or more cards. Again the error is noticed either before or after action has occurred.
Two burns before flop: If it is possible to know which cards should have been the proper burns, use the second burn as a flop card, use the flop card that should have been a burn card as the second burn card, continue action, deal turn card without burning, continue as normal. If it is not possible to know which cards were the proper burns, take the second burn card and use for the flop, scramble the flop and draw one card to use as the second burn card. Continue action, and then deal turn card without burning, continue as normal.
(Variations: some TDs will simply apply four-card rule here using the second burn card and the flop. However, this means that 1/4 of the time, you will get the same 'incorrect' flop. But the rule is more straightforward to apply and I think there is some value in keeping less cards exposed. I have also seen some TDs return the flop cards and one or both of the burn cards into the stub and reshuffle, but this seems a bit drastic when we know that at least two of the three flop cards are correct.)
Two burns before turn: Use the burn card that should have been the turn card as the turn card, use the old turn card as the third burn card. Continue action, deal river card without burning.
Two burns before river: Use the burn card that should have been the river card as the river card, old river card is not used. Continue action.
-
Ken,
I know we've covered this on other threads and I think we agree on most, however, what do you mean by: Any action on the board, including check, means that the existing cards must stand. Does not necessarily have to be "substantial action" ???
I also like to instruct the dealers not to shuffle until the betting round is complete; there may not be a need to do anything.
I am also against some variations that you mentioned.
As anyone can see, there are several very different choices you can apply. Of course, better trained dealers is the best solution ;D
-
I know we've covered this on other threads and I think we agree on most, however, what do you mean by: Any action on the board, including check, means that the existing cards must stand. Does not necessarily have to be "substantial action" ???
Strictly speaking, most of the rules in this area say that board cards must stand once "action" has been taken on them. Of course if substantial action has occurred, this is a no brainer. But what if there has been a bet, and then the mistake is discovered? Technically there has not been "substantial action", because there has only been one action. I think if there has been any bet on the "wrong" flop though, many TDs would still hold (and I think correctly) that the flop stands.
I also like to instruct the dealers not to shuffle until the betting round is complete; there may not be a need to do anything.
100% Agreed. I am outlining what happens after action for the incomplete betting round has been completed.
I am also against some variations that you mentioned.
I am as well. I only mention these to highlight how I've seen some other TDs interpret the rules, as existing rule sets are somewhat ambiguous. But I am not saying that the "variations" are optimal.
As anyone can see, there are several very different choices you can apply. Of course, better trained dealers is the best solution ;D
But ideally, we can standardize one way of doing it so only one choice applies!
-
Ken,
I can understand some differences in handling these premature deals, but I'm having a tough time understanding why the action from any player does not warrant a retraction of the board cards.
-
I think the origin is probably with Robert's Rules... Something to the effect that once action has been taken on a board card, that card must stand. I don't necessarily think that it is a bad rule.
Suppose three people see the turn. The flop was Kh 9h 3c. The action goes check-check-continuation bet-call-call. A heart appears on the turn, and the first player goes all-in. As the second player ponders his action, the dealer straightens up the burn cards beneath the pot and realizes that there is an extra burn card. Is it fair that we retract the turn card, and deal a new turn (say a non-heart), after the other players already had the benefit of knowing how the first player would act given the incorrect turn? It seems really unfair to the first player to allow the turn card to be redealt after he has already acted on it in good faith. If you are going to allow a retraction at this point, I think you would almost have to consider allowing the first player to have the option of playing out the hand as if all-in, similar to the situation where seventh street gets dealt face up to one player by mistake in Stud games -- I wouldn't mind this, but this option is not currently contemplated in the rules for games like hold'em..
-
Ken,
One of the problems I've had with "substantial action" is; we've never established whether the dealer should count as one of the persons, along with the players. At the 2011 TDA Summit there were conflicting opinions on substantial action, in fact, the original release from 2011 1.0 was different from the final that was adopted in version 2.0.
Your example of the dealer discovering an extra burn after the turn card does not change the rule (as I understand it) for action. How do we know that the extra burn was not pre-flop?
All of these situations are caused by major screw-ups by the dealer. When the floor is called to the table we need to arm them with rules that are clear and simple. Do you believe that there is a separation between action and substantial action? If Roberts Rules wanted us to consider action as a single (in turn) action from the UTG player, why not clarify it? That, IMO, is the problem with many of our rules.
-
I know we've covered this on other threads and I think we agree on most, however, what do you mean by: Any action on the board, including check, means that the existing cards must stand. Does not necessarily have to be "substantial action" ???
Strictly speaking, most of the rules in this area say that board cards must stand once "action" has been taken on them. Of course if substantial action has occurred, this is a no brainer. But what if there has been a bet, and then the mistake is discovered? Technically there has not been "substantial action", because there has only been one action. I think if there has been any bet on the "wrong" flop though, many TDs would still hold (and I think correctly) that the flop stands.
The reason action is different than substantial action at this point is because of the nature of what happens. Once a card or cards are shown and action takes place, a player gives away a lot of real and/or fake information about their hand. To retract the card(s), at that point, would just give the other players free information and place the player(s) who acted already at a large disadvantage.
-
Tristan,
The subject is premature dealing. There are a couple very different scenarios that come to mind; the first would be the dealer burning and turning before the betting begins; the next is when a player is skipped and then the dealer burns and turns. I don't understand how any card can play with only the under the gun player acting if a player were skipped on the previous betting round.
The question I have is: When do you retract the premature card? What happens to the skipped player that didn't call before the dealer burns and turns the next card? This is getting complicated.
-
Tristan,
The subject is premature dealing.
I understand the subject.
K-Lo said: "Any action on the board, including check, means that the existing cards must stand. Does not necessarily have to be "substantial action". You probably wouldn't run into the issue of whether a fold is action for this purpose, since presumably he'd only be folding when facing a bet."
You said: "Ken,
I can understand some differences in handling these premature deals, but I'm having a tough time understanding why the action from any player does not warrant a retraction of the board cards."
and,
"Do you believe that there is a separation between action and substantial action?"
That is when I commented to try to clarify why action and substantial action are different at that point.
Once a board card/cards has been lain, and the first person to act has acted on it; that person has given a significant "tell". To take back a board card back at that point is a very large disadvantage to that player.
The question I have is: When do you retract the premature card?
If any player or the dealer stops the action before a player acts.
What happens to the skipped player that didn't call before the dealer burns and turns the next card?
If no one acted on the premature card? Nothing, it gets dealt with and the action is backed to the skipped player.
If someone has acted on the premature card after a checked round? The skipped player just lost their right to act on the previous round.
If someone has acted on the premature card after a round that had betting? The skipped player has a dead hand. They had the dealer tapping the table twice, the card coming out, and a player acting before they tried to say anything.
-
^^
This.
-
Tristan and Ken:
I don't agree with your answer to my question: "What happens to the skipped player that didn't call before the dealer burns and turns the next card?"
Your answer: If no one acted on the premature card? Nothing, it gets dealt with and the action is backed to the skipped player.
-
What do you disagree with Nick?
-
Tristan,
After the flop, the dealer burns and turns... before any betting commences, the dealer notices that the player on the button failed to call the last bet. Are you saying the board card stays?
-
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,
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?
-
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,
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?
-
Yes.
-
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
-
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.
-
K-Lo:
Well said.
FWIW, I agree w/your last post in its entirety.
Chet
-
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?
-
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?
... 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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Oh Nick... I have to admit... You are a good guy, but sometimes you frustrate me to no end!
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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!
-
This is the rule amendment that I have proposed:
35.1 Losing the Right to Act
A player whose turn it is to act has an obligation to stop the action without delay if subsequent players act out of turn and the player has been skipped. If the player fails to call time in these situations either before substantial action has occurred or the next street has been dealt, the player will be deemed to have checked if not facing a bet, or to have folded if facing a bet.
-
+1 ;D
-
Ken,
I'd still like to see some reference made about the dealer. My reasoning has to do with TDA # 34: Players must act in turn.
35.1 Losing the Right to Act
A player whose turn it is to act has an obligation to stop the action without delay if subsequent players act out of turn and the player has been skipped. If the dealer fails to correct the out of turn or the out of turn player fails to call time in these situations either before substantial action has occurred or the next street has been dealt, the player will be deemed to have checked if not facing a bet, or to have folded if facing a bet.
This might support something you said on an earlier reply: "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."
-
Is it possible to have substantial action happen or for the next street to be dealt if the dealer was aware that a player was skipped?
-
Tristan,
I would say yes if the skipped player was not the last to act on that betting round. In other words, IMO it depends on when the player was skipped. Let's say that there are 6 players in a hand and after the flop the first player checks, as does the second and third...for some reason Player four is skipped and the remaining players also check. At this point the dealer, or any player realizes that the four seat player was skipped...I would say, (because there was no wager), the skipped player would be in for the next round because he would have no option to fold or bet anyway!
The problem is when the last player to act is skipped by the dealer. This is not really covered by substantial action because the dealer made the mistake by prematurely dealing the next board card before the last player acted. This calls for a replacement card for the prematurely dealt card.
I hope this is clear, because there was confusion at the last Summit when we began discussing skipped players.
So...I say it depends on whether the skipped player missed a bet in front of him, or he faced a check. Also, I would say that it depends on how many players acted after he was skipped.
Tristan, I don't know if this is what you're looking for but, it surely brings to light the need for more clarification. Do you agree?
-
The problem is when the last player to act is skipped by the dealer. This is not really covered by substantial action because the dealer made the mistake by prematurely dealing the next board card before the last player acted. This calls for a replacement card for the prematurely dealt card.
My proposal is to put a greater onus on the skipped player to say something. Anytime the dealer deals the next board card(s), I am proposing that if the skipped player faced a check, he is deemed to have checked, and if the skipped player faced a bet, his hand is dead. The reasoning behind this is that if the dealer is following the proper procedure, tapping the table, burning and turning, this should give the player enough time to speak up. I feel that we should minimize the occasions where we redeal board cards, and minimize giving skipped players two chances to draw a favorable board card, when the dealer is following proper procedure.
I admit that this may be a bit harsh if the last player faced a bet and the dealer quickly dealt the next street, but if the player didn't really have a chance to object, and especially if he faced a bet, then we could always apply rule 1, and roll back the action and redeal the street as we currently do it now.
-
Ken,
I understand that a certain amount of blame must fall on the skipped player for not speaking up. However, the skipped player was skipped by the player in violation of
TDA #34 by not acting in turn.
I also don't like the idea of using rule #1 when a dealer burns and turns before the last player acts...there should be no option, the board card can never stay.
I can see where your proposal would minimize the occasions where we redeal board cards on a checked round, but I don't like the reference of minimizing a skipped player; two chances to draw a favorable board card?
If a player is skipped on any betting round when facing a bet, (by at least one player) and the dealer taps, burns, and turns, the skipped players hand is dead!
If a player is skipped on any betting round that was checked to him, and he is not the last to act, and the dealer taps, burns and turns...that player has checked.
If a player is in the last position and the dealer taps, burns and turns...the board must be re-dealt.
-
Nick and all:
Nick, I don't like having three choices, two is much better.
So, how about we put the last position skipped player in the group with those facing a bet and rule the hand dead?
So the rule might read: "Any skipped player, when facing a bet, or in last position, who does not stop the action before the dealer taps, burns and deals the next board card will be deemed to have a dead hand. Any skipped player, other than in last position, when facing a check, who does not stop the action before the dealer taps, burns and deals the next board card will be deemed to have checked."
I replaced "turns" with "deals" to remove any implication that this might only apply to 4th street.
Wouldn't this eliminate the need to re-deal the board, thereby removing the possibility of any player having an advantage of seeing more than one card?
The order of the two situations can be reversed if you guys think it would read better.
Chet
-
Ken,
I understand that a certain amount of blame must fall on the skipped player for not speaking up. However, the skipped player was skipped by the player in violation of
TDA #34 by not acting in turn.
I also don't like the idea of using rule #1 when a dealer burns and turns before the last player acts...there should be no option, the board card can never stay.
I can see where your proposal would minimize the occasions where we redeal board cards on a checked round, but I don't like the reference of minimizing a skipped player; two chances to draw a favorable board card?
If a player is skipped on any betting round when facing a bet, (by at least one player) and the dealer taps, burns, and turns, the skipped players hand is dead!
If a player is skipped on any betting round that was checked to him, and he is not the last to act, and the dealer taps, burns and turns...that player has checked.
If a player is in the last position and the dealer taps, burns and turns...the board must be re-dealt.
I actually could live with this, but I think it is a bit complicated. I know that the old/current/traditional rules say that the premature board card must always be redealt, but... I would like to push to modernize this rule to say that the default is NOT to redeal it unless the player who was skipped, regardless of his position, and regardless of whether he was skipped by a subsequent player or a dealer dealing the next street, drew attention to being skipped without delay. The default should be, IMO, if the dealer goes through the motion of tapping the table... "Here comes the next card... If I've missed you speak up now..." the player who did not act should have a good reason why he didn't stop the action. The dealer taps the table for a reason... Players should not be given any incentive to ignore it.
Hey, we have accepted action already, and that is likely to stay... I guess if you can't beat them, join them?? ;)
-
What makes you think accepted action is here to stay? You know it is going to be the most talked about rule at the Summit...even if I'm not there!
Chet, you are trying to eliminate the premature deal altogether. Premature dealing is created by a dealer that is not paying attention to his table, if a player catches the mistake before it occurs, that's great...if he doesn't, it's on the dealer!
Ken, what about the player that bets out of turn? or the dealer who doesn't even know who's in, and who isn't? Talk about accepted action???
IMO, we need to count the dealer as one of the persons when calculating significant or substantial action.
I'm afraid that we will come out of the next summit with more controversial rules than we have already. I suggest we fix the current one's that need attention before we create more controversial one's for 2015 ;D
-
What makes you think accepted action is here to stay? You know it is going to be the most talked about rule at the Summit...even if I'm not there!
Let's just say I have a feeling. Care to make a bet? ;-)
-
Nick:
We would all like to eliminate a premature deal, would we not?
However, that isn't going to happen in the real world. What I am trying to do is come up with a simple, easy to understand rule that basically says that the player(s) has/have a responsibility to bring this type of error to the attention of the dealer/table and if they fail to do so that cannot benefit from that error.
As much as we would all like it to be so, dealers are not infallible and they are going to make one mistake or another from time to time.
My suggestion is an attempt to simplify a possible solution, that is all.
Chet
And by the way, I too expect that Accepted Action is here to stay in one form or another.
-
Ken and Chet:
Yeah, I'll bet...I'll bet it is altered in some way. The only time that Accepted Action should be applied is when a player insta-calls. If a player asks how much is required to call a bet and is given the wrong information from the dealer, that player should have the right to reconsider. The responsibility MUST be shared!
If the rule remains unchanged, it will not be the wish of the majority.
Both of you have suggested changes on prior posts, and both of you have now decided that you will comply to whatever THEY say. I will not. It's wrong, it's also not in the best interest of the game.
Chet, when was the last time you raised a player and didn't want him to know how much you raised? When was the last time you raised 300, the opposing player asked how much, and you refused to tell him...did you say "I'm not telling you, are you blind? Count it yourself!"
-
Nick:
Simple answer....... I don't play that way. Maybe stupid on my part, but if I say raise I put my chips out front in orderly fashion. If I am asked, I will tell the amount.
I am gettin older as are you. I know that it is difficult to see/count the amount of a bet/raise from the 2/3/4 seat if the opposing player is in the 6/7/8 seat. So if I am asked I respond. I expect the same if I am the player asking. If I don't get a response, that player better not ask again, cuz all he/she will get a dead silence. I will not respond and I will do nothing to help clarify the amount like staking the chips, etc. In other words, that player can kiss my u know what.
Chet
-
I rest my case!
-
I think that AA will stay as well, I think at most it will receive a bit of rewording or clarifying.
As for the other thing, I think that killing the hand of the last to act when facing a bet is a bit harsh. Some dealers do operate pretty fast, and the situation can escalate quickly in times like those. Even if you decide to use rule 1 at that time, they may have already given away their hand a bit because they were upset thinking their hand was to be killed.
It might be more confusing, but I like keeping the board card(s) there in a checked round and redoing the board card(s) in the case that a bet was faced and the last player was skipped.
-
I do appreciate that the situation can escalate quickly. I'll have to think more about this one... As I said, I don't mind the distinction as suggested by Nick, and the other related alternative would be to clarify that the dealer dealing a new board card constitutes an action explicitly within the definition of substantial action -- that could be a simpler solution. I am trying to predict what will be an easier sell...
-
clarify that the dealer dealing a new board card constitutes an action explicitly within the definition of substantial action -- that could be a simpler solution.
Our cash side of the room uses this. We deem any two actions as substantial and the dealer does count as one. I like it.
-
Ken & Tristan,
I like considering the dealer as one of the persons counting for substantial action...
Tristan, I never liked the retraction of the board on a checked round when the last player was skipped but, it is a major change that would affect rules that have been on the books forever.
I know that we are all aware; the problem we speak of is completely on the dealer. I respect what Ken has pointed out about the time that it takes to tap, and burn before the dealer tables a card but, IMO we are opening a way for some players to argue for a new card, or play the premature card if they like it. Currently, the dealer screws-up and the card can not play.
I also like the proposal for a skipped player (not last to act) on a checked round to have a live hand, as if he had also checked. I believe he currently could reopen the betting if he were skipped by only 1 or even 2 players.
I would also insist that the skipped player (facing a bet) has a dead hand once the dealer taps, burns and turns.