Question about table breaking

[Dboykin]

Hello,

I had a quick question, and was wondering your input on this scenario:

11 players left in a tournament, and one table loses a player (Total players now at 10). The dealer at the other table has taken the deck out of the shuffle machine, but has not yet dealt the hand. The TD comes over and breaks the table for the redraw for the final table, telling the dealer to hold the deck.

My question is this: Should the hand have been dealt and played out before combining down to the final table?

[JasperToo]

Nope.  Simply end whatever hand the table is on and then combine tables.  The shuffled deck is irrelevant to the combining.  A shuffled deck (or with a machine the green button) is only relevant to the start of the hand as it relates to the blind levels.

[Stuart Murray]

ditto Jasper, as long as the actual hole card deal hasn't started, break the table there and then.

Regards
Stuart

[Spence]

Could there possibly be an issue of going hand for hand here?

[JasperToo]

I don't think so.  I am fairly certain that this question came up because some player tried to claim that they should play another hand because the deck was shuffled.  A misapprehension of the "riffle" rule. 

[Nick C]

There is information that is missing. I will assume that the table that lost the player had 6 and the other had 5. There are two tables with 5 players remaining. Why would you go hand for hand when you have reached 10 players? Stop the action when told by the floor and draw for the final table.

[Spence]

My question was meant to be theoretical for the purpose of discussion. I don't think that was what was happening in this circumstance but could there be a time when you would be forced to give another hand so players have all paid their proper amount of blinds rather than just seen the proper number of hands? If one dealer accidentally got ahead of the other dealer would it be our responsibility to play one more hand then combine games? Again, all theoretical.

[Stuart Murray]

with 2 tables doing hand for hand it would be unlikely, as if we are doing our job right and we need to play hand for hand over the 11 players, we would be stood between both tables.

Regards
Stu

[Luca P.]

If you are running a tournament where players there are 10 seat tables then your final table should be formed with 10 players as usual.
If 6 seat tables, then the final table should be formed with 7 players.
The "Hand for hand" way is exactly the answer. Dealers start to deal together, if action on a table is still pending, and the other has finished, then this one must stand by and wait. If a player got busted from the table with action, trhen a Final table is formed, a new hand starts otherwise

[JasperToo]

Spence, theoretically, the table that lost a player would have had to be the one with the dealer that "got ahead".  But that would only be if you were doing a hand for hand thing.  I wouldn't see the need for it and I am with Stuart, we would have been standing between the tables and it likely would never happen.  I suppose if it did somehow you could let the other table play the hand to see if there would be one more elimination before forming the final table.   I just don't see it happening.

BTW Linker_splint, TDA says final tables for flop games is 10 players,  for  stud games it is 9.....

[Luca P.]

BTW Linker_splint, TDA says final tables for flop games is 10 players,  for  stud games it is 9.....

Whoops Sorry 

[Dboykin]

Right, hand for hand didn't come into play in this scenario. My understanding of Hand-for-Hand is if there are mutliple tables coming into the money. Am I off base on this one? In the case I described the number of spots being payed were less than 10 (It's a small daily tournament).

[Stuart Murray]

less than 10 paid with a 10 handed FT = no need for hand for hand, hand for hand when multiple tables about to cash or satelite etc

Regards
Stu