Misdeals - Boxed cards

[MikeB]

The thread started out specifically focused on boxed cards and has expanded to discuss misdeals and fouled decks generally...

So...

1: Is there a need to introduce any new specific misdeal conditions other than those of "longstanding poker convention"... OR
2: To clarify longstanding convention on specific misdeal conditions OR
3: LIST those longstanding conventions specifically (b/c different historic rule sets may list different conditions). OR
4: Specifically distinguish in the TDA rules between fouled deck conditions and misdeal conditions OR
5: Are misdeals and fouled decks being adequately handled house-by-house now... with the TDA definition of Substantial Action sufficient for establishing a cutooff point for whatever the house rules are...

Undoubtedly there will be discussion on misdeals, fouled decks, and substantial action at the June Summit to see if theres significant interest on any of these, yes?

[Tristan]

Tristan,

Why are you skipping TDA #31 and going to #32

Because #31 references #32 and if you read both of them it gives you the time frame you were asking about.

With respect to the one boxed/one exposed card by the dealer situation at the beginning of the hand, strictly by the book, there is no misdeal;  but if no one has yet to act, I'd personally be tempted just to call it a misdeal to avoid the bad situation potentially snowballing especially if there are further boxed cards in the deck.

I agree.

1: Is there a need to introduce any new specific misdeal conditions other than those of "longstanding poker convention"... OR
2: To clarify longstanding convention on specific misdeal conditions OR
3: LIST those longstanding conventions specifically (b/c different historic rule sets may list different conditions). OR
4: Specifically distinguish in the TDA rules between fouled deck conditions and misdeal conditions OR
5: Are misdeals and fouled decks being adequately handled house-by-house now... with the TDA definition of Substantial Action sufficient for establishing a cutooff point for whatever the house rules are...

I like #5.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

  I believe diz475 was trying to decide if TDA #31 b) two or more exposed or boxed cards.  Should we consider 1 boxed card and 1 exposed card equal to: 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards? That (I believe) is a legitimate question based on the way the rule is written.

Earlier on this post, Stuart defined substantial action:  "Action is prescribed by current TDA rules as 2 actions involving chips or 3 not." Now, how do you interpret that?
The two actions must both put chips into the pot? or at least one of the two? Interesting because the rule was changed from version 1.0 to 2.0 after the 2011 Summit.

I also have a new question: Why do we mention; players may be dealt two consecutive cards on the button? Perhaps, under the title Misdeals we should only list the conditions for a misdeal.

Am I correct that the majority agrees that, when it comes to boxed cards or exposed cards, a. misdeal should only apply on the initial deal of all starting hands, prior to any further action? If so, then we should change it.

[Tristan]

I also have a new question: Why do we mention; players may be dealt two consecutive cards on the button? Perhaps, under the title Misdeals we should only list the conditions for a misdeal.

I believe this is because some places would call a misdeal if the dealer flipped the first card to either the small blind, big blind, or button.  The reasoning behind misdealing a flipped card to the button was the button would get two cards in a row.  It was most likely added to this rule for clarification.

[Tristan]

If so, then we should change it.

No need to change what is already stated.

Let us, for illustration, replace the words 'substantial action' in rule #31 with the TDA definition of 'substantial action'


31:   Misdeals
In stud-type games, if any of the player's two down cards are exposed due to dealer error it is a misdeal. In flop games, misdeals include but are not necessarily limited to: a) exposure of one of the first two cards dealt; b) two or more exposed or boxed cards; c) first card dealt to the wrong seat; d) cards dealt to a seat not entitled to a hand; e) a seat entitled to a hand is dealt out. Players may be dealt two consecutive cards on the button. If either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold) occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed.

Does that help explain my point Nick?

[Nick C]

Tristan,

I want to thank you for all of your feedback but, you didn't answer our question about boxed cards and exposed cards. " I believe diz475 was trying to decide if TDA #31 b) two or more exposed or boxed cards.  Should we consider 1 boxed card and 1 exposed card equal to: 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards? That (I believe) is a legitimate question based on the way the rule is written."


In addition, what didn't you like about my earlier suggestion;  If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed, even if 2 or more boxed cards appear or multiple cards are exposed!

[Tristan]

Tristan,

I want to thank you for all of your feedback but, you didn't answer our question about boxed cards and exposed cards. " I believe diz475 was trying to decide if TDA #31 b) two or more exposed or boxed cards.  Should we consider 1 boxed card and 1 exposed card equal to: 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards? That (I believe) is a legitimate question based on the way the rule is written."

I did answer this question in #31 of this thread.  I agreed with what K-Lo said. (see below)

With respect to the one boxed/one exposed card by the dealer situation at the beginning of the hand, strictly by the book, there is no misdeal;  but if no one has yet to act, I'd personally be tempted just to call it a misdeal to avoid the bad situation potentially snowballing especially if there are further boxed cards in the deck.

I agree.

In addition, what didn't you like about my earlier suggestion;  If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed, even if 2 or more boxed cards appear or multiple cards are exposed!

It's not that I don't agree Nick, I'm just trying to point out to you that TDA already states exactly what you are trying to add.  There is no reason to add what is already there!

[diz475]

My original question was if you should treat one boxed and one exposed by the dealer on the initial deal as a misdeal
Technical answer no
But I was shocked to see that 2 boxed cards found anytime during the hand is not a fouled deck.

Is my joint the only place that uses 2 boxed cards is a fouled deck and all money returned and a new hand dealt, I don't think so but would like some feedback on that

With respect to the one boxed/one exposed card by the dealer situation at the beginning of the hand, strictly by the book, there is no misdeal;  but if no one has yet to act, I'd personally be tempted just to call it a misdeal to avoid the bad situation potentially snowballing especially if there are further boxed cards in the deck.

How can this snowball if its not a fouled deck and not a misdeal if you find the second boxed card after the flop.

I think maybe there needs to be some wording added for fouled decks,

[Nick C]

Hey diz,

You really need to think this one out a little. K-Lo, Tristan, myself and others have pretty much agreed on a misdeal when 2 boxed cards or 2 exposed cards occur before action has taken place. I also agree we could tweak our rules a bit but, honestly; how many boxed cards do you experience? I can count the occurrences on my fingers (of one hand) in 40 years of dealing. Re-dealing is not in the best interest of the game, especially after 3 or 4 rounds of betting.

If I were working the floor and was called to the table because the second boxed card appeared, I would only apply the rule in it's strictest form, on the initial deal before any action takes place. You can easily justify the decision to continue because of substantial action.

As far as a straight forward answer to your original question, I would say the misdeal would not apply with 1 exposed card and 1 boxed card (as defined in TDA #31)...So, it looks like it would require 1 boxed card, followed by 1 exposed card and then either another exposed card or another boxed card.

[K-Lo]

I think we should probably simply change the rule to calling a misdeal -- if substantial action has not occurred -- if one boxed card appears during the initial deal.

[Spence]

I also agree we could tweak our rules a bit but, honestly; how many boxed cards do you experience? I can count the occurrences on my fingers (of one hand) in 40 years of dealing. Re-dealing is not in the best interest of the game, especially after 3 or 4 rounds of betting.

With he prevalence of automatic shufflers now and the lack of money coming into many casino poker rooms I see more boxed cards all the time.  Auto Shufflers aren't cleaned, and old decks are not replaced.  Boxed cards will get worse before they get better.  As for Mike...

The thread started out specifically focused on boxed cards and has expanded to discuss misdeals and fouled decks generally...
So...
1: Is there a need to introduce any new specific misdeal conditions other than those of "longstanding poker convention"... OR
2: To clarify longstanding convention on specific misdeal conditions OR
3: LIST those longstanding conventions specifically (b/c different historic rule sets may list different conditions). OR
4: Specifically distinguish in the TDA rules between fouled deck conditions and misdeal conditions OR
5: Are misdeals and fouled decks being adequately handled house-by-house now... with the TDA definition of Substantial Action sufficient for establishing a cutooff point for whatever the house rules are...
Undoubtedly there will be discussion on misdeals, fouled decks, and substantial action at the June Summit to see if theres significant interest on any of these, yes?

I think #4