POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for New TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre 2017 Summit

How do blind bets affect substantial action?

<< < (2/4) > >>

BROOKS:
Welcome to my world. This has happened on more than one occasion. It's a situation you don't want to be in, but that's why I brought it up here. To hear peoples opinions and reasoning

Nick C:
Matobaka,

 Your example is a bit confusing: "Then dealer misdeals, something like turning two cards while pitching.  What then?" I'd like you to be a little more exact with your example. The dealer is not in the act of pitching if he is burning and turning in any flop game. Are you describing two cards being exposed on the turn, instead of one? If so, I would make every attempt to preserve the proper rivercard by setting aside the two cards exposed in error and replace the turn card with the proper river.
I would then shuffle the two cards into the stub and burn and turn.

 I also assume that the two players were head to head, therefore no further betting was possible. That's it...what else could you do?

BROOKS:
Hes talking  about exposing 2 cards during the pitch. What do you do then, that calls for a misdeal, but apparently the those blind actions count as substantial action and you "can't" call a misdeal....

Nick C:
Brooks,

 If I were given the exact account of the mistakes I will better be able to explain how it is resolved. I need more info from Motobaka72. Still remains too unclear.

Dave Miller:
Let me see if I have the scenario right:
A short stack under the gun goes all in. UTG+1 calls. Both actions are blind - they happened while the dealer was shuffling / dealing. Then something happens that would otherwise be ruled a misdeal.

This seems like a no-brainer. It's a misdeal.

While technically their actions are binding and would otherwise cancel a misdeal, that rule is generally meant for errors discovered after the deal is complete, such as a player with too few/many cards.

In this scenario I seriously doubt any player (other than one who already looked and saw a monster hand) would expect anything other than a misdeal, and would rule it as such.

Technically, the actions were out of turn, since the action was on the dealer to complete the deal before the UTG acts.

Also, the scenario where the dealer forgot to give the button his second card, or accidentally gives the small blind an extra card isn't a misdeal. It gets fixed whether there was action or not.

Or, use the example of casino pit rules that forbid players from touching their cards until after the dealing is complete.

Last, there's good old Rule One.

Bottom line, it's a misdeal.

Note that I would also rule that the blind actions are still binding for the re-deal.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page