Exposed replacement card after substantial action

[Smsguy927]

NL Holdem. On the initial deal, the button's second card is exposed by dealer error. As the replacement card is being dealt, substantial action occurs in the hand (3 players call). Then the replacement card is exposed. How should the floor handle this?

[Boris]

Hello,

That is a good one.

I see multiple things in accordance to the rules but the way I see this is purely an exploit.

Since we can't declare a misdeal (SA), I would allow the player to have an extra card dealt.

First card exposed is going to be Flop burned card (nothing changes)

For the Second card exposed you can have two academies
- Become the turn burned card (Random Card Theory)
- Gets out from the hand (boxed card, keeps the stub order)

This way, all the players have the same kind of information (cards exposed and not card in a player hand)

Technically it is "Card exposed by the house" which we need to work on.

Again, it is an exploit of the rule, other people may have a different solution.

[Dave Miller]

Being the replacement card is irrelevant. It’s the second exposed dealt card.

Therefore, it's a misdeal.


I could not find a specific TDA rule or RRoP rule that covers this, but isn't it generally accepted that action should not begin until the deal is complete? As such, the "substantial action" was actually action out of turn.

RRoP has a rule that if two cards of the same suit and rank are discovered, all action is void and chips returned. regardless of when it is discovered. While not the same as the Original Post situation, it clearly indicates that significant action does not prevent a misdeal from being called.

[BillM16]

I agree with Dave, this is a misdeal as two cards were exposed.  Also, I agree that the players who acted out-of-turn do not represent substantial action as their play was illegal.

According to RRoP v11: 15-Tournaments  #13. A player must be at the table by the time all players have their complete starting hands in order to have a live hand for that deal.

Also, TDA Rule #30: At Your Seat and Live Hands
To have a live hand, players must be at their seats when the last card is dealt to all players on the initial deal.

The Button player did not have a complete starting hand. The initial deal was not complete as the dealer was still in the process of dealing the final card to the button. Therefore, none of the players had a live hand upon which they could legally act.

TDA Rule #35-D says ~ that a misdeal cannot be declared after substantial action (SA) occurs. That governs situations where the deal, otherwise thought to be complete, might be considered a misdeal had SA not occurred.  For example, an entitled player not at the table, was not dealt a hand.  The difference here is that the dealer and all other players at the table believed that the initial deal was complete.  Subsequently, substantial action occurred before recognizing an absent player without a properly dealt hand.  In this case, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand would continue.

[Boris]

Hey folks,

I see what you mean both of you but since the start of the hand is not clearly defined (except first riffle), it seems difficult to find a ruling which fits correctly.
To me, "live hand" refers to a player who is allowed to play his hand. In Flop games, the first player to act is known since the button is moved, so with the rules we have now, it is again difficult to call and OOT action here.

Plus, if we agree to declare misdeal with action pending it opens a window for freezing the game.

Code: [Select]

In example :
UTG call before deal is over
+1 call before deal is over
+2 is not happy with his hand, throw a card out of the table "Hey I have only 1 card"  // Since the deal is not completed, its a misdeal.

Infinite loop =)
I agree players should act after the deal is completed, but I think it is too hard to enforce this (and specially on Turbo tournaments)

[Dave Miller]

To me, "live hand" refers to a player who is allowed to play his hand.

Very often early players begin to act before the deal is done. Are they allowed to do this? No, but since the action doesn’t really affect anything, in the interest of hands per hour, we ignore it and no warnings are ever provided.

In the case of the misdeal, the early action becomes action OOT.

And as far as your example, deliberately removing a card as you describe is cheating that is punishable by arrest and jail time - at least in most jurisdictions.

[Stuart Murray]

I'm with Dave and Bill, it's a misdeal, it needs to be kept straight forward and simple regardless of players getting the action going too quickly.