4 burn cards again!

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,
This one is hard and really happened!
Final heads up > All-in & call > The Dealer reveals the full board (the all-in player double up).
BUT > Before giving the pot to anybody, he and the full table and the spectators realize that 4 cards had been burned!

The burned cards was on the side and in order of arrival (like the board) but NO WAY to know if the double burned was before the flop, the turn or the river!
Because of the very numerous mathematical solutions : I choose to cancel the hand! I know the TDA rules but didn't know how to apply them here? Any idea?

PS > Please only solutions > No lessons on how to manage dealers etc.
TY in advance - GG

[Nick C]

Hello, Guillaume...

I have a couple questions that I'd like to ask you before I tell you what I would have done.

First of all, if your players were okay with your decision, it was the right thing to do.

Consider this: If the two remaining players acted after the final board card (the river) was on the table, I would have considered substantial action and the hand would play.

However, In your situation, I believe the all in occurred earlier in the hand, therefore I could agree with your call to redeal the hand.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello Nick,

First thank you for your answer.
Then for sure if I did post that case here it's because I don't pretend at all my ruling to be the "good" one. But TY for the kind words.

OK > Both players went all-in & call preflop: That is BEFORE any card on the board.

[Guillaume Gleize]

It was the final heads-up of a qualifying tournament for a €500 place.
The 4 burned cards were located on the side, in their order of arrival, and the entire board (flop+turn+river) in front of the dealer.

The only sure thing was that the dealer had burned two cards instead of one at one point, but no one knew if that was before the flop, before the turn or before the river.
After some long reflections and having listened to a lot of people, it seem to me that reconstituting a board, even following the lines of the TDA, was too complex, "messy" and random and could have given rise to disagreements. I was also lucky that this "bad" board had not eliminated the short stack (it would have doubled). So my cancellation was better accepted.

But I have a second solution in mind (following the TDA rules as closely as possible): The only safe cards were the first two of the flop (whether the dealer burned 1 or 2 cards) and the only one to remove was the river (since it represented a 9th and last card which should never have arrived on the table).

So maybe I could have:
1) Leave the first two cards of the flop,
2) Remove the river,
3) Mix the other 6 cards together and reconstitute: burned, 3rd of the flop, burned, turn, burned and river.

 

[Dave Miller]

Buckle up. Long post coming.

I think cancelling the hand is not the right thing to do. Doing so is equivalent to a misdeal, which clearly did not happen. However, since both players were OK with it, so am I - assuming that the 'heads up' you mentioned meant the final two players in the tournament, not merely the only two players in the hand.

I also think your final idea of "Leave the first two cards of the flop and scramble the rest" is wrong for several reasons.

A solution you didn't mention, but might have considered, would be to take all nine cards, and reshuffle them into the stub and put out an entirely new board. I'm against that solution as well.


Several things to consider.

On a four card flop, in Rule 39, we ignore the possibility of 'knowing' which two are intended to be part of the flop, and scramble all four.

Similarly in Rule 39, a flop without a burn gets all three scrambled, with one card removed for the burn.

So, based on that, I'd take all nine cards, scramble them, and put out a new board with burns and one card left over.

Except in the no burn part of Rule 39, it says if there is any action, including a check, the flop stands.

But the players were all in pre-flop. What 'action' could there have been?

Last, Rule 38 and Procedure 14 says burn cards are to protect the stub, and NOT to 'preserve the order'. I.E. Random is random.


In other words, the cards that were face up were just as randomly likely to be the actual board as the 'intended' board cards, and therefore the hand should stand. That's the way I would have ruled.


OK. Maybe that long post wasn't as long as some of my other posts.   

[Guillaume Gleize]

... So, based on that, I'd take all nine cards, scramble them, and put out a new board with burns and one card left over.
Except in the no burn part of Rule 39, it says if there is any action, including a check, the flop stands

But the players were all in pre-flop. What 'action' could there have been?
...
In other words, the cards that were face up were just as randomly likely to be the actual board as the 'intended' board cards, and therefore the hand should stand. That's the way I would have ruled.

First TY Dave for your answer!
But sorry (for my poor English):
I don't understand here. Why don't you change the board (which is obviously wrong)?
1) because some action occurred before?
2) because no action can occur anymore?
3) for any other reason?
Be sure that I LOVE your easy solution but what is the clear reason please?
TY in advance! GG

[Dave Miller]

Partly because in other threads, there is a desire to avoid people winning based on a technicality. In other threads, random is random. 🤷‍♂️

[Guillaume Gleize]

Partly because in other threads, there is a desire to avoid people winning based on a technicality. In other threads, random is random. 🤷‍♂️

OKTY Dave - So I'll write something in my rules to anticipate this kind of situation if it happens again!
I will let the board stand like you the next time in this (exact same) situation. GG 

[Guillaume Gleize]

To be said > My cases may seem strange but I manage with WINAMAX in France some huge SELF-DEALING tournaments up to 2500 PLAYERS in one single room while still qualifying for big finals with prize pools guaranteed at a minimum of ONE MILLION EUROS! So my rulings are numerous and looking like amateurs errors (which is normal) but the stakes remain enormous!

For example recently : A flop with 4 cards and still substantial action behind ... !?! ... Here I also stopped the hand and split the pot between the remaining players because I could'nt imagine a hand with only 2 streets! When you manage some self-dealing tournaments, you need imagination because the TDA rules are far from being enough LOOOL!

[Dave Miller]

Wow. Self dealt or not, I can’t imagine a 4 card flop with action and nobody saying to call the floor or whatever.

FYI. Proper procedure would be to return post flop bets, then handle it like any other 4 card flop - Rule 39. And if anyone complains, they should have spoke up when they saw a 4 card flop. I mean, the entire table couldn’t be that inexperienced. Could they?

[Guillaume Gleize]

Wow. Self dealt or not, I can’t imagine a 4 card flop with action and nobody saying to call the floor or whatever.

FYI. Proper procedure would be to return post flop bets, then handle it like any other 4 card flop - Rule 39. And if anyone complains, they should have spoke up when they saw a 4 card flop. I mean, the entire table couldn’t be that inexperienced. Could they?

Yes they can! Winamax invest millions of euros each year for those HUGE COMMERCIAL tournaments around France to attract new players! So you open an account and you can qualify FOR FREE online first then second step live (which I manage) then final in casino with millions to win (for sure you can directly go to the final if you pay)! So some players never ever played live sessions before and some only played a few time online! So believe me: The TDA (which I love & support) don't always propose us solutions and we have to invent many rulings "in the best interest of the game".