Poker Rules compilation

[Dave_The_Maori]

Hi Nick
I can see you have some questions and although not directed at me, I thought I would share share some of my thoughts.

Thomas, This is from a prior post but, it better explains how I feel about the way the rule is written:
I want to know if you can explain this part of RR:  "if two cards were burned, one of the cards should be put back on the deck and used for the burncard on the next round." The way I see it, if the dealer burns two cards instead of one after the flop, there is no way that the turn card can play. The only certainty would be for the improper turn card to be returned to the deck and used as the final burn before the river. Why wouldn't we choose one of the improper burns as the turn?

I can't say what Bob had intended when he wrote this, but it fits in with our dealing procedures. I will use Thomas' method to explain.

e.g. The Dealer places cards A and B face down (As burn cards) and cards C, D and E face up (As the Flop). The Betting round begins and then I am called for a ruling.

In this example, I would instruct the players to continue with any and all bets and explain that there will NOT be any change to the Turn or River cards. At this time, I would instruct the Dealer to place one of the Burn cards on top of the deck (We ask this as Dealers have a natural tendency to take the top card from the Deck and Burn it).

So now we have card A as the Burn, cards C, D and E as the Flop, and card B face down on top of the Deck. Once the Betting round has finished, the Dealer Burns the top card of the Deck (Card B) and turns the next card face up (Card F) which keeps the integrity of the Deck.

How do you correct two burn cards (three including the correct burn before the flop), and a turn card on the board, with certainty, when noticed before action takes place? One of those cards should be the proper burn and the other the turn, correct? What happens to the exposed turn card?

e.g. On the board face down is card A as the first burn. The Flop consists of cards B, C and D. Cards E and F are also burn cards and card G is the Turn. No action has taken place and I am called to for a ruling.

At this point, I would make card G stand as the Turn and instruct the players to continue with any and all bets. I would instruct the Dealer to take one of cards E or F and place it face down on top of the Deck.

After the Betting round is complete, I would instruct the Dealer to Burn the top card (Card F) and flip the River (Card H) as per normal.

I understand that these questions weren't directed at me but I felt the need to respond as our house rules are very similar to Thomas'.

Hope this helps 

[Nick C]

Dave_The_Maori,
 Your example is well written and much clearer than RRoP. I had no problem following what you explained. I do have a problem with applying this procedure. There is no mention of a different procedure to correct the mistake if caught in time, before the UTG player calls the BB, for example.  I can understand that a board card followed by substantial action must stand. What happens in the example that you gave (when RR's is applied), the extra burn card (pre flop), is used as the next burn card which contradicts the statement of; cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error occured. Using this method, there are two certainties; #1 One of the proper "flop" cards was burned and, #2 One of the "flopped" cards should be the next burn..... I would rather have a rule for a misdeal if discovered before action takes place, or just correct it if possible. I am not if favor of any rule that does not allow an error to be corrected, if everyone involved is certain of which card was the extra burn. Making a rule that assures the correct turn and river is a small consolation in a game that, much of the time, never reaches the last two betting rounds.

[Dave_The_Maori]

Dave_The_Maori,
 Your example is well written and much clearer than RRoP. I had no problem following what you explained. I do have a problem with applying this procedure. There is no mention of a different procedure to correct the mistake if caught in time, before the UTG player calls the BB, for example.  I can understand that a board card followed by substantial action must stand. What happens in the example that you gave (when RR's is applied), the extra burn card (pre flop), is used as the next burn card which contradicts the statement of; cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error occured. Using this method, there are two certainties; #1 One of the proper "flop" cards was burned and, #2 One of the "flopped" cards should be the next burn..... I would rather have a rule for a misdeal if discovered before action takes place, or just correct it if possible. I am not if favor of any rule that does not allow an error to be corrected, if everyone involved is certain of which card was the extra burn. Making a rule that assures the correct turn and river is a small consolation in a game that, much of the time, never reaches the last two betting rounds.

Actually, in double burned situations where the flop is revealed and no action has taken place, I would rule a dealer error and instruct the Dealer to correct the error.

I can understand the procedure that you mentioned earlier and how it has the best interest of the game at it's core. I'm not sure I wouldn't go as far as ruling a mis-deal though as there wasn't anything wrong with hands that were dealt.

i.e. Asking pocket Aces to throw in their hand because an error occurred after all hands were dealt.

Having said that, your procedure in fixing double burned Flops is probably one of the best that I've ever come across. However, I have some reservations about that procedure because scrambling the exposed Turn card and the "proper" Turn card revealing a Re-Dealt Turn card could create problems, which is, giving players knowledge of the face value of one of the Burn cards.

e.g. Seat 1 is holding pocket Kings. The Flop is Six, Six, Queen and the wrongly dealt turn card is a King.

I would scramble the two burns, and use one as a burn and the other as the turn card. I would then use the exposed turn card as the final burn (which is where it belonged if no error had occured). The exposed turn card would be placed back on top of the deck, covering the proper river card. After the betting round, the burn would be placed on the board (face down with the other burns) and the proper river card would be dealt. The way I explained it is the easiest way and I think the best way to guarantee at least 80% of the proper board, and very possibly 100%. There is no reshuffle required. The bad part is one card was exposed.

Although a tough decision, in a double burned Flop, I would probably opt for the reshuffle as it has less negatives to it. Not to say that I am a fan of it, but I can't think of a fairer way to correct the error as pocket Kings has probably used some portion of their stack Pre-Flop.

i.e. Collect cards A, B, C, D and E to be added back to the deck. Shuffle and Cut deck. Deal new 1st Burn and Flop.

I can understand how Bob's rule would apply to when a dealer error during the dealing of hole cards that you have quoted;

cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error occured.

e.g. All players are dealt their first hole card but then as one of the second hole cards is pitched, it flips over face up (King of Diamonds) on the felt and I am called for a ruling.

I would tell all the players that the Exposed card will be used as the first burn and instruct the Dealer to continue as if no error occurred.

I believe that if pocket Kings were to be given the knowledge that they now have one less out before making their decision, they may choose not to risk much (If at all) pre-Flop.

I can also appreciate that people like Thomas, Bob, The TDA and others have a big job standardising rules (And procedures) for an age-old card game. And try as they might, we still need more.

I can't remember who said it, but the way that the flop is dealt could also hold some answers / problems. In the United States of America, the three flop cards are generally exposed all at the same. However, in the United Kingdom, the three flop cards are generally exposed one at a time. Which could mean, if caught early enough, the error (Of a double burned Flop) can be corrected without exposing any wrongly exposed cards.

Just some food for thought

[Nick C]

Dave_The_Maori,
 Thanks for your input. I agree that a misdeal would be a little too extreme. but I am trying to stick with; cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error occured.
 Your statement;  "Asking pocket Aces to throw in their hand because an error occurred after all hands were dealt." I do agree with you, that's makes a redeal a bad option. As far as the exposed card, when mixing the proper turn with the exposed turn, that is a more comon occurence than two incorrect burn cards. You mention the dealer that flips a card while dealing down cards. We all know what the procedure is; we will replace the exposed card with the next burn. The card was still exposed and will have the same effect, the player holding pocket kings will still know that there is only one king left because the dealer just exchanged it for the burn card. This is no different than having any card exposed. The point is, whenever an error is made, there are consequences.
 
YOUR QUOTE:
The Dealer places cards A and B face down (as burn cards) and cards C, D and E face up (as the Flop). The betting round begins and then I am called for a ruling.
In this example, I would instruct the players to continue with any and all bets and explain that there will NOT be any change to the Turn or River cards. At this time, I would instruct the Dealer to place one of the Burn cards on top of the deck (We ask this as Dealers have a natural tendency to take the top card from the Deck and Burn it).
Dave I understand this procedure, however the "B" card should be on the flop and the "E" card should definitely be the second "burn" and is positively the only card that should NOT be on the board!
 Dave, you also mentioned the way the flop is dealt in different parts of the world.  If we know, with certanty which card is the proper card, why can't we correct it? Bottom line; if the proper cards can be corrected (before action takes place), then fix it.
 I think the current rule can be made better.

[WSOPMcGee]

Thomas, This is from a prior post but, it better explains how I feel about the way the rule is written:
I want to know if you can explain this part of RR:  "if two cards were burned, one of the cards should be put back on the deck and used for the burncard on the next round." The way I see it, if the dealer burns two cards instead of one after the flop, there is no way that the turn card can play. The only certainty would be for the improper turn card to be returned to the deck and used as the final burn before the river. Why wouldn't we choose one of the improper burns as the turn?


 How do you correct two burn cards (three including the correct burn before the flop), and a turn card on the board, with certainty, when noticed before action takes place? One of those cards should be the proper burn and the other the turn, correct? What happens to the exposed turn card?
 I would scramble the two burns, and use one as a burn and the other as the turn card. I would then use the exposed turn card as the final burn (which is where it belonged if no error had occured). The exposed turn card would be placed back on top of the deck, covering the proper river card. After the betting round, the burn would be placed on the board (face down with the other burns) and the proper river card would be dealt. The way I explained it is the easiest way and I think the best way to guarantee at least 80% of the proper board, and very possibly 100%. There is no reshuffle required. The bad part is one card was exposed.

Nick, what you propose and what the rule states is nearly the same. The only difference is there's no scrambling. I agree that there should be an attempt to have 100% of the correct board, however the rule assumes that the burns are either not identifiable or action has happened. Therefore, the exposed turn must stand. The top card of the deck is the True River. Thus, you put one of the burns back on top of the deck to cover the river card and burn for the next round.

You can scramble the burns if you like, but please don't come to my table and pull out 2 of the 3 burn cards shoved under a bunch chips and try to tell me you're 100% certain that these are the two burns out of the 3 that should be scrambled  
Same answer for the river.

You're correct that the bad part is one card has been exposed. But if you scramble the cards, now you've exposed 2 cards, one of the double burns and the exposed turn. I think that has some bearing on the rule as well.

This makes me wonder that if, in the case of Stud, a player who receives an exposed river can declare themselves all-in and are no longer obligated for any further betting, then why don't we do the same for players in flop games where we know the turn/river is 100% not correct.

[Nick C]

Thomas,
 I actually like one of your earlier examples better than the rule;
If the cards are labeled A (burn) B, C, D, (flop) E (burn), F (turn), G (burn), H (river) and the dealer accidentally burns twice or not at all, and action takes place, then action stands and the card error stands. If no action takes place, then the error should be corrected and the proper card placed. In cases where the error can not be corrected because of action or it is not determinable which card is the correct card, then the card in error stands, but an effort will be made to make sure that proper card for future bets is the correct card.

 How does a dealer burn two cards in succession? The cards either stick together, or they are dealt one at a time. I mention this because I don't ever remember this happening to me. If they stick together, hopefully the dealer will notice it before he continues to flop, or turn any card. If the dealer burns one card, and then is somehow interrupted, and forgets to return the burn to the top of the deck....this would be the other possibility. The initial burn card should be placed under one or two chips in the pot. Never burried. The next burn cards should be slid beneath the corner of the preceding burn, or burns, NEVER ON TOP. This action should make it easy to determine which is the proper burn. When the mistake takes place is very important. We all agree that once action takes place, the board stays. I like having the option to correct a mistake when we know with certainty which is the wrong burned card. I don't like a rule that says, we have to follow a certain procedure that could alter the outcome of any deal.
 The rule in Stud; when a players river card is exposed, by the dealer, the player is given the option to declare all-in. They must keep the card, because it was the proper card. The problem that I used to have with this rule was, even though the player with the exposed hand (through no fault of their own), was at a disadvantage, the exposed card could put the other players in a serious unprotected situation. Therefore, I would rather declare no more betting and the best hand wins.

[W0lfster]

Very good rule book Thomas however, I must confess I am very confused with this statement on the etiquette link "A player may not check 'The Nuts' if they are LAST to act. If a player has the best possible hand and cannot be beaten and is last to act, they are obligated to bet." This confuses me as poker is really up to how you want to play and bet your hand.

[Brian Vickers]

Very good rule book Thomas however, I must confess I am very confused with this statement on the etiquette link "A player may not check 'The Nuts' if they are LAST to act. If a player has the best possible hand and cannot be beaten and is last to act, they are obligated to bet." This confuses me as poker is really up to how you want to play and bet your hand.

The reason for this rule is that if a player is the last one to act, and has the best possible hand, then by not betting it would hard to argue that this player is not soft playing the other player(s) in the hand.  This is especially a problem if a player was to check the nuts while last to act against some players but not others.  In order to curb speculation as to intent, it has to be penalized.

I usually give only a one hand penalty for this infraction if it is the first offense.

[Nick C]

Andy and Brian,
 We went over this subject extensively on a prior post, here it is:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=gnm7toigu4nppivn747ga0k0n0&topic=193.0

[WSOPMcGee]

How does a dealer burn two cards in succession? The cards either stick together, or they are dealt one at a time. I mention this because I don't ever remember this happening to me. If they stick together, hopefully the dealer will notice it before he continues to flop, or turn any card. If the dealer burns one card, and then is somehow interrupted, and forgets to return the burn to the top of the deck....this would be the other possibility. The initial burn card should be placed under one or two chips in the pot. Never burried. The next burn cards should be slid beneath the corner of the preceding burn, or burns, NEVER ON TOP. This action should make it easy to determine which is the proper burn. When the mistake takes place is very important. We all agree that once action takes place, the board stays.

Unfortunately, poker is a very imperfect world. No dealer pitches the same, burns the same, flops the same or even pushes the pot the same. The only dealers that do everything exactly the same are online. No two teachers teach the same. Every room has their own rules and procedures. Every gaming commission has their own regulations. Every state has their own gaming laws. With this much bureaucracy for a simple card game, the rules that we try to standardize are not designed to correct an error in the pursuit of perfection. They are designed to mitigate the possible damage.

I too am guilty of trying create a poker utopia. I used to think, "But these are the rules!" "It should be done like this, and never like that!" But I learned quickly that rigidity to the rules, not only closes your own thinking to other opinions, but it also closes off other people from offering their opinions to you.

I like having the option to correct a mistake when we know with certainty which is the wrong burned card.
 I don't like a rule that says, we have to follow a certain procedure that could alter the outcome of any deal.

Luckily, Rule #1 of any poker rules book is clear, we have the right as decision makers (Floor People) to administer the rules with objectivity and fairness.

From the R.O.P.E. - Supervisory Ethics

Decision Making - Management shall reserve the right to make any decision accordingly based on fairness, even if stricter interpretation of the rules would make for a different ruling. Floor Staff are to consider all possible factors before coming to a final decision. Decisions by the Tournament Director and Floor Staff are final.

• When accessing whether to strictly adhere to the enforcement of a rule, Floor Personnel should consider whether enforcement of the rule will be grossly unfair to the affected player and shall have the right to waive said rule as to not adversely affect a player and make a more sportsmanly decision.

Now  I know this is a little bit of a tangent... the point is, even though our rules have some pretty straight forward language, there is added flexibility within the rules that allows us to make the fairest decision possible.

I wouldn't fault any supervisor for following the strict rule as its outlined or attempting to achieve 100% correctness of the board by an alternate procedure or ruling after confirming with the dealer that Card E belongs as the burn and Card F is belongs as the turn and determining with certainty that Card X and Card Y are identifiable as Card E and Card F.

As a player I can live with any ruling that is made in good faith and sportsmanlike.

[Nick C]

Thomas,
I agree with most of what you say. However, the rules that pertain to too many cards on the flop (for example), don't give an option for rule number 1. It is clear and states; This is the procedure with no other options. I will repeat part of my quote:
If we know, with certanty which card is the proper card, why can't we correct it? RRoP and R.O.P.E. don't indicate that there is any other accepted procedure, and that is my reason for objection. The rule does not say; do what's best. It says; you must do it this way!
 

[chet]

Nick:

I am sorry, but I must disagree with your position regarding rule rigidity and TDA Rule #1.  You say, "...rules that pertain to too many cards on the flop (for example), don't give an option for rule number 1..." 

The second sentence of TDA Rule #1 says, "Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules."

For the past several days you have been quite adamant about dealers being prohibited from turning over a players cards if that player fails to do so in an all-in situation (to which TDA Rule #9 applies).  I cannot find any such rule and neither can you.  You have said that most all dealer manuals prohibit a dealer from turning over a players cards.  I submit that what you are referring to is not a "rule" but a "procedure".  Even if it is a rule somewhere, I believe I can apply TDA Rule #1 and instruct my dealers to turn over a players cards in this circumstance if the player refuses to do so.

This is ALL the justification a TD needs.  Nothing more needs to be said, in my opinion.

[Nick C]

Chet,
 I never disagreed with Rule #1. I was refering to any rule that says you must "scramble all 4 cards" and have a supervisor select the card to be the burn (for example) even when the correct card can be determined. Rule #1 is my favorite. I just want something to back it up.
 It is quite obvious how much I enjoy this Discussion Forum. I have a great deal of time that I can devote to it. I have also learned a lot about tournaments that I never experienced before mainly because of the unbelievable number of contestants. I commend any and all of the floorpersons and especially the TD's that are responsible for coordinating these events.
 When it comes to dealing, I still train student dealers and consider myself an expert when teaching the fundamentals. My students are taught the proper mechanical skills required like the shuffle and pitch, for example. I also know that a good dealer needs to have a complete understanding and knowledge of the game, to add to his skills, so they can control the game.
 You continue to challenge me when I say that the dealer should NEVER turn over any players down cards that are live. If you look at any of my posts on this subject, I have not wavered. I am an expert when it comes to poker dealing. I also said that if someone makes it a rule, that states; at the showdown when the owner of a called hand refuses to table their cards, the dealer MUST! (for tournaments only). Then we can have another new rule to argue over.
 One of the most talked about events was the incident in Barcelona. I'm not going over it again but, if the dealer hadn't turned over the mucked card, it would have been a much easier call for the floor.
 It is up to the rulemakers to change, or amend an existing rule. It is not up to a good dealer to rescind a showdown fundamental they learned in dealing school.
 Chet, put the damn rule in writing. That's all, simple.
You certainly can not expect every dealer to go against everything they have been taught, because you assume TDA rule #9 implies that they should? You say that I can't find any rules, well I have too many to list but , I'll try again.


THE PROFESSIONAL POKER DEALER'S HANDBOOK
Under Sequence of events; (in part) Dealers, read any hand as soon as it's shown, but do not attempt to read a hand until the player turns up all his cards, and never turn up any players cards on your own. Another section under Dealer Information: "One player to a hand rule" dictates that they should be turned up by that player. Anyone other than the hand's owner who turns up a card is helping that player to play his hand. It's bad enough when another player does this, but it's unforgivable if the dealer does it.

Chuck Ferry's excellent book THE COMPLETE POKER ROOM  under procedures: I quote: "Only the player may expose his own hand."

Let's not forget the WSOP Dealer Reference Guide; The dealer is NOT permitted to turn a player's cards up for them.
If you want more, I'll find it.

[chet]

Nick:  I don't disagree with what the dealer instructions books say, I have a copy of the PPDH.  All I am saying is that what you find in the dealer books are NOT RULES, they are procedures.  I may be all wrong, but in my opinion, RULES trump procedures.  While adding to the rule would simplify this (and make this discussion moot  , I don't think it is necessary, but that is just my opinion.  I will try to justify this one LAST time with the following:

a)  The dealer is the person at the table with the ultimate responsibility to ensure the rules are followed,
b)  A player either refuses or fails to turn up his/her hand in an all-in situation to which Rule #9 applies.

Since the dealer is responsible for ensuring the rules are followed, in my opinion it is a natural progression for the dealer to turn the offending players cards face up in order to comply with the rule.   

That said, we can agree to disagree.

[Nick C]

Chet,
 I have agreed with you on a number of posts. This however is not one of them. You are wrong. Period. The dealer should call the floor when a tournament player fails to turn over their own hand and awaite further instructions. The duty of the dealer is to be sure that the hand is identifiable and does not go into the muck. If instructed to table the hand, by the floor, then he may do so. The dealer has no more "right" to turn over a player's hand than an opposing player.