Protected Hand

[pineforest]

Hi All,
What is a protected hand?

RULE # 39. Unprotected Hands
If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets. However, if a player had raised and the raise had not yet been called, the raise will be returned to the player.

What if a dealer mucks a hand that had a "card protector" on them to protect them?

Example:
Tounnament, Blinds 400 - 800.  The turn is out and action is happening.
Player A bets 1200, player B calls, player C raises to 4200.  Player D calls 4200. Suddenly the dealer accidently grabs player C's cards even though the cards had a "card protector" on them and muck the cards and they are unretrievable.

My first inclination is to say sorry the 4200 must be surrendered to the pot per TDA Rule #39.  But then the dealer  and everyone else at the table says the cards were protected with a card protector.  I guess if the dealer is able to get the cards into the muck the hand must have been unprotected. Is this correct?

I look forward to your responces.  Have fun.

[WSOPMcGee]

Thank you dealer, we have someone to relieve you now 

I'm thinking some really crazy thoughts. Pulling cards out of the muck. Pulling out all the betting of player C minus the minimum call. Chopping the pot. Letting side action continue and then chopping the main pot with all players.

See!! I told ya it was crazy!!

Most likely stopping all the action right there and chopping the pot between all remaining players in the hand.

[pineforest]

WOW!
That sounds crazy to me.

What is a protected hand.  I''m leaning towards any hand that the dealer can grab and get into the muck b4 a player says anything.

[Stuart Murray]

Crazy, indeed, these things do happen though,

Id refer you to a recent post where I quoted a fellow cardroom manager who said in the most brutal but straight down the line modes:

"If the dealer can swipe your cards they ain't protected"

Harsh but true.  I would stick to rule 39.  IF and it's a big if the dealer swipes the cards with 'malicious intent' then and only then would I consider something else outside a perfectly good rule.

Regards
Stuart

[WSOPMcGee]

The same exact discussion is going on in this thread: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=301.0

I'm not completely in agreement with the logic, that if the dealer can swipe your cards from you, then they are unprotected. If that's the case, why do we ask players to put card caps, chips or other, on top of their cards? Seems pointless to ask players to do such, and tell them it's to protect their cards and then in the same breathe tell them, but if the dealer can grab them, even with a card cap, they must've been unprotected.

Though that is what others are leaning towards in the other thread.

If there's one thing that drives me nearly insane more than anything else, it's following the rules, doing everything that you're supposed to do, and have an unforeseen circumstance happen that the rules makers didn't think of (or did but did nothing to remedy it) and have them tell me, "well I'm so sorry but there's nothing we can do". Really?     There's absolutely nothing that can be done?

[Nick C]

 Any player that has a protected hand killed by the dealer, should get a complete refund of chips wagered during that deal. I have never heard of this happening in many years of dealing. I'm sure it could happen but, I hope it would be a very rare occurrance. Innocent players need some protection, and it should begin with a compitent dealer. Some of the suggestions (chopping the pot) work better in cash games, where only the players in that particular hand, have an interest in the pot. Pineforest's original question has gone beyond a redeal but that could be another possibility if action has not begun. Taking cards out of the discards is not an option, unless they are the first two cards establishing the "muck."

[WSOPMcGee]

One other thing I wanted to add as food for thought when considering this type of  situation or any other decisions you inevitably will come across - I think Chuck Ferry said it best: "The Rules are designed to define correct procedure and provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. The Rules are primarily designed, not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage."

Clearly this situation is an "irregularity" and there has been "damage" to player who had their cards mucked by a member of the tournament staff. Including self-dealt bar leagues or other such league.

[MikeB]

Forest: Thanks for the thread....

I'm in a rush to get back to the KU vs. CU game given that Pitt just lost and Texas is losing... but felt this should be added to the discussion:
1) There is no CONSENSUS AGREEMENT that I'm aware of as to a) what a protected hand is, if any and b) what the remedy difference should be between protected vs. unprotected.
2) To this point this is one of those issues where you're going to have about 33% for one defition and remedy, and about 33% for each of two other defintitions and remedies..

BUT... regardless where you come down on the issue, we can all agree that no hand "deserves" to be scooped, it is one of the worst things that can happen in a game...

So, with sympathies for anyone losing their hand when it was unintended, I would like to add that A) it is obviously cleaner from a TD standpoint to just say any hand that was snatched was not sufficiently protected (rather than parsing whether it met a protection standard or not) AND B) it's cleaner from TD management standard if the remedy is the same AND C) if you start declaring one hand protected and the other not protected, then you're going to have to micro-parse that and explain to the players why they did or didn't reach the standard of protected.... One of the worst things about a rule is if it can't be evenly applied. We CAN evenly apply a rule that says there's no such thing as a protected hand being snatched, and that for all hands snatched the remedy is the same...

And I'm on the side that if we could come up with a workable definition and remedy for protected, I'd be well in favor of it....

It will be interesting watching the comments on this thread, and I'll predict in advance that nothing close to consensus will emerge, but it would be an advancement for the game if I was proven wrong

[chet]

My 2 cents worth is such:

If I am playing and I have a live hand, I almost ALWAYS have a hand on my hole cards.  Usually my left index finger is on top,  my thumb along the edge closest to my stack and my left ring finger along the edge furthest from my stack.  Once in a great while, if I remove my hand, I will place a stack (usually an inch or more high) of chips on top, but if I do that I make damn sure my cards are so close to my stack it will be very difficult if not impossible for the dealer to grab them without making a commotion.

Before I started this habit/practice, I had a dealer grab my UNPROTECTED hole cards from seat #10 in error.  I said to self, NEVER AGAIN will that happen.

If you have a good hold on your cards and nicely/politely/without threat, explain to the dealer that removing them from your grasp will tend to cause said dealer great bodily harm, I predict you will not have a problem.  Remember, to be like Telly Savalas, whose said something like, "I don't make threats, I issue prophesies".  Be Nice and say it with a SMILE!!

[Dave Lamb]

Take your best shot at writing the protected hand rule that encompasses all of these:

1) Player leaves the cards out near the center of the table and the dealer scoops them.
2) Player has a card cap on his hand and mumbles something, dealer thought he said "pass" and scoops them into the muck.
3) Player receives his last card in stud, player next to him folds and dealer accidently mixes the active player's downcards into the muck.
4) Player bets all-in, before anyone calls, the cards are swept into the muck.
5) Player is called all-in, and before the flop, cards are swept.
The scooped hand is always a tough situation. I do not think we can write a rule that will define the difference between protected cards and cards that the dealer can muck/scoop/foul. Ultimately, if the dealer was able to navigate your hand into the muck, then it must not have been protected.  
We can make decisions in the interest of fairness when, after hearing the evidence, we are certain that one player has been wronged or another player stands to receive an unfair benefit or advantage. I believe that is what TD's are currently doing when faced with the awful decisions surrounding scooped hands- it may be the best solution.  

[Nick C]

Dave,
 Many years ago when I was dealing in Las Vegas, the main game was seven card stud. In fact, in the late 70's and early 80's many rooms did not even have hold'em. In stud, hole cards are considered protected. The scariest part was a ruling that could kill a players hand if his up-cards were fouled by another player. Writing a rule that covers all of the circumstances that you describe is difficult because we are trying to cover everything in too short of a ruling. You have listed five different situations and #'s 1, 4 and 5 are all the players resposibility, therefore those hands are DEAD, and their chips remain in the pot. In #'s 2 and 3, both hands are DEAD but the hands were protected. Therefore, I think the players should get all of their chips returned to them. The two most iimportant lessons that I try to impose on a new dealer to pass along to the players is; protect your own hand and Act in turn. Holding your down cards with one hand, so other players and the dealer know you are in the hand, is the best way to defend against the dealer, or a player fouling the hand.