Author Topic: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt  (Read 10749 times)

Rbud

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« on: February 01, 2012, 03:19:34 PM »
Hi there.

This is my first post on this forum.
I've been TD since 2007 and for baby birth reasons i've been away of rooms about 2 years.

When i back, i meet this "new" (for me) concept about substantial action.

Let me tell you in wich situation this occurs...

Early stages of a MTT.
The dealer didn't noticed that the button wasn't "walks" - even the players. The blinders act in proper manner, but the button were freezed. The dealer begans to deal the cards to the first player after the button, as usual.

The UTG acts (check).
The UTG +1 acts (bet).
The third player to act points the button and shows the irregularity.

The floor were called and on basis of the Substantial Action, the button were placed on right place and the action restarts.

My point is:

If the players must play with your own cards, how the substantial action can bypass the most important thing (in my opinion) that is "the right cards on right places"?

I mean, is like to say: i dont care if the players are with cards that dont belongs to them.

IMHO, thinking on a hierarchy of the game rules, the substantial action only must be applied if the are NO irregularities on the "dealing and blinds phase".

What do you think?  ???



K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2012, 04:04:39 PM »
Hi Rbud:  Welcome to the forum.  :)

Your specific example is a bit confusing to me because it seems like UTG checked, but he should be calling the Big Blind.  In any case though, as I understand your general question, the button was not moved after the previous hand was over, and the next hand that should have been called a misdeal was permitted to continue because "substantial action" had already taken place.  It appears to me that your question is: why is this the case, since the players aren't playing with the cards that they would have been dealt if the button was in the proper place.

In general, I think it is critical to note that each and every player at the table shares the responsiblity to ensure that a deal proceeds as it should if no errors had occurred, which also includes correct placement of the dealer button.  Sure, it is part of the dealer's job, but every player is also equally responsible to prevent irregularities from occurring.  This is to protect everyone in the tournament.  We also want to encourage players to bring attention to any potential irregularities as soon as possible.  Furthermore, players who know that an irregularity has occurred (or as another example, that there is a problem with the deck) should not be allowed to benefit from that knowledge by withholding that information.

If substantial action occurs, it is too late to call a misdeal.   The hand should be played out, and the position of the button corrected after the hand is over.   If this was not the rule, it would not provide anyone with the proper incentive to speak up when an irregularity has occurred.   

Suppose, in theory, that the rule was that a misdeal would be called anytime something went wrong in the "dealing and blinds phase" no matter when the error was discovered.  A player could choose to say nothing because he has a "good hand".  Then later, if he doesn't like how the hand is evolving (e.g. he bets, someone else goes all-in, he doesn't want to call but he also doesn't want to lose his bet), he could point out that the button was in the wrong position.  Should he be entitled to get his bets back, and the hand cancelled?   On the other hand, if he is able to win the pot, should we reward the player for saying nothing and not bringing the irregularity to the attention of the table? 

We don't want to promote this behavior - it is not in the best interests of the game.  For me at least, this is enough reason to justify the "substantial action" principle when it comes to deciding whether or not a misdeal should be called.  I'm sure some of the other TDs on here will have additional thoughts.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2012, 04:38:43 PM »
Welcome Rbud,
 I will have to agree with K-Lo, your post is a bit confusing because of the "check" by UTG. If he called the BB we would have substantial action with the call of UTG+1. Therefore the response from UTG+2 would be meaningless, the play would have to continue.

* Let's look at the other scenario if the UTG folded and the hand proceeded as you mentioned, with the UTG+1 calling the BB. The action of the UTG+2 would have prevented substantial action (by definition) from happening allowing for a misdeal and correcting the button.
*PLEASE NOTE THIS ANSWER IS INCORRECT! My answer was based on Version 1 of the 2011 TDA rules. The original definition was changed in the current Version 2.0.

 K-Lo raises a very interesting situation where the UTG+2 could actually dictate whether the hand would continue, or not. If he doesn't like his hand he calls attention to the error, if he likes his hand, he calls or raises and play continues.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 06:48:54 AM by Nick C »

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2012, 04:44:02 PM »
K-Lo has it: I will just offer the TDA rule to the discussion.

32:   Substantial Action.
Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

Rbud

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2012, 11:59:36 AM »
Yes, my bad.

The first with the action had called.

@K-Lo

> every player is also equally responsible to prevent irregularities from occurring (agree)
>  A player could choose to say nothing because he has a "good hand".  Then later, if he doesn't like how the hand is evolving (e.g. he bets, someone else goes all-in, he doesn't want to call but he also doesn't want to lose his bet), he could point out that the button was in the wrong position. (now i have a "susbtantial explain" to justify the Subs Action)

@ Nick C

> As i said, my bad, the first to act had called.
>  Let's look at the other scenario if the UTG folded and the hand proceeded as you mentioned, with the UTG+1 calling the BB. The action of the UTG+2 would have prevented substantial action (by definition) from happening allowing for a misdeal and correcting the button. (correct)

@ Dave Lamb

> i've read that rule, but i wish to know for wich reason the Subs Action rule can override the rule that all players must have to play with your
 own cards. K-Lo shows me a good reason for that.


Well tyvm for all replies, im glad for that.

Cya next time.
GL all.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 12:00:58 PM by Rbud »

ew2484

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2012, 12:20:28 PM »
What about this one? sorta opposite of the topic, No suvstantial action x Right cards dealt x wrong blinds

Player in the BB busted, next hand is one big bling. Dealer does not announce one big blind and players put out sb/bb and dealer deals the cards. 6 handed. UTG folds, UTG + 1 folds, next player to act notices that it should be 1 bb and calls the floor. It is determined that there isnt substantial action - two players folding - calls for a missdeal. It is now realized that all the players have the correct cards but the blinds are incorrect. Adjusting the blinds to make the sb the bb and giving the old bb the chance to now act utg on his hand after he seeing two players fold in front of him seems like an unfair advantage. The player that called the floor was upset because of the missdeal pointing out that players have the correct cards. Would anyone adjust the blinds in this situation with no substantial action to allow this hand to be played out?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2012, 12:27:58 PM »
Interesting but I would definitely not rule a misdeal and the blinds should be corrected.


***PLEASE NOTE THIS ANSWER IS WRONG
K-Lo pointed out that the first card would be going to the wrong player because the SB should have been the dealer. So, without substantial action the hand must be redealt.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 07:31:03 PM by Nick C »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2012, 01:11:57 PM »
What about this one? sorta opposite of the topic, No suvstantial action x Right cards dealt x wrong blinds
Player in the BB busted, next hand is one big bling. Dealer does not announce one big blind and players put out sb/bb and dealer deals the cards. 6 handed. UTG folds, UTG + 1 folds, next player to act notices that it should be 1 bb and calls the floor. It is determined that there isnt substantial action - two players folding - calls for a missdeal. It is now realized that all the players have the correct cards but the blinds are incorrect. Adjusting the blinds to make the sb the bb and giving the old bb the chance to now act utg on his hand after he seeing two players fold in front of him seems like an unfair advantage. The player that called the floor was upset because of the missdeal pointing out that players have the correct cards. Would anyone adjust the blinds in this situation with no substantial action to allow this hand to be played out?

In my view, this is a clear misdeal.  The cards should be taken in and the blinds (and button) properly posted.  The key, I believe, to understanding the (imo) correct decision is not to focus on the blinds or cards, but to focus on the position of the button.

Consider the following example.  Assume that this was the situation before the BB busted:
Seat 1:  Button
Seat 2:  Small Blind
Seat 3:  Big Blind
Seat 4:  UTG
Seat 5:  UTG+1

Then, according to ew's example, Seat 3 (BB) busts.  The correct placement of the button on the next hand should be:

Seat 1:  cutoff
Seat 2:  Button
Seat 3:  vacant (dead small)
Seat 4:  Big Blind
Seat 5:  UTG

However, by posting both small and big blinds, with Seat 4 being SB instead of a single BB, the Button is effectively in Seat 3 incorrectly, not seat #2:

Seat 2:  (button should have been here)
Seat 3:  vacant/dead Button (error)
Seat 4:  Small Blind
Seat 5:  Big Blind

Therefore, since there has not yet been substantial action, this is a misdeal given that the button was out of position (RROP Section 3, Misdeals).

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2012, 04:18:06 PM »
Let's look at the other scenario if the UTG folded and the hand proceeded as you mentioned, with the UTG+1 calling the BB. The action of the UTG+2 would have prevented substantial action (by definition) from happening allowing for a misdeal and correcting the button.

Nick - I believe this is also substantial action under current TDA rules:  i.e. fold-call is substantial action (two actions one involving chips).  If both UTG and UTG+1 folded, then there would not yet be substantial action.  k

Rbud

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2012, 04:32:49 PM »
If all seated players must BB and SB (with the Dead Button Rule), its seems to me a misdeal too.


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action X Wrong cards dealt
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2012, 06:20:46 PM »
K-Lo,
 I think you are correct on your post #7. I will give it a better look later when I have time but, I believe your definition of substantial action is incorrect. Two players must both put chips into the pot or any three players acting. Example; bet and call, or bet and raise, otherwise the third player must act.

UPON FURTHER REVIEW both of my answers are wrong. I've just realized that the TDA rule #32 (formerly #33 in version 1.0) was changed. I have been basing many of my answers regarding substantial action on the words of Matt Savage and the first edition of the new rules from July 30, 2011. Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two players each putting chips in the pot (bet, raise, or call); or B) any combination of three actions (check, bet, raise4, call, or fold).
 On day two of the Summit, the question was put to Matt Savage regarding whether a check and a bet was considered substantial action, and he said, and I quote "NO, a bet and a call is two actions with chips."

I will now take a little vacation from the Forum. There is more participation needed from the BOD, especially when the wrong information is passed along to members looking for answers.                    
                            
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 04:39:16 AM by Nick C »