Author Topic: Dealer Accidentally Kills "Protected" vs. "Unprotected" Cards Question...  (Read 7414 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
The TDA received an interesting inquiry today, posted anonymously below so the discussion can benefit everyone.
**************START*****************

I was involved in a heated debate in a forum pertaining to a specific question on the TDA test The actual question follows:

[Question deleted as verbatim test material cannot be posted in this forum]


The debate centered on whether the cards were protected & whether the player would be due redress.

My interpretation of all rules I have researched specifically state the a player is responsible for protecting their hand, and if they FAIL to do so, the player is due no redress.

I maintain that the player did, in fact, protect his cards, by placing a protector (or card cap, according to WSOP rules) on the cards, and therefore IS due redress.

Another part of the debate pertained to what the redress would be. My feeling is, if the cards are easily identifiable, they should be returned to the player, to finish the hand, since this was a clear dealer error. I am curious what your stance would be if they are not identifiable.

I truly feel that the intent of this specific question was, for a situation where the cards WERE NOT protected. In that case, X would be the correct answer.

I look forward to your response, and truly appreciate you taking the time to review my inquiry.

Thank you!

Name Withheld
Tournament Director, Dealer, & player

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
My interpretation of all rules I have researched specifically state the a player is responsible for protecting their hand, and if they FAIL to do so, the player is due no redress.
I agree.

Quote
I maintain that the player did, in fact, protect his cards, by placing a protector (or card cap, according to WSOP rules) on the cards, and therefore IS due redress.

I don't think this statement, which is essentially the converse of the statement above, is necessarily true or follows conventional thinking on the subject.  

Just because a player takes some act of 'protecting' his cards does not mean he is entitled to relief if his cards end up in the muck.  

The real question is whether the placement of a chip or some other object on cards should be considered an action that should be sufficient to discharge the player's duty to protect his own hand. While there may have been some disagreement on this issue in the past, I believe the current widely-held view is that cards that unintentionally find their way into the muck, necessarily, must not have been adequately protected -- otherwise they would not be in the muck.

Unless the dealer maliciously ripped cards right out of a player's hands, ultimately the player is wholly responsible to ensure that his cards do not end up in the muck unless he intends that the cards be there. Let's face it: no one but the player has final physical control over where cards end up after those cards are pitched to him by the dealer. Therefore, the player really needs to bear the final responsibility for the hand, unfortunately, even if dealer error is involved and the hand gets mucked.

This usually means that players may need to keep a hand on their cards to protect them, if a chip alone might not be enough to adequately protect the cards -- certainly having something on top of the cards will reduce the risk of cards being accidentally mucked, but it is important to educate players that even that may not eliminate the risk completely, especially if the player is sitting beside the dealer. (It also doesn't help that some players like to place their blind/wager on top of their cards and push them forward when they fold, which is a horrible practice that also confuses dealers).

I do not see a problem with returning the cards to the player if they are clearly identifiable and retrievable.  Also, if the dealer did something very egregious, I have observed some venues consider doing something like providing a refund of a tournament entry or something like that off the table.  However, when it comes to making the ruling at the table, whenever cards that have not been tabled are mixed in with mucked cards, the hand would be dead.  The cards should never be fished from the muck. To preserve game integrity, there can be no other solution.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 08:36:50 AM by K-Lo »

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
My interpretation of all rules I have researched specifically state the a player is responsible for protecting their hand, and if they FAIL to do so, the player is due no redress.
I agree.

Quote
I maintain that the player did, in fact, protect his cards, by placing a protector (or card cap, according to WSOP rules) on the cards, and therefore IS due redress.

I don't think this statement, which is essentially the converse of the statement above, is necessarily true or follows conventional thinking on the subject.  

Just because a player takes some act of 'protecting' his cards does not mean he is entitled to relief if his cards end up in the muck.  

The real question is whether the placement of a chip or some other object on cards should be considered an action that should be sufficient to discharge the player's duty to protect his own hand. While there may have been some disagreement on this issue in the past, I believe the current widely-held view is that cards that unintentionally find their way into the muck, necessarily, must not have been adequately protected -- otherwise they would not be in the muck.

Unless the dealer maliciously ripped cards right out of a player's hands, ultimately the player is wholly responsible to ensure that his cards do not end up in the muck unless he intends that the cards be there. Let's face it: no one but the player has final physical control over where cards end up after those cards are pitched to him by the dealer. Therefore, the player really needs to bear the final responsibility for the hand, unfortunately, even if dealer error is involved and the hand gets mucked.

This usually means that players may need to keep a hand on their cards to protect them, if a chip alone might not be enough to adequately protect the cards -- certainly having something on top of the cards will reduce the risk of cards being accidentally mucked, but it is important to educate players that even that may not eliminate the risk completely, especially if the player is sitting beside the dealer. (It also doesn't help that some players like to place their blind/wager on top of their cards and push them forward when they fold, which is a horrible practice that also confuses dealers).

I do not see a problem with returning the cards to the player if they are clearly identifiable and retrievable.  Also, if the dealer did something very egregious, I have observed some venues consider doing something like providing a refund of a tournament entry or something like that off the table.  However, when it comes to making the ruling at the table, whenever cards that have not been tabled are mixed in with mucked cards, the hand would be dead.  The cards should never be fished from the muck. To preserve game integrity, there can be no other solution.

^ This shall save me so much typing time, K-Lo is spot on.

I remember a thread which stated "if I'm all in the dealer would have to rip the cards from my hands to get them in the muck" - now that's protected, just because a card-guard is on top of the cad doesn't necessarily mean the cards are protected and it should not be attributed to dealer error either, but maintained as a player not protecting their rights and responsibilities.

Stuart

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3293
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Dealer Accidentally Kills "Protected" vs. "Unprotected" Cards Question...
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2013, 08:16:28 AM »
Another excellent response from Ken. If I can add anything, I'd like to mention that hole cards in stud are considered protected by the door card, and any up cards that follow. There is no need for card protectors, or no need to hold your hole cards. Any dealer who kills a properly protected hand represents the "house" and the innocent victim of the error should be compensated.

 Players who fail to protect their cards, as mentioned, will have no redress for any damage caused by their own negligence.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Dealer Accidentally Kills "Protected" vs. "Unprotected" Cards Question...
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2013, 11:28:25 AM »
K-Lo nailed it.  :)
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Dealer Accidentally Kills "Protected" vs. "Unprotected" Cards Question...
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2013, 02:21:10 AM »
This follows the old adage: "If the cards are in the muck, then they weren't protected".
@wsopmcgee on Twitter