Misdeal - 3 cards dealt to 1 player (NL Holdem)

[jim.eckerson@gmail.com]

I need to see what the correct ruling is for 2 situations. (No Limit Holdem)

Cards are dealt to all players at the table.

Situation #1 - A player looks at his/her cards and notices that they have 3 cards and has not acted.

Situation #2 - Players looks at his/her cards and places a bet. Flop comes out and a player now notices that they have 3 cards.

I have ruled the following.

Situation #1 - Since the player has not acted this is a misdeal, all bets are returned and the hand is restarted.

Situation #2 - This hand is dead, all chips placed into the pot remain in the pot and action continues.

I make these rulings on 2 theories.

Situation #1 - Most players do not look at their cards until it is their turn to act, and until a player realizes that they have 3 cards before they act they do not have liability to the misdeal.

Situation #2 - Since it is the players responsibility to protect their hand and be sure they have the correct amount of cards, once they have acted they are now assuming the responsibility of having the correct amount of cards in their hand and now have no redress and can not call a misdeal. Their hand is now dead and all chips placed in the pot remain in the pot and action continues for the hand.

Am I correct in these rulings or am I missing something?

Thanks 

[Nick C]

Welcome Jim,

 Your first situation is very similar to the second. It's unfortunate when the dealer gives too many cards to a player but, in my opinion both hands are dead unless the error is noticed before the player picks up the cards. Let's say that the dealer is dealing the final down card and a player notices an extra card dealt to him but still clearly on the table. If caught in time, before substantial action takes place, there might be a possibility to correct the error and retract the card, or push it to the proper player. In all other situations, it is the players responsibility to be certain that they have the proper number of cards or, like you said...they have no redress and their hand is dead.

 When you say Player A, if that is the under the gun position, you might be able to justify a misdeal because no action has taken place...but I prefer killing the hand.

[jim.eckerson@gmail.com]

Thanks Nick

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you when 3 cards are visible and to correct it.

My concern is when cards actually stick together (very rare, but it happens), and I probably should have said that in the first post. (My bad and I'll take the heat for it)

As I said, if the player notices it before he/she acts, it certainly isn't their fault. But, once they do act and then notice it they just took on that liability and only that players hand would be dead.

If there is an issue with sticky cards the dealer needs to get replacement decks to him PDQ.

[MikeB]

Cards are dealt to all players at the table....

Situation #1 - A player looks at his/her cards and notices that they have 3 cards and has not acted.

Situation #2 - Players looks at his/her cards and places a bet. Flop comes out and a player now notices that they have 3 cards.

Hi Jim. In Situation 1, according to TDA rules, it depends on whether substantial action (SA) has occurred or not. See 2011 TDA Rule 31 "Misdeals" (number will change in the 2013 rules no doubt). Rule 31 is not intended to be an exhaustive list of misdeal conditions as those are covered extensively in the conventional rules, hence "...misdeals include but are not necessarily limited to...". A very commonly recognized misdeal condition is when a hand has more cards than it should; see RRoP Section 3, Misdeals, 2-e for example.

Back to TDA Rule 31: "If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed." This is the main point of the rule: after SA happens the hand must proceed. SA is then defined in the next rule (32: Substantial Action) as any two actions, one of which puts chips in the pot, or 3 actions without chips.

In your OP you say that all cards have been dealt out, but you do not say whether any action has occurred, only that the player with 3 cards hasn't acted. Bottom line: The correct ruling under TDA 31 is to declare a misdeal if SA hasn't occurred, or to kill the hand if SA has occurred.

I have ruled the following.

Situation #1 - Since the player has not acted this is a misdeal, all bets are returned and the hand is restarted.

Situation #2 - This hand is dead, all chips placed into the pot remain in the pot and action continues.

According to TDA, the correct decision factor is not whether the player has acted, but whether SA has occurred at the table or not.

I make these rulings on 2 theories.

Situation #1 - Most players do not look at their cards until it is their turn to act, and until a player realizes that they have 3 cards before they act they do not have liability to the misdeal.

This is actually the rule in some venues, that SA will not be declared until the bet has gone fully around the table one time, in order to "give players a chance to look at their cards in turn". It was considered for discussion at the 2013 TDA Summit, however there are several conceptual problems with it. 1) Nothing precludes players from looking at their hand before action comes to them, it's just a practice they choose; 2) They don't have to look at the face of their cards to see they have a different color back or in the case in the OP, an incorrect number of cards; 3) Not locking in the deal after SA allows for some unlikely but possible angle shots that a player who knows a misdeal condition exists might choose to keep quiet about, play their hand in some fashion, then bring attention to the misdeal if they don't like the way the betting is going before it returns to the BB (in holdem for example).  

The Association re-affirmed the misdeal and SA language as-is at Summit VI in 2013.

Thanks for the great question Jim. Listing more misdeal and fouled-hand conditions may be subjects for Summit VII.

[K-Lo]

Agreed with everything Mike has said.  The most persuasive argument that makes me want to kill the hand after substantial action has occured is to avoid giving a player a free roll... If everyone folds to him and he has a chance to bet and take the pot uncontested, he may say nothing, but if there is action to him, he can effect a misdeal. 

I am seeing a lot of players these days justifying not protecting their hand to ensure they have been dealt a valid hand with  "I don't look at my cards before it is my turn" as if it is some rule.  Respectfully, there is no such rule, and if you choose to wait, you do so AYOR.