One card on the button

[Nick C]

Chet,

 I know how you feel but you've still not answered how you would proceed after killing the button's hand.

Ken,

 If the button player deliberately tried to hide a card under the rail so he could get another, I would take him out in the parking lot and.... Seriously speaking, assuming that your situation was a case of accidental placement of the second card, and the flop is dealt, I would probably suspend further betting and let the best hand win, substantial action or not. My original answer to the post was based on the button not getting his second card. I'm not going to say this is common but, if the dealer fails to give all players their second card, the button position is where it will occur. 
 My answer would never apply if we discovered that the second card was ditched, or passed along to another, or any other sort of unscrupulous or suspicious action from the dealer or player.

[Tristan]

Nick,

I just read a situation on 2+2 forums where a player won a hand with only 1 card because they were only dealt one on the button and they never said anything.  They decided they wanted to see if they could get everyone to fold and played their hand like they had a pocket pair and flopped a set.

When everyone folded to the player's bet, the player exposed their one card.  The dealer laughed and pushed the player the pot, not bringing it to the floor's attention.

If the dealer had called you over, at that point, what would you have ruled?

What would you have ruled if it was discovered that the player only had one card before the action was complete?  Say that, on the flop with 2 players in the hand, the first player bets, the button (with only 1 card) raises, and then the other player notices the button has only one card and calls you over.  What ruling would you give?

[chet]

Nick:

I would either:

A.  Give the button player his 2nd card, but only after ruling the hand dead, OR
B.  Rule the hand dead, place the one card in the muck and then put the top card off the deck into the muck.

Whichever you do doesn't matter to me, but then the flop (and the rest of the hand) get the correct cards (assuming no other screwups).

This situation is not all the unusual, I have probably seen the button ending up with only 1 card at least a half dozen time in the last year in live casino cash games.  As far as I am concerned it is that players responsibility to ensure the validity of his hand and failure to timely notify the dealer of the problem results in a dead hand.  If he has put chips in the pot, too damn bad they stay in the pot.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet:

 I agree with your answers A & B because this will assure the proper flop. However I do not agree with killing the hand, if it is discovered (only one card for the button) before the flop.

Tristan: Your first situation where the player played the hand and won the pot only holding one card, I would have awarded the pot to the button because everyone else folded. What I didn't like was the dealer making the decision. He should have called the floor...and why would any player expose their one card after they won the pot?

 The second situation is different. After the flop I would rule the Button's hand dead.

 How would you rule in a 7 card stud game, when it is discovered that the eight seat player only has six cards at showdown? I say he is entitled to his proper card as long as the betting round is not complete. If discovered at the showdown it's too late, but his hand should remain live. Same situation, different game.

[K-Lo]

7-card stud is different.

Let's use Robert's Rules as a reference.  It is pretty clear from the Rules that a player needs to have the proper number of cards, no more no less, and that the hand does not contain e.g. a joker, for a player to win the pot.  I don't think this is an unfair rule.

For 7-card stud, the Rules explicitly provide for an exception to this. A 6-card hand could still be entitled to win a hand, at the tournament director's discretion. This is primarily because the player's 6 cards could already have made an unbeatable hand, one so dominating that they may not be paying attention to the seventh card.  There is no similar exception set out for No Limit Hold'em.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the standard approach in this case (i.e. button's hand will be dead if substantal action has already occurred, even if the board cards may potentially be "off" by 1 card in the deck, which we cannot know for certain anyway until a count of the deck is done).  I don't think that expecting the button to pay attention to the deal and to bring up the fact that he is missing a card ASAP is an onerous obligation, and we are really only resorting to killing the hand where there has been a substantial delay that the player could easily have prevented by paying attention.

[Nick C]

Ken,

 I realize that 7 card stud is different from no limit hold'em. However, there are many situations where you can argue that, one card in your hand can still allow a player to have a nut hand.

 Another factor to consider is the button player being next to last to act. I know of many player's that do not react on their hands until it is their turn to act...so recognizing substantial action, before the button player's turn to act, should not warrant killing the hand. Why not give him his proper card? You said: " even if the board cards may potentially be "off" by 1 card in the deck." Would you really feel more comfortable knowing that 3 board cards would be incorrect if the hand were played out? That's right...3. Not only will the flop be incorrect, the turn and river cards will also be incorrect.

 The original question should allow us to offer a simple solution when we know that the button was skipped his second down card.

 Full table pre-flop, under the gun calls, next player calls and the button player says; "hey dealer, I need another card!"...you really want to kill his hand? I can't believe we can be so far apart on this one.

[K-Lo]

Nick, in your last example, if the two calls went by pretty quickly, I'd honestly probably give the player the benefit of the doubt and give him a warning and his second card despite there being substantial action, strictly speaking.  I'm not that unreasonable...  

But in the original post, there was a "lot more" significant action if you will, so much so that I cannot accept that there was any valid excuse for delaying bringing the allegedly missed card to the dealer's attention. If the button is not dealt the last card in error, he is entitled to it... but this "right" cannot last forever IMO.  If so much time has gone by that the dealer can no longer be reasonably sure that he did in fact miss the button (I think that is really the principle that should govern), then we have potential game security issues; in those situations, I'd rather the sequence of unseen board cards be off, then allow for the possibility that one player may have been given a second chance to be dealt a better hand (or to give other players remaining in the hand that perception).

I also have heard players point out that they do not act on their hands until it is their turn.  This doesn't persuade me.  You don't have to look at your cards if you don't want to, but you really don't have to look at your cards to simply determine that you were dealt two.

I think what you are saying is that if we assume in the original question that we are 100% sure the button did not receive the last card, he should receive it. I would not fault any TD who wants to make an exception and give that last card. However, in most cases, if a lot of time has passed and/or a lot of action has occurred (and when substantial action has occurred, this will probably the case most of the time), I would suggest that you simply cannot be 100% sure.  

[Nick C]

Ken,

 Fair enough.