Tourney Ruling question for deck reshuffled mid hand (23 Viewers)

[HiveKueen]

35.E: ...Other fouled deck conditions may be defined by local gaming regulations and house policy. If a fouled deck is discovered, regardless of SA, play will stop and all bets will be returned. Once a hand concludes, the right to dispute based on a fouled deck ends according to Rule 22.

So, if there is a house rule in place before play starts saying that a wrongly shuffled stub (which the TDA rules doesn't consider to be a fouled deck) should cancel the hand, the hand should have been cancelled. absent such an explicit house rule, playing out the hand was the correct procedure.

Cancelling a hand after significant action is pretty unusual in poker.

 

[Machine]

So, if there is a house rule in place before play starts saying that a wrongly shuffled stub (which the TDA rules doesn't consider to be a fouled deck) should cancel the hand, the hand should have been cancelled. absent such an explicit house rule, playing out the hand was the correct procedure.

My reading comprehension skills failed me; I had read that the muck was shuffled into the stub. This would be considered a fouled deck, given that the stub was simply reordered I conceded, running the board was correct.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm not convinced that even a fouled deck would be adequate grounds for canceling a hand where substantial action has already occurred.

Even in cases where a deck stub contains invalid cards (jokers, etc.), the generally accepted solution is to play on.

 

[JustinInMN]

The hand stands there is no arguing about that. But if this was discovered before hand has ended it was a fouled deck and dead hand in my opinion.

My reading comprehension skills failed me; I had read that the muck was shuffled into the stub. This would be considered a fouled deck, given that the stub was simply reordered I conceded, running the board was correct.

No, a fouled deck is pretty specific to a deck found to have missing cards or duplicated cards.

A disordered stub does not rise to a fouled deck.

Cancelling a hand after significant action is pretty unusual in poker.

And this is the reason why. If the rules provided for too many avenues to reset a hand after it progresses past a point where one can identify a disadvantage, it becomes too easy for dealers or players to manipulate the situation.

Based on what was described. There is no set of circumstances in which the fouled deck rule should apply.

Dealing from a reconstructed stub is the only reasonable resolution after significant action. Even if it happened to include the muck.

Thankfully in this case it didn't, so one unseen stub is as good as another.

 

[Gunnar]

No, a fouled deck is pretty specific to a deck found to have missing cards or duplicated cards.

A disordered stub does not rise to a fouled deck.



And this is the reason why. If the rules provided for too many avenues to reset a hand after it progresses past a point where one can identify a disadvantage, it becomes too easy for dealers or players to manipulate the situation.

Based on what was described. There is no set of circumstances in which the fouled deck rule should apply.

Dealing from constructed stub is the only reasonable resolution after significant action. Even if it happened to include the muck.

Thankfully in this case it didn't, so one unseen stub is as good as another.

But there is no significant action after the mistake ? The money was already in?

 

[JustinInMN]

But there is no significant action after the mistake ? The money was already in?

From TDA Rule 36

36: Substantial Action (SA)
Substantial Action is either A) any 2 actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds) or B) any combination of 3 actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, fold). Posted blinds do not count towards SA. See Rules 35-D and 53-B.

https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

The two all ins constitute substantial action. It does not matter if the mistake happened after, substantial action applies. The hand is played to conclusion unless a fouled deck is discovered.

And again, the definition of fouled deck is much more specific than purported in this thread.

 

[JustinInMN]

I'm not convinced that even a fouled deck would be adequate grounds for canceling a hand where substantial action has already occurred.

Even in cases where a deck stub contains invalid cards (jokers, etc.), the generally accepted solution is to play on.

There was a post on 2p2 several years back about a fouled deck in Vegas because both players held an ace of the same suit and both had made the nut flush.

That's clearly a fouled deck.

If a dealer counts the stub and finds it's short, that's clearly a fouled deck. (Something dealers don't even have to do anymore in the era of automatic shuffling.)

I suppose the appearance of a joker could in your example could be argued either way. I think if dealt in a starting hand, and pointed out right away, it's a misdeal.

If not pointed out right away, I could see where it would play out.

If a joker is dealt as a face up card where it doesn't belong. It probably safer to rule it a fouled deck because the deck should be inspected right away anyway. Maybe it's acceptable to count the stub and if it's right after removing the joker proceed?

But the standard is this high for a reason. To limit the avenues players at a disadvantage can argue for a reset.

 

[Machine]

No, a fouled deck is pretty specific to a deck found to have missing cards or duplicated cards.

A disordered stub does not rise to a fouled deck.

In my opinion, if a player mucks a and a comes out, then it's equivalent to duplicate cards.

A disordered stub does not rise to a fouled deck.

Also, I agree with this; however, "disordered" would refer to the arrangement of cards from a previous state. Random is random; play on!
It does NOT convey the addition of mucked cards into the active stub.

 

[maxim_666666]

The hand stands there is no arguing about that. But if this was discovered before hand has ended it was a fouled deck and dead hand in my opinion.

From a probability standpoint, the dealer could have shuffled the deck another million times afterward (assuming they weren't deliberately cheating or colluding with someone, and the outcome happened by chance), and it wouldn't have changed any player's odds. It's just superstition.

Simply because the number of possible combinations is so vast that every time, it is a different deck—one that, in all likelihood, has never existed before in human history.
The probability of the deck repeating is 1 in 80 658 175 170 943 878 571 660 636 856 403 766 975 289 505 440 883 277 824 000 000 000 000.
(This is more than the number of atoms on our planet. )

 

[HamragYatlerot]

This happened once in our game, decades ago, so it doesn’t happen often. Guy was late to the tourney, his open seat just happened to be right next to the dealer, who was in the hand, so the stub was idle on the felt. The late guy sits down, and as he’s saying his hellos, picks up the deck in play and starts shuffling. I think we just played it out like you guys did. As mentioned, random is random.

From that point on, though, if I’m dealing, I try to keep the deck in my hand at all times. If I do need to set it down (to check my cards or because I’m in the hand), I always set the dealer button on top so there’s no confusion as to which deck is in play.

 

[Gunnar]

I understand that there are random are random players, Im not and I really dislike people meddling with the deck after hand has started. In this scenario just the stub being shuffled I can understand continuing but I still think there is a risk to continuing if it was noticed before the end of the hand.

In this scenario the hand plays out and it is only flagged after. But for myself if I had KK and someone had 22 we are all-in and someome shuffles the deck mid hand we don't stop and he gets a 2 from this another version of the deck and felts me in a cash game or knocks me out in a tournament I would be too tilted to continue.

 

[JustinInMN]

In my opinion, if a player mucks a and a comes out, then it's equivalent to duplicate cards.


Also, I agree with this; however, "disordered" would refer to the arrangement of cards from a previous state. Random is random; play on!
It does NOT convey the addition of mucked cards into the active stub.

I know it's not ideal, but this ruling opens up an avenue of a dealer making the mistake to benefit one player over another.

Since mucked cards are unknown to the players in action, and probably forgotten by the players that folded them in 95% of cases, dealing from a reconstructed stub is better than ruling the deck fouled.

Seriously, if someone is a 4:1 favorite in a pot where there has been substantial action could be ruled foul because of this error? That would absolutely outrage the player in the lead.

At least with the definition of a fouled deck, the odds are clearly altered, and it's a sign of possible severe tampering.

The standard is high for a reason.

 

[Machine]

this ruling opens up an avenue of a dealer making the mistake to benefit one player over another.

Most of the time, I play with a default dealer or people that I believe wouldn't cheat; it can be hard to consider this viable. I really wish there was a discussion document companion (to the TDA) that outlined the reason for the ruling, and while there are a few examples in the TDA, I wish there were more.

Thanks for the discourse; I can reluctantly accept this

 

[Rieguy]

the shuffler accidentally shuffles the undealt portion of the RED deck in play.

One player saw it happen and flagged it, at which point the shuffler said “no I didnt”.

After the hand is over, everyone around the table now voices that the shuffler did in fact DEFINITELY reshuffle the stub by mistake.

I know it's not ideal, but this ruling opens up an avenue of a dealer making the mistake to benefit one player over another.

I still think we are burying the lede here. Where is the cut card?

With a cut card, shuffler is immediately realizing they screwed up and says something. If they somehow don't realize or aren't acting maliciously, then player who flagged it is immediately vindicated at that moment by where cut card is in the stub. At the very least, mucked card counts can determine whether the contention is true or not.

I know the thread is asking for the ruling post-hand, but in 99% of games with a cut card or people listening to the player who called out the stub reshuffle and checking right then, this is a moot issue, unless of course I'm missing something.

 

[Deucekies]

We’ve used two decks on 4 tables (24-32 man tournaments) for 3 years, never had an issue before.

This guy who made the mistake is quite lost though and will be asked not to manage shuffling or dealing.

1 mistake in 3 years does not outweigh the speedup of having a deck ready to go.

We tried using two decks, and I think it took exactly two games before something like this happened. We never did it again.

By the way, we called it a misdeal. The dealer who screwed up wasn't in the hand, and all the players in the hand agreed that was the best way. Probably wasn't TDA, but everyone was happy.

 

[JustinInMN]

Most of the time, I play with a default dealer or people that I believe wouldn't cheat; it can be hard to consider this viable. I really wish there was a discussion document companion (to the TDA) that outlined the reason for the ruling, and while there are a few examples in the TDA, I wish there were more.

Thanks for the discourse; I can reluctantly accept this

Say a professional dealer made this mistake with no bias. The player known to be in the lead is certainly going to feel aggrieved if the ruling is foul the deck and refund.

Certainly brings in the appearance of bias.

 

[JustinInMN]

I still think we are burying the lede here. Where is the cut card?

With a cut card, shuffler is immediately realizing they screwed up and says something.

Are you saying if the cut card is at the bottom of the deck as it should be with the active deck, the player would have noticed it before shuffling?

If so, yes this is a very good point.

We do shuffle behind at my house. The shuffler caps the deck with the cut card after shuffling. The deck is cut on to the cut card before the dealer deals.

Cut cards use definitely helps protect the game.

 

[Preditor]

Seems quite clear that the answer is to just proceed with the hand.

Thanks all!

Now get ready to have people comment on this for the next 6 months telling you what to do!