Does he get cards or not? (1 Viewer)

[SixSpeedFury]

Interesting post that I'm reposting here from a poker forum on FB. This happened in a casino, just didn't know the appropriate place to put it in.

Interesting rule question in a poker publication.

A person is running back to his seat, dealer deals them a hand but person isn't seated so their hand is dead. Except it doesn't matter cause the dealer misdealt the hand. Does the person get to play the next hand? The publication said no because the persons hand was killed according to TDA rule #35 is a exact redeal of the hand before, which they interpret as his hand was dead the hand before so it's dead now. Under that kind of thinking if utg raised the hand before he would have to raise now? The person was dealt in before? Therefore he has to be dealt in now therefore all rules and rights apply. If he is standing, is his hand dead? If seated, is his hand alive? thoughts?

So what do you guys think? Should he be dealt a hand despite the dealer's misdeal? If this were to happen in your home game, how would you handle it?

 

[ChipTalker]

Just thinking out loud.

Home game I would deal the guy in for sure. Not really sure of the casino rule however if there is action like you said if UTG raises ... i do not believe you can rule a hand dead if there is action but hopefully someone else will chime in that knows.

So if I assume it has to be a redeal which means no action then I guess makes sense to deal the player out.

 

[Kain8]

Yet another reason cash is better than tournaments!

 

[Highli99]

It's a new hand. If he is there he gets cards.

 

[Irish]

A person is running back to his seat, dealer deals them a hand but person isn't seated so their hand is dead.

Technically they don't have to be seated, the rule states they must be "at" their seat (in reach of your chair) . But we'll assume he was still running back....

Except it doesn't matter cause the dealer misdealt the hand. Does the person get to play the next hand? The publication said no because the persons hand was killed according to TDA rule #35 is a exact redeal of the hand before, which they interpret as his hand was dead the hand before so it's dead now.

Correct, Rule #35 states "Cards are dealt to players on penalty or not at their seats for the original deal (Rule 30), then their hands are killed" - pretty straightforward.

Under that kind of thinking if utg raised the hand before he would have to raise now?

No. Exact re-deal only means the button position doesn't change, blinds remain the same and any players seated for the misdeal are in on the new hand. If there was substantial action on the misdealt hand, the original hand would have proceeded with no misdeal. One bet and no subsequent action - misdeal.

So what do you guys think? Should he be dealt a hand despite the dealer's misdeal? If this were to happen in your home game, how would you handle it?

In my home game, he's dealt in as long as he's back in the room making his way over to the table. But in a big casino tourney using these rules, assuming he's not *at* his seat when the dealing starts, his hand is dead, and if there's a misdeal, it's dead for that hand.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

In my home game every stack gets dealt a hand, and the dealer mucks if you're not at your seat when action comes (even an unraised BB). Unless, of course, we've hollered, "You coming?" and gotten an affirmative response.

 

[Gear]

It's a new hand.

No, it's not. If it were a new hand, the button would move, the blinds would move, etc. Redealing after a misdeal is a repeat, or perhaps an extension, of the same hand.

If a player was deliberately not dealt cards to begin with, and a misdeal occurs, that player should not be given cards on the re-deal -- at least strictly according to the rules, e.g. in a well-run casino. In a home game, some would say "meh". (I wouldn't, but that's just me.)

 

[Coyote]

Any rules or piece of legislation should always be interpreted and enforced according to their "spirit", i.e. their intended purpose, not their "letter".
The intended purpose in each case is to protect some "legitimate good" for the sake of all.
This is elementary in any Law school around the world with the possible exception of theocratic and other dictatorial regimes (too bad for them). Strict law, strict injustice, Romans said.
I can't see any "legitimate good" hurt if our player is dealt a hand now that he is seated.

 

[Gear]

How about this corollary: There's 4 seconds left in the blind level when the dealing starts, and the level ends before all the cards have been distributed, so the blinds will go up with the next hand. However, after the timer expires, a misdeal is declared, and the hand is re-dealt.

I think pretty much everyone would agree the hand would be re-dealt at the original blind level, correct?

If so, then what is the difference between that scenario, and the player-not-seated scenario? His hand was dead because he wasn't seated (or at the table or whatever) when the hand began. The hand hasn't ended, it's the same hand still being played, so why would he suddenly be allowed back in?

 

[Quicksilver-75]

For consistancy's sake I'd say no. The players may play very different given a tall or short stack away from the table. If the button doesn't move. A new player can't join/return.

 

[Coyote]

The difference, IMO, is that it would be unnecessarily harsh to exclude the player.
I have no problem being harsh for a reason. If you don't like the anti-"harsh" part, ignore it.
It would be unnecessary for the game to exclude the player.

 

[Mr Tree]

Technically they don't have to be seated, the rule states they must be "at" their seat (in reach of your chair) . But we'll assume he was still running back....



Correct, Rule #35 states "Cards are dealt to players on penalty or not at their seats for the original deal (Rule 30), then their hands are killed" - pretty straightforward.



No. Exact re-deal only means the button position doesn't change, blinds remain the same and any players seated for the misdeal are in on the new hand. If there was substantial action on the misdealt hand, the original hand would have proceeded with no misdeal. One bet and no subsequent action - misdeal.



In my home game, he's dealt in as long as he's back in the room making his way over to the table. But in a big casino tourney using these rules, assuming he's not *at* his seat when the dealing starts, his hand is dead, and if there's a misdeal, it's dead for that hand.

I agree with everything here

 

[BGinGA]

If the player was dealt cards initially, then he gets cards on the redealt hand caused by the misdeal.

A misdeal voids anything that occurred during the hand, and the hand starts over from scratch.

And hands aren't ruled dead in tournaments until after the dealer finishes delivering all of the cards (and before first action). The misdeal obviously ocurred before that happened.

 

[upNdown]

The difference, IMO, is that it would be unnecessarily harsh to exclude the player.
I have no problem being harsh for a reason. If you don't like the anti-"harsh" part, ignore it.
It would be unnecessary for the game to exclude the player.

I can picture that happening, and the dealer giving the "late" guy cards. Who's gonna speak up and demand that the guy get dealt out of that hand? Probably not me.