Rules Question - Extra Card on the Flop (1 Viewer)

[codeman00]

I think I know the ruling on this but I'd like to know if someone else knows here for this home game situation for a cash game.

• Prefop action is all normal.
• The flop comes out, and the first person opens the betting with $3
• The dealer looks down and moves one of the flop cards and finds an extra card under one of the flopped cards.

I noted at the time that action ($3 bet) has taken place so the flop stays. That was from memory from what I had read and written up in a summary sheet from Robert's rules. The host and others disagreed with me (even though I'm pretty sure I'm the only one there that has read the rules) and then re-arranged the 4 cards so that correct flop and next burn card was shown (as exposed). In other words, the flops has now changed. It wasn't my game and I wasn't sure so I didn't put up a fight. Everyone folded and the hand was over.

In looking through Robert's Rules later, it says that if an action has been taken on any card, the card stands. But it also says that more than 3 cards are exposed (no exceptions) then the burn card stays, the exposed cards are reshuffled in the deck and then a new flop dealt. These conflict each other a bit but I think action takes precedent over anything.

What is the proper ruling here?

 

[DoubleEagle]

I think I know the ruling on this but I'd like to know if someone else knows here for this home game situation for a cash game.

• Prefop action is all normal.
• The flop comes out, and the first person opens the betting with $3
• The dealer looks down and moves one of the flop cards and finds an extra card under one of the flopped cards.

I noted at the time that action ($3 bet) has taken place so the flop stays. That was from memory from what I had read and written up in a summary sheet from Robert's rules. The host and others disagreed with me (even though I'm pretty sure I'm the only one there that has read the rules) and then re-arranged the 4 cards so that correct flop and next burn card was shown (as exposed). In other words, the flops has now changed. It wasn't my game and I wasn't sure so I didn't put up a fight. Everyone folded and the hand was over.

In looking through Robert's Rules later, it says that if an action has been taken on any card, the card stands. But it also says that more than 3 cards are exposed (no exceptions) then the burn card stays, the exposed cards are reshuffled in the deck and then a new flop dealt. These conflict each other a bit but I think action takes precedent over anything.

What is the proper ruling here?

Since there has not been substantial action, the four cards are turned face down, scrambled, and one card randomly chosen which will become the burn card for the turn. Remaining cards are the flop.

 

[codeman00]

Robert's rules doesn't define "substantial action"....it says "action." What do you consider "substantial action?"

There were 2 people that folded after the $3 post flop bet. I didn't include that because I've never heard of "substantial action."

 

[DoubleEagle]

Robert's rules doesn't define "substantial action"....it says "action." What do you consider "substantial action?"

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).

 

[BGinGA]

I don't personally like the 'no exceptions' part of the rule, but according to RROP v11, any flop with more than three cards is reshuffled into the deck and redealt. However, substantial action can change that ruling.

IF (and only if) the flop was discovered to contain four cards AFTER substantial action had occurred (ie, two or more non-check actions in this case), I would rule that fourth card as 'exposed' and to be used as the burn card prior to dealing the turn (having the least impact on the action so far, and zero impact on the intended turn and river cards).

However, I feel the standard rule in RROP is too strict. In many cases, a four-card flop is easily identified as "burn plus three" (if no burn with four cards flopped) or "three plus burn" (if a burn card was dealt prior to a four card flop). If those cases, I think a better solution is to retain the proper intended flop and (exposed) burn card IF POSSIBLE, rather than reshuffle known cards back into the stub and re-dealing the flop. And even if the order of the exposed cards is in question, then randomly selecting one of the four exposed cards to be the turn's burn card seems better than reshuffling all four back into the deck and redealing the flop.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Since there has not been substantial action, the four cards are turned face down, scrambled, and one card randomly chosen which will become the burn card for the turn. Remaining cards are the flop.

This is the TDA rule.

 

[Gobbs]

I'm more interested in determining how the four cards were flopped by accident? I'm guessing the dealer just peeled "three" off the top and flipped them over. This is why it is important to count off three cards, face down, and then flop them. While this is not a fool-proof method, it does greatly minimize the potential for this issue. You may want to discuss proper dealing techniques with your dealer(s). If it's a self-dealt game, you may want to discuss this with your players. You'll probably see a lot of people rolling their eyes at you, but it will certainly cause a lot less pain in the future.

 

[codeman00]

There are a lot of confusing things going on here.

As far as a non-proper method of flopping, you have a great point there. It seems obvious now that there is a procedural issue. that being said, I have never flopped correctly. I usually just peel and turn over one card at a time and so do most of the players I know. I'll have to go back and watch how that dealer deals the flop and see what he does. My guess is he flops the same way but grabbed 2 cards and flipped them over one on top of the other and didn't notice it.

As far as the ruling goes in our game, I'm not sure how to handle this. You all have good information here but if I have Robert's rules printed out, the ruling is confusing and all I have is Roberts Rules. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to all of a sudden know to grab a copy of the TDA rules, learn a new term "substantial action" that's not in Robert's rules and then enforce TDA rule in place of Robert's rules...or a hybrid of both. It's confusing...

 

[justsomedude]

There are a lot of confusing things going on here.

As far as a non-proper method of flopping, you have a great point there. It seems obvious now that there is a procedural issue. that being said, I have never flopped correctly. I usually just peel and turn over one card at a time and so do most of the players I know.

Everyone at my games used to do the same... until we had a mis-dealt flop, when one flop card was exposed prematurely (using the single-peel-and-turn method). I now ask that dealers at my games peel off the three flop cards individually face down, and then turn all three over simultaneously to expose the flop. This avoids premature exposure by making the flop-deal a separate and distinct act (which gives players an opportunity to stop the exposure if the dealer missed a betting action), and accidentally placing extra cards on the felt.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

In this instance since there was already action, I would have argued the "hidden then exposed" card was the next burn card.

 

[DoubleEagle]

There are a lot of confusing things going on here.

As far as a non-proper method of flopping, you have a great point there. It seems obvious now that there is a procedural issue. that being said, I have never flopped correctly. I usually just peel and turn over one card at a time and so do most of the players I know. I'll have to go back and watch how that dealer deals the flop and see what he does. My guess is he flops the same way but grabbed 2 cards and flipped them over one on top of the other and didn't notice it.

As far as the ruling goes in our game, I'm not sure how to handle this. You all have good information here but if I have Robert's rules printed out, the ruling is confusing and all I have is Roberts Rules. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to all of a sudden know to grab a copy of the TDA rules, learn a new term "substantial action" that's not in Robert's rules and then enforce TDA rule in place of Robert's rules...or a hybrid of both. It's confusing...

TDA rules are the standard in nearly every card room for tournaments, including the WSOP.

 

[Gobbs]

In this instance since there was already action, I would have argued the "hidden then exposed" card was the next burn card.

I don't know if this is proper by the letter of the rules, but it comes close to making the most sense to me. The only problem I have with this is that action took place without knowledge of the exposed card and action taken by subsequent players will happen with knowledge of the exposed card. Now is where you have to balance the integrity of the shuffle vs. fairness of the game. While I'm usually in favor of maintaining the integrity of the shuffle, I think this is a time I would shuffle the exposed card back into the deck before the burn and turn. That way, all flop action takes place with (almost) the same amount of knowledge.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

I don't know if this is proper by the letter of the rules, but it comes close to making the most sense to me. The only problem I have with this is that action took place without knowledge of the exposed card and action taken by subsequent players will happen with knowledge of the exposed card. Now is where you have to balance the integrity of the shuffle vs. fairness of the game. While I'm usually in favor of maintaining the integrity of the shuffle, I think this is a time I would shuffle the exposed card back into the deck before the burn and turn. That way, all flop action takes place with (almost) the same amount of knowledge.

I see what you are saying but in my mind I would equate it with along the same lines of someone in late position mucking their hand and a card flips over. Its possibly going to screw someone and help someone else

ETA: FWIW I'm not even close to the right person to ask on rulings

 

[Gobbs]

I see what you are saying but in my mind I would equate it with along the same lines of someone in late position mucking their hand and a card flips over. Its possibly going to screw someone and help someone else

ETA: FWIW I'm not even close to the right person to ask on rulings

You are right, but, in my mind, there is a difference between a player making a mistake and the dealer. I don't necessarily have a justification for that feeling, but it just seems as though dealer errors should be rectified to a greater extent.

 

[JustinInMN]

I don't personally like the 'no exceptions' part of the rule, but according to RROP v11, any flop with more than three cards is reshuffled into the deck and redealt. However, substantial action can change that ruling.

However, I feel the standard rule in RROP is too strict. In many cases, a four-card flop is easily identified as "burn plus three" (if no burn with four cards flopped) or "three plus burn" (if a burn card was dealt prior to a four card flop). If those cases, I think a better solution is to retain the proper intended flop and (exposed) burn card IF POSSIBLE,

I would tend to agree, I am guessing in a casino environment it's just easier not to play the game of identifying which cards are right for perception issues.

Also we have not discussed mercilessly mocking the dealer for being unable to count to 3.

 

[Mike Wells]

Since there has not been substantial action, the four cards are turned face down, scrambled, and one card randomly chosen which will become the burn card for the turn. Remaining cards are the flop.

I've seen this exact ruling by casino floor at my table.

 

[APatHand]

Yubitsume

 

[RowdyRawhide]

Yubitsume

Then you'll start getting 11 card flops.