Tourney Ruling needed after dealer error (1 Viewer)

[Gear]

This is probably a quick one because I'm reasonably sure that what we did was correct, but I'm interested in others' opinions.

Here's the scenario:

Middle stages of a tournament with a rotating dealer button, self-dealt -- no dedicated dealers, in other words. Normal home-game stuff.

A player in middle position opens, next player has a shorter stack and moves all-in. Cutoff folds, dealer and blinds fold, back around to the first player who calls. Both players turn over their hands -- opener has pocket 5s, short stack has AKo.

Everyone looks to the dealer for a flop. Oops, he's shuffling the cards. ALL of the cards. Including all of the folded hands -- literally every part of the deck except the four cards that make up the two players' hands.

Now what?


You're thinking: How did this happen? For the purposes of this thread, it's not relevant, but long story short, the dealer wasn't paying attention.

If you must know: The dealer was seated at the end of the table, and the middle seats were helping out (as is always the case) by gathering up discarded hands into the muck, pulling in bets, etc. and a player gathered up the muck, handed the cards to the dealer, and said "here, shuffle these" because he thought the hand was over (i.e. that the all-in bet had not been called.) The dealer, who wasn't paying attention and isn't very bright to begin with, just did was he was told, and started shuffling the muck and the stub together.

Yes, the dealer should have been paying more attention to the hand he was ostensibly in control of. Yes, the player "helping" should have been paying more attention than he was. Yes, this is an argument for dedicated dealers, or designated table captains to handle chips/cards when the dealer is in an awkward seat, or whatever. Yes, maybe there should have been penalties or warnings, yes yes yes, blah blah blah, not the point.

The point is, regardless of how we got here, "as played" what should happen?

 

[FestiveKnight]

keep shuffling real good and then play it out I guess. I don’t know what else you can do.

Certainly declaring the whole hand dead could lead to collusive moments in future spots so I don’t like that.

Ot would be a little weirder if there had been some more action, like someone who opened and then folded to the shove cause maybe the players are thinking about the others’ ranges and the potential effect on the strength of their hands but idk, it’s heads up all in pre, the equity is the equity. Though this argument seems weird cause I would think it could get uncomfortable if you had a similar spot and tried to rule how much everyone else’s hole cards had “mattered.”

 

[suchj0sh]

Finish the shuffle and deal out the board.

 

[drdr]

TDA rules or Robert's Rules cover this situation?

 

[drdr]

TDA rules or Robert's Rules cover this situation?

Robert's Rules, under Irregularities:
17. If the deck stub gets fouled for some reason, such as the dealer believing the deal is over and dropping the deck, the deal must still be played out, and the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible.

 

[Gear]

TDA rules or Robert's Rules cover this situation?

Interesting. I had just sort of assumed "no" since it seems pretty unlikely to occur in a non-self-dealt game. However...

TDA

RP-4. Disordered Stub
When cards remain to be dealt on a hand and the stub is accidentally dropped and appears to be disordered: 1) first try to reconstruct the stub in its original order if possible; 2) If not possible, create a new stub using only the stub cards (not the muck and prior burns). These should be scrambled, shuffled, cut, and play proceeds with the new stub; 3) If when dropped the stub is mixed in with the muck and/or burns, then scramble the mixed cards together, shuffle, and cut. Play proceeds with the new stub.

So I guess /thread.

 

[drdr]

Interesting. I had just sort of assumed "no" since it seems pretty unlikely to occur in a non-self-dealt game. However...

TDA

RP-4. Disordered Stub
When cards remain to be dealt on a hand and the stub is accidentally dropped and appears to be disordered: 1) first try to reconstruct the stub in its original order if possible; 2) If not possible, create a new stub using only the stub cards (not the muck and prior burns). These should be scrambled, shuffled, cut, and play proceeds with the new stub; 3) If when dropped the stub is mixed in with the muck and/or burns, then scramble the mixed cards together, shuffle, and cut. Play proceeds with the new stub.

So I guess /thread.

Yep. Nice. I think I found an older version without those additional details.

 

[Taghkanic]

the deal must still be played out, and the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible.

I guess the question then becomes: Do you try to get players to recall what they mucked, and remove those hands before shuffling?

In a truly friendly home game, I could see trying. But if there is even a small chance that someone would lie to gain an advantage, then it may just introduce more trouble. (For example, someone could claim they folded one of the kings to increase the chances the short stack gets knocked out.)

 

[suchj0sh]

I guess the question then becomes: Do you try to get players to recall what they mucked, and remove those hands before shuffling?

In a truly friendly home game, I could see trying. But if there is even a small chance that someone would lie to gain an advantage, then it may just introduce more trouble. (For example, someone could claim they folded one of the kings to increase the chances the short stack gets knocked out.)

This would allow for collusion, especially with the players’ hands face up, imo.

This error doesn’t really seem like too big of a deal to me since it’s heads up. Kind of a pure way to run out an all-in scenario, pure equity vs equity.

 

[FestiveKnight]

This would allow for collusion, especially with the players’ hands face up, imo.

This error doesn’t really seem like too big of a deal to me since it’s heads up. Kind of a pure way to run out an all-in scenario, pure equity vs equity.

It could be interesting to discuss edge cases with more complex action but the reality is there really isn’t an alternative. Killing the hand or asking people to try and sort out/recall mucked cards can only create opportunities for collusion

 

[Taghkanic]

This would allow for collusion, especially with the players’ hands face up, imo.

Did you read my second paragraph? Like I said, only in a truly friendly home game where you trust that no one is going to angle.

 

[Taghkanic]

This error doesn’t really seem like too big of a deal to me since it’s heads up. Kind of a pure way to run out an all-in scenario, pure equity vs equity.

To the extent that other players were much more likely to fold most 5s and much less likely to fold most aces preflop, it’s not really pure equity. Shuffling the whole deck potentially helps the 55 hand (albeit only slightly).

 

[KingWithTheAxe]

Seems likely pocket 5s just got better odds considering all the folds.

 

[suchj0sh]

Did you read my second paragraph? Like I said, only in a truly friendly home game where you trust that no one is going to angle.

Me skimming this thread at 5am, missed that

To the extent that other players were much more likely to fold most 5s and much less likely to fold most aces preflop, it’s not really pure equity. Shuffling the whole deck potentially helps the 55 hand (albeit only slightly).

Well I mean all the other aces except for the ones potentially in your opponents hands did get folded in this scenario, as well as the 5’s. I just mean that the equities are unhindered by the dead cards.

 

[Machine]

Home game, I'm thinking your veteran players? I have a bit of cognitive dissonance. This is where I would like the explanation of why the TDA chose the ruling it did. I think pushing the game forward works for a for-profit venture, but there is room for other options that might be more player-friendly, in a game that doesn't have to be in the vein of the house.

Hopefully, no one exposed the hand before the decision on how to play it.

I keep coming back to the phrase of 'In the spirit of the game', that spirit largely depends on the type of game. In its most basic form, gambling, flipping the coin for an outcome. People often don't like a disruption like this in the hand. I'm happy with random is random but muck cards in the stub can be off-putting.

I would offer that if there is consensus, they could split the pot and move to the next hand, or a variation of (open to nullifying the hand by pushing bets back and move on - for all players)

Or play it as it lies - lol

Who knows I've not had my coffee yet

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I guess the question then becomes: Do you try to get players to recall what they mucked, and remove those hands before shuffling?

In a truly friendly home game, I could see trying. But if there is even a small chance that someone would lie to gain an advantage, then it may just introduce more trouble. (For example, someone could claim they folded one of the kings to increase the chances the short stack gets knocked out.)

There will always, always be a small chance of outright lying or misremembering conveniently. I cannot see trying. I dont think there should be any effort to remove mucked cards. Even in a friendly game I'd stick to the clear rules, just avoids the mess of "how sure were you?"

 

[Taghkanic]

Even in a friendly game I'd stick to the clear rules, just avoids the mess of "how sure were you?"

I mostly agree.

But Roberts' Rules state that you should try to get “the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible.”

That seems to suggest some wiggle room for options other than just shuffling the entire combined muck/burns/stub.

The TDA rules don't seem to even hint at any option except shuffle everything not still clearly separated as mucks or burns.

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

Once upon a time I did not know what the phrase"reconstitute the deck" meant, so I asked, and was told it was the physical process of restoring the deck. I asked what if someone said they had a card or knew of cards, I was told that it is not verbal process- only physical process. Meaning you can only determine what cards are what by the position/location of the cards to determine the stub, verbal declarations of known cards that are not exposed are not taken into consideration.

Hope this helps...

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I mostly agree.

But Roberts' Rules state that you should try to get “the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible.”

That seems to suggest some wiggle room for options other than just shuffling the entire combined muck/burns/stub.

The TDA rules don't seem to even hint at any option except shuffle everything not still clearly separated as mucks or burns.

Sure, wiggle room, but I think we agree there's nothing fair about having players offer up what cards shouldn't be available for the runout. Shuffling all the cards and having a fully randomized board is the fairest way possible. That RR wiggle room doesn't include situations where the guy has already shuffled.

if the dealer had removed the cut card, dropped the stub, and started the beginning of a wash, I can see pushing them together in a way that attempts to keep the top on top and bottom on bottom, I cannot see a recreation once its been shuffled.

 

[ekricket]

Sure, wiggle room, but I think we agree there's nothing fair about having players offer up what cards shouldn't be available for the runout. Shuffling all the cards and having a fully randomized board is the fairest way possible. That RR wiggle room doesn't include situations where the guy has already shuffled.

if the dealer had removed the cut card, dropped the stub, and started the beginning of a wash, I can see pushing them together in a way that attempts to keep the top on top and bottom on bottom, I cannot see a recreation once its been shuffled.

Dude give it up. All you will ever get is that “you are wrong” or “you didn’t think it through” or “it’s your fault” or “you didn’t understand what I said but I said it perfectly” or some variant of that. You are obviously wrong because he is perfect. Just ask him.

 

[allforcharity]

So I guess /thread.

So, Chris, were you the dealer in this story?

 

[Gear]

So, Chris, were you the dealer in this story?

Actually, no, I was one of the blinds... but I can see why one might think that

 

[RocAFella1]

Who was eating Cheezies?

 

[Gear]

Who was eating Cheezies?

I mean... who wasn't?

 

[RocAFella1]

I mean... who wasn't?

Us south of the border.