Tournament Director Exam Question (1 Viewer)

[WedgeRock]

@timinater: B+ (wrong answer, but extra credit for showing your work)

I think Roberts Rules applies to card rooms with a dedicated dealer. The dealer having a live hand (at least before peeking at the burns) makes a difference. All the difference, really. A card room dealer has no claim to the pot and his mistake is much more inadvertant.

 

[Beakertwang]

Extra information = dead hand

Works if bet-call to button, bet-fold to button or check-check to button.

So if the dealer looks at the burn cards before any action, and tells the table, what’s the ruling?

 

[WedgeRock]

So if the dealer looks at the burn cards before any action, and tells the table, what’s the ruling?

Before any action, I think the cards can be exposed and everyone acts with the same information.

Discuss.

Report card

@Beakertwang: C+ (Dealers hand can't be live, but props for identifying dealer actions that *should* have avoided the situation)

@Beakertwang: B- (extra credit)

 

[WedgeRock]

For anyone contesting their grades, have your parents make an appointment after school to meet with me. Like real school, TD school grades are subject to my interpretation of what is right.

(My way of saying "IMO, YMMV.")

 

[Beakertwang]

For anyone contesting their grades, have your parents make an appointment after school to meet with me. Like real school, TD school grades are subject to my interpretation of what is right.

I could tell my dad that you touched me in inappropriate ways, so I’m looking forward to seeing my A.

 

[WedgeRock]

I could have you expelled and call your dad for you so he can pick you up at the police station...

 

[timinater]

For the sake of discussion, if you apply this ruling in another scenario where the dealer exposed the burn cards to MP when action is pending on them, doesn't it seem wrong to kill MP's hand?

Would that not open up space for a massive angle in the later stages if I can kill my opponents hand by accidentally flashing them the burns, or any card really?

 

[WedgeRock]

Interesting. Self-dealt still? Dealer has cards?

No way I let dealer flash a card and kill another hand to his advantage.

Tell me if you disagree with the OP ruling after you think about it. Because I was initially in your camp, but came around to agreeing with @ChaosRock's ruling.

 

[BGinGA]

So if the dealer looks at the burn cards before any action, and tells the table, what’s the ruling?

Big difference between accidentally flashing a card (burn or otherwise) and actually looking at two otherwise unexposed cards that don't belong to you (be they burn cards, mucked cards, or somebody else's hand -- any of which could happen by accident). Intent is irrelevant.

I stand by the 'hand is dead' ruling, as having the least impact on the hand (all action, and all of the other players in the hand, are not affected). Anything else will skew the hand in some fashion or another.

 

[JustinInMN]

dealing is not ideal, but it's a necessary compromise, sometimes. I'd prefer a dedicated dealer, always. But I've come not to expect it, and I can survive without it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

In a tight corner of a 'sloppily dealt home game' (a gross assumption, BTW), you want dealer's chips, dealers cards (capped), the muck, the pot and the board? With potential action (and cards and chips) to the left and right?

Placement of the muck and pot is not always right near the dealer in home games. Ideally it should be, but if enough people know proper procedures, adaptations can be made,

I agree. I am a regular in a self dealt game. There is one guy with movement limitations with his hands. He can deal, but can't shuffle and pretty much has to sit where we would put a center dealer.

So it's self dealt and it is mostly fine. When I am dealing from the corner. I just take a couple chips from the the edge of my side of the pot within reach and burn there. I let the muck and the pot stay near the middle, and I deal the board to the middle as well asking the players there to straighten out the cards.

I say separating the burn cards is a must, but I fully acknowledge not everything can be near the dealer in a self dealt game the same as in a center dealt game. There are different ways to deal with space issues.

 

[Beakertwang]

Big difference between accidentally flashing a card (burn or otherwise) and actually looking at two otherwise unexposed cards that don't belong to you (be they burn cards, mucked cards, or somebody else's hand -- any of which could happen by accident). Intent is irrelevant.

I stand by the 'hand is dead' ruling, as having the least impact on the hand (all action, and all of the other players in the hand, are not affected). Anything else will skew the hand in some fashion or another.

I don’t mean to be annoying about this, but a follow up scenario:

Dealer makes call, and before burning and dealing the river, he attempts to take a quick peak at his cards, but oops! He looks at the burn cards.

 

[BGinGA]

Dead.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I stand by the 'hand is dead' ruling, as having the least impact on the hand (all action, and all of the other players in the hand, are not affected). Anything else will skew the hand in some fashion or another.

^^ That

I came to the party late on this one. As I see it, the dealer's hand is dead, not unlike having too many cards dealt to him. Since there has been substantial action, (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 any combination of 3 actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, fold)), the dealer should not be allowed to continue his hand. It would be wrong to penalize the other players by trying to back up the action so that everyone could have the knowledge of the burn cards.

The dealer's intentions, have no bearing.

 

[timinater]

Interesting. Self-dealt still? Dealer has cards?

No way I let dealer flash a card and kill another hand to his advantage.

Tell me if you disagree with the OP ruling after you think about it. Because I was initially in your camp, but came around to agreeing with @ChaosRock's ruling.

I do still disagree because of that hypothetical. If I'm not killing another persons hand, I'm not killing the dealers hand who made the error. (The first time, anyways)
I don't think the punishment of killing the hand fits the crime, and I also don't think this meets any of the criteria posted above for killing a hand. I don't see a malicious intent here, nor an attempt to angle. As I understand it, it's a flashed card(s). Yes, unfortunately it affects the action, but them's the breaks.

That said, as with everything, I do appreciate and respect the fact that whoever is running the game can use their judgement and a make the ruling they see fit for the good of the game.

 

[DoubleEagle]

BTW, if you haven't figured it out, I was the dealer. My hand was dead. I initially disagreed, but it's not my house. I thought the burns should be exposed and it should be my action. Thinking about it more that night, a dead hand was the right ruling. Exposing the burns is unfair, because I had information the others didn't when it was my turn to act. I had a pair and a gutshot. If the burns showed two of my gutshot outs were dead, how fair is that? This was the reason that @ChaosRock gave for his decision.

I also don't like rolling back the action, for exactly the reason @BGinGA mentions, but I hadn't even considered it at the time. The button, knowing EP called a biggish-bet, could go All In. If the EP folds to an All In, he is punished for the dealer's mistake (but maybe EP was slow playing a monster).

Correct analysis which is always difficult when you are a participant in the situation which directly effects you.

 

[timinater]

Just please don't downgrade my B+ I need that to graduate

 

[APatHand]

Creative Answer:
Have the dealer add the two burn cards to his hand, deal off the burn and turn and burn and river cards, deal the other two players two more cards each and continue the hand as if it was Omaha.

TaDa!

 

[ChaosRock]

I do still disagree because of that hypothetical. If I'm not killing another persons hand, I'm not killing the dealers hand who made the error. (The first time, anyways)
I don't think the punishment of killing the hand fits the crime, and I also don't think this meets any of the criteria posted above for killing a hand. I don't see a malicious intent here, nor an attempt to angle. As I understand it, it's a flashed card(s). Yes, unfortunately it affects the action, but them's the breaks.

That said, as with everything, I do appreciate and respect the fact that whoever is running the game can use their judgement and a make the ruling they see fit for the good of the game.

One difference on those scenarios: The scenario the OP presented is not a Dealer mistake, it's a player mistake who happens to be the dealer. On the other scenario the Dealer (not the player) exposes the burnt cards, it is his (the Dealer's) mistake and not the player's.

Not judging your ruling. Just pointing out that different parties are making the mistakes and the possible impact on the ruling, or not, given that fact.

 

[timinater]

One difference on those scenarios: The scenario the OP presented is not a Dealer mistake, it's a player mistake who happens to be the dealer. On the other scenario the Dealer (not the player) exposes the burnt cards, it is his (the Dealer's) mistake and not the player's.

Not judging your ruling. Just pointing out that different parties are making the mistakes and the possible impact on the ruling, or not, given that fact.

Good point. I think I'd have regrets with both rulings the discussion is revolving around. Pick your poison I suppose.

 

[JustinInMN]

Again I want to bring up the scenario of whether a folded hand is exposed mid round.

For example, if this is a four player turn. First player bets, second player calls, third player folds and accidentally exposes cards. No way dealer's hand should be killed and players that have already acted do not get to take their action back. (@BGinGA 's scenario among the factors why it is even worse to let them act again.).

So considering this, as long as we are satisfied dealer's actual hand is fully identifiable, and exposing the wrong two cards was an accident, why must we automatically kill dealer's hand here?

I would go along with must kill after a warning, just as I would consider a warning in order for frequently exposing hands on folding.

 

[WedgeRock]

Again I want to bring up the scenario of whether a folded hand is exposed mid round.

For example, if this is a four player turn. First player bets, second player calls, third player folds and accidentally exposes cards. No way dealer's hand should be killed and players that have already acted do not get to take their action back. (@BGinGA 's scenario among the factors why it is even worse to let them act again.).

So considering this, as long as we are satisfied dealer's actual hand is fully identifiable, and exposing the wrong two cards was an accident, why must we automatically kill dealer's hand here?

I would go along with must kill after a warning, just as I would consider a warning in order for frequently exposing hands on folding.

Son, we may have a teaching assistant's position open next fall. You should consider applying.

In the OP, dealer is responsible for the mistake and mistakes have consequences. If MP folds and accidentally exposes, you don't punish the dealer for MP's mistake.

Slightly different facts that are important.

 

[JustinInMN]

In the OP, dealer is responsible for the mistake and mistakes have consequences. If MP folds and accidentally exposes, you don't punish the dealer for MP's mistake.

Slightly different facts that are important.

I would agree, but that means all arguments in this thread based on unfairness to early position players are irrelevant if that unfairness is permitted in the accidental face up fold scenario.

Without that argument what's the justification in killing an otherwise identifiable hand? Is it solely because "the dealer did it to himself?".

Is it because the dealer isn't entitled to look at the burns any more than anyone else? Is there an established practice of killing the hand of any non dealer that does this? (If so, then the exam answer makes more sense, but I am unsure if that's the case in context of this game, though the fact this is the actual @ChaosRock speaks to understanding this would be applied to anyone that did this.)

So I guess that's where I land. You have to do whatever you would do if a non dealer did this. I guess it didn't occur to me kill the hand is automatic, but I suppose in a casino, that actually would be the minimum. But I think it's fine to have some leeway in home games.

 

[ChaosRock]

I would agree, but that means all arguments in this thread based on unfairness to early position players are irrelevant if that unfairness is permitted in the accidental face up fold scenario.

Without that argument what's the justification in killing an otherwise identifiable hand? Is it solely because "the dealer did it to himself?".

Is it because the dealer isn't entitled to look at the burns any more than anyone else? Is there an established practice of killing the hand of any non dealer that does this? (If so, then the exam answer makes more sense, but I am unsure if that's the case in context of this game, though the fact this is the actual @ChaosRock speaks to understanding this would be applied to anyone that did this.)

So I guess that's where I land. You have to do whatever you would do if a non dealer did this. I guess it didn't occur to me kill the hand is automatic, but I suppose in a casino, that actually would be the minimum. But I think it's fine to have some leeway in home games.

The fact the player who made the mistake was the dealer is irrelevant in this case, imo. If a non-dealer had looked at someone else's folded hand by mistake after two players had acted his hand would be dead as well.

 

[BGinGA]

The fact the player who made the mistake was the dealer is irrelevant in this case, imo. If a non-dealer had looked at someone else's folded hand by mistake after two players and acted his hand would be dead as well.

^ exactly this.

 

[PlaidDragon]

Report card

@BGinGA: A

@Beakertwang: C+ (Dealers hand can't be live, but props for identifying dealer actions that *should* have avoided the situation)

@longflop: B+ (Dealer's hand should be dead, but why deal the turn? Only Dealer has extra information.

@CantSpellPoker: C (Dealers hand has to be dead).

@phaze12:. B (show your work)

@1A25R: B+ (You were caught copying off your neighbor. And why give the dealer a warning? He knows he made a mistake.)

Props to @ChaosRock who made the right call, on the spot, for exactly the right reasons.

What kind of grade do I get for lurking, nodding, and occasionally raising an eyebrow?

 

[WedgeRock]

Participation points are part of your grade.

 

[Rhodeman77]

What about allowing Button to keep his hand live, action stands as happened. Everyone gets to see the exposed cards. Button is not allowed to bet or raise the rest of the hand. Button can only check or call a bet?

 

[Sprouty]

Deal better

 

[Poker Zombie]

Dealer is a charming individual who enjoys sunsets and long walks on the beach; there should not be a question that Dealer was being honest about his intent and also this was a mistake and not an angle shoot.

Clearly, Bill did not intend to make the mistake. To start, I would hold him to a call, and expose the cards for the remaining players.

If any player at the table argues that the hand should be killed, I would look at the Dealer, and I do not doubt that he would agree with the ruling and he would kill his own hand. I stand by this ruling based on TDA rule #1: The best interest of the game.

Then I would chide him for the error for the next orbit, and once per game for the next 6 months. Learning is fundamental.

 

[WedgeRock]

All you late arrivers are being marked tardy.