There was a tough ruling to make..........

[TightEnd]

Shortstack moves all in

Big Stack re-raises all in

Heads Up Pre Flop

55 (Shortie) vs AA

5 on flop, first card out. Rest of community cards dealt out

Shortie doubles up

but wait, the dealer has not burnt a card before the flop. Its pointed out.

All the unused cards including deck are in the muck


Ruling?

[celtic]

Too late?

[jizzemm]

yes agree got to be to late

[kinboshi]

Obviously there is only way to decide the pot.

Roshambo.

[Laxie]

*Sigh*  Pretty sure they phoned Luke Ivory instead of me.  Go figure.   

[masterjackblack]

Once the turn card is dealt it's too late to reconstruct the flop, otherwise there is a chance of an each way situation. If the whole board is dealt incorrectly and a player decides to object at this point to a mistake made before the flop, they are essentially getting two chances of winning if nobody else notices the error. Interesting that the whole board was dealt before anyone said anything.

[boldie]

Once the turn card is dealt it's too late to reconstruct the flop, otherwise there is a chance of an each way situation. If the whole board is dealt incorrectly and a player decides to object at this point to a mistake made before the flop, they are essentially getting two chances of winning if nobody else notices the error. Interesting that the whole board was dealt before anyone said anything.

agreed...this s the way it should be IMO.

[luckyblind]

It was All In Preflop whihc makes a difference as to whether the board should be reconstructed. As the cards dealt on the board did not affect the betting an attempt must be made to correct the error if possible.

I have read a few different accounts of this and all seem to be slightly different. I was actually called to make a ruling but was in a hand at the time so could not.

I am pretty sure that the muck and deck had not been mixed by the dealer. Neill was able to determine with 100% accuracy which card should have been the river.

There are a lot of minor differences to all the stories recounted that make a difference on what ruling is to be made.

At the end of the day Neill made a ruling which although may not have been 100% correct it did result in the correct river card.

I would have made the following rulings dependaing on all the information at my disposal, in either case the card which is 100% identifiable as the correct river is placed faced down in the river position:

1: If the two burn cards were 100% Identifiable then I would have had them and the board cards shuffled together and the board redealt with the correct burning actions.

2: If the two burn cards have been mixed with the deck stub then the deck stub & board cards is reshuffled and the board dealt in the correct manner.

3: If the muck has been mixed with the stub and burn cards then the dealt board stays as it is.

Tough one, this is why a uniform set of rules is required. Probably not possible in the UK due to all the different major players but we are working towards thsi in Ireland.

[TightEnd]

Thanks Mike, I certainly wasn't criticising the ruling, if the muck and deck were not mixed that makes it easier to see why he reconstructed. It was a tough and interesting situation, I thought he handled all parties well

[turny]

if the muck and the deck were mixed then imo the hand must stand as it was played out.

if not as the chips were all in pre flop then the situation should be easily rectified with the cards replaced in the correct order in the deck and then the board redealt correctly.

after action on various streets now thats a different matter!

[M3boy]

Correct or not, I tell you this, you WILL NOT find a better TD than Neil.

He was just superb.

I saw another ruling he made, concerning 2 players that had banter going which spilled into a petty argument. He quickly put a stop to it saying "anymore arguing and you will both be on a 20 minute penalty" - he was not interested in what had happened or why, he just made the ruling with great authority and the problem went away.

UK TD's should take note!

[Snatiramas]

Correct or not, I tell you this, you WILL NOT find a better TD than Neil.

He was just superb.

I saw another ruling he made, concerning 2 players that had banter going which spilled into a petty argument. He quickly put a stop to it saying "anymore arguing and you will both be on a 20 minute penalty" - he was not interested in what had happened or why, he just made the ruling with great authority and the problem went away.

UK TD's should take note!

[dazzaster]

Correct or not, I tell you this, you WILL NOT find a better TD than Neil.

He was just superb.

I saw another ruling he made, concerning 2 players that had banter going which spilled into a petty argument. He quickly put a stop to it saying "anymore arguing and you will both be on a 20 minute penalty" - he was not interested in what had happened or why, he just made the ruling with great authority and the problem went away.

UK TD's should take note!

Agree Completely 

[BIG-SLICK-POKER]

Ruling Main event


Ok ill play this situation out as i saw .


2 players in the hand and action is finished , I am called to the table and cards are face over and action complete no pots rewarded yet AA vs 55 ! 5 hits flop and holds up on the board

A player not in the hand has called me and said that 2 burn cards are on the table not 3. He is adament it was the first burn missed but the dealer cannot clarify this for me so i have to take the dealers word .

As i was not sure of which stage the burn was missed the River card must be taken as the card missed and now the river card is taken as the last burn card missed and the next card from the top of the deck is the river card . Problem is the A comes out giving the AA the pot

When this happens it means that regardless of what stage of the betting the 8th card in the deck was always coming so in truth the Ace should have always been coming on the river

In this situation that occurred the players had to accept the ruling made which i was checking with Luke from the fitzwilliam during the ruling to be sure .

The main point of the ruling is that the dealer not the player was not sure of where the mistake had occurred and the acion had gone on too far to bring it back .

I have asked the opinion of people in the biz who are here and there is differing opions the player who won the pot is a respected Gjp Dealer and Director and agreed with me that it was a horrible decision to have to make and he was unsure how to rule but i had to make it in the fairness of both players which i could see fit . To be fair to both players they accepted teh ruling and the hand moved on

As it was so nasty we sponsored the losing player into the €250 event

The good point of all this is that the player was mark Lassman and cashed for €2,000 in the €250 event and this made my weekend

Neill K
__________________

[turny]

im sure neil is a great td but im also sure theres a number of td's here in england that do as good a job who have the eyes of head office upon them when making rulings thus making it alot harder.

i make all the rulings at our weekly game as im the td for that and in my opinion i get every decision right. that doesnt mean my decisions are correct its just that i believe them to be.

i have the advantage of no one looking over me so i can make the decision thats needed without fear of retribute from above a luxury not many td's in casinos have.

until a uniform set of rules are adhered to problems and differences from venue to venue will persist.