Ruling from £50k Gtd at DTD this weekend..

[RioRodent]

Another perspective...

From Tournament Directors Association Rules -

Rule 28

Unprotected Hands

If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets.  However, if a player had raised and the raise had not yet been called, the raise will be returned to the player.

[scotty2hatty]

Another perspective...

From Tournament Directors Association Rules -

Rule 28

Unprotected Hands

If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets.  However, if a player had raised and the raise had not yet been called, the raise will be returned to the player.

At what point does he take his clothes off?

[gatso]

Another perspective...

From Tournament Directors Association Rules -

Rule 28

Unprotected Hands

If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets.  However, if a player had raised and the raise had not yet been called, the raise will be returned to the player.

not so much another perspective, more exactly what I've been saying

[Splash]

Another perspective...

From Tournament Directors Association Rules -

Rule 28

Unprotected Hands

If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets.  However, if a player had raised and the raise had not yet been called, the raise will be returned to the player.

not so much another perspective, more exactly what I've been saying

so it would seem the ruling was harsh but correct then..... wp DTD td i guess 

[MANTIS01]

I don't agree with the ruling because the cards are clearly identifiable and the verbal declaration is "all-in" not "pass". To shrug your shoulders and say the cards touched the MUCK so what can we do? is anal beyond belief. The guy declared all-in, his cards are clearly identifiable, the dealer can vouch for his cards and the error, the guy's oppo doesn't want the money cos he knows the score, all the other players know the score. But there's nothing that can be done cos his cards grazed the muck, and the power of the muck is so great it defeats all the above. C'mon.

This!

6. Cards thrown into the muck and mixed are ruled dead, if the cards remain clearly identifiable they may be retrieved by the (TD)

If we went along with D.T.D's ruling it would be clear that players sitting in seats 1 & 10 would be at a disavantage. And as players why would we want that to be the case? What if the muck is amassed in front of the player sitting in seat 10, then as the dealer tosses some mucked cards towards the muck they slide into players 10's space and touch his cards. Player 10 has his cards protected by a chip so his cards are clearly identifiable...but they have now touched the dreaded muck. His cards are dead now? Cos we can't do nothing now. Cos they've touched the muck. And the muck is more powerful than all of us put together. This is plain wrong.

[Cf]

RR's have under Dead Hands:

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

But it also has under irregularities:

2. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it.


So it comes down to this: his hand was not protected, therefore he has no basis to argue. If his hand was protected and the dealer still somehow managed to foul it, the rule about hands touching the muck being ruled live at the TDs discretion could be invoked.

TDA rules don't have a rule specifically about the muck but have:

1. Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floor person’s decision is final.

So, a dealer killing a protected hand could be considered unusual. A dealer killing an unprotected hand is not however.


Bottom line: always protect your cards.

[MANTIS01]

Good post CF. I like this part....

Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules.

I like that, but you can't quote that and say in the same breath that it's in the fairness of the game for this guy's hand to be dead and he should be handing over 10k. Cos I would say WTF!

This part...So, a dealer killing a protected hand could be considered unusual. A dealer killing an unprotected hand is not however., is not a quoted rule...it's just what you yourself consider constitutes unusual. I on the other hand would say a guy saying all-in, waving his hand, and having his cards snatched from under his nose is very unusual. If it is not unusual it is common, and that would not be a truth. The fairness of the game should take priority and what happened to this guy is unfair. The TD does not have to abide by the technical rule in the interests of fairness like you say and everyone at the table thought it was unfair. So what aspect of this does the TD think is in the interests of a fair game?

[Cf]

So what aspect of this does the TD think is in the interests of a fair game?

It's fair because they're following a rule made specifically for this scenario (namely you have no excuse for not protecting your hand).

The first rule can't really be invoked because as I say, nothing unsual has happened here - indeed, the quoted rule about failing to protect your hand covers exactly the ruling made here.

Now, whether you think the rule about unprotected hands is fair or not is a different question entirely. But whilst that rule is there it would be unfair to rule any other way - TDs can't just pick and choose which rules they like (unless they've got their own set of house rules).

[MANTIS01]

But TD's CAN pick and choose if they think the scenario warrants it. That's the rule you quoted.

I've been playing regular live poker for 5 years and I have NEVER seen someone announce all-in only for the dealer to feel that gives him the cue to make a grab at the player's cards. That's well unusual. It comes down to the definition of "protected" in your opinion. So if this guy was using a card protector and the dealer still grabbed them that is different, that is now unusual, and the rule can be invoked? I would say the words all-in are pretty good protection in themselves.

You see once again it's the player's proximity to the dealer that put's him at a massive disadvantage and that is very very unfair for the game. The other 8 player's distance from the dealer gives them natural protection from this happening...so they aren't required to protect to the same degree. Also players 1 & 10 have less time to protest before the cards are mucked because it's right there in front of them. So they can't stop the dealer so readily. You just can't conduct a fair game of cards when you put someone at a disadvantage...and the truth is this could not possibly happen to a player in seat 4. That is plain unfair. If it happened to me, which it wouldn't, cos I don't get kings, my cards would not be mucked and that is the simple truth. I would pity the TD who tried to tell me otherwise.

[Girgy85]

I also got a lift to DTD in the boybandmobile - highlight of my poker career to date! Cheers LeKnave, I owe you a beer!

Did you travel in the actual boybandmobile or the taxi in front which they book to lead them they way.

+1

genius.

Prop bet for boyband....

Next trip to DTD has to follow these rules....

1) No sat nav/follow the leader car to be used
2) No motorways allowed (only A and B roads to be used)
3) Old school maps are allowed with ONLY the front seat passenger giving directions

Could they manage it??

[WarBwastard]

Just out of interest, does anyone know where the guys cards were?  The tables at DTD have a betting line and a wooden rail no?  Were they behind the line?  From all the laws that have been quoted it seems to me that there are laws to deal with this sort of incident, but TD's do have the authority to not apply the absolute letter of this law if common sense and fairness to everyone can offer a better solution.  Ultimately it's fairness that should be the priority not just blindly following rules. Rules are there after all to make the games run smoothly and fairly.

If the guys cards were behind the line and the dealer has reached for them to muck them, but they're still clearly identifiable by everyone and everyone knows what's happened, everyone knows it's an all-in, everyone knows it's the dealers mistake, and everyone knows which are his cards... then surely the TD can just say sod the absolute letter of the law..take your cards back, the bet is all-in and the action is on you whoever else is it still in the hand. 

[phatomch]

because the dealer didn't take the all-in as the action, he mucked his cards and awarded the pot to the other bloke. Allow this and apply this ruling and you are opening the game up to all sorts of dealer /player collusion/ angle shooting.

Imagine you say all in heads up, the dealer takes your cards and then his mate still left in the pot is awarded all the pot and all your chips, its crazy.

irrelevant what the dealer took as action, he fucked up, that's why a ruling was needed. td now needs to reconstuct what happened which was- bet, raise, ai, dealer muck so the raise needs to be matched

no

[AgentChip109]

do we know if the guy actually had KK?

[vinni]

i had a similar thing happen to me twice in blackpool in 2 days
when Danny was running it it was the same outcome bath times ,
since then i always put a chip on my cards.
i think it was a correct ruling ,because it is up to the player to protect there cards.
like a few others have said if the man with qq had said call there would have been a differant situation.

[The_nun]

He just wanted to get you in the bath again. Once wasn't enough.