Results based Ruling query

[david3103]

The flop has been dealt, three players in, SB checks, BB bets, Button calls, the dealer puts the turn card on the table before he can be stopped

Obviously he burns another card, and puts the river card face-down in it's place.
He shuffles the wrongly exposed turn card and puts it, face down, to the right of the community cards and then turns over the card he had put out for the river.

Now, I know we're seeing two random cards, but does it matter which order we see them in?

The hand tilted me somewhat since the original turn card made my flush and would have pushed me to somewhere around 2.5 average stack in level 7 last night.

I'd like to think that had the next card turned over also made my flush I'd still have queried if it was correct to do it that way...

[StuartHopkin]

Not sure but I have always liked.

burn, river face down, shuffle pack with exposed turn, deal turn, then expose river

[dik9]

Hi Dave, I presume this was the incident on table 31 last night?

Can I say first that the dealer on the table was a blow-in, and he should of immediately called floor. When I was eventually called to the table he believed he had rectified the mistake himself ( by using a similar procedure that is used in many venues).

If a card is exposed by accident on the flop before betting, our procedure at DTD is to complete the board face down and then shuffle the exposed card in the stub and then use the next card as the replacement. This should leave as much of the original board as possible in the correct order.

In this particular incident, the dealer had effectively used the river as the turn, and then shuffled the exposed card in the stub to deal that card as the river. Then I was called to the table.

With the situation I was faced with ( remembering that idea is to keep as much of the original flop) I had to let it slide. I did explain to the dealer after the ruling that we do it slightly different at DTD to the way he did it.

In my opinion in that situation it was fairer to let the dealer continue as he had done it nearly right, rather than having to change 2 of the original board cards. I can only apologise if the decision put you on tilt but I have to try and give the fairest available solution to a mistake. This is exactly why dealers should call floor immediately rather than trying to rectify the mistake themselves.

Sorry :/

[david3103]

Hi Dave, I presume this was the incident on table 31 last night?

Can I say first that the dealer on the table was a blow-in, and he should of immediately called floor. When I was eventually called to the table he believed he had rectified the mistake himself ( by using a similar procedure that is used in many venues).

If a card is exposed by accident on the flop before betting, our procedure at DTD is to complete the board face down and then shuffle the exposed card in the stub and then use the next card as the replacement. This should leave as much of the original board as possible in the correct order.

In this particular incident, the dealer had effectively used the river as the turn, and then shuffled the exposed card in the stub to deal that card as the river. Then I was called to the table.

With the situation I was faced with ( remembering that idea is to keep as much of the original flop) I had to let it slide. I did explain to the dealer after the ruling that we do it slightly different at DTD to the way he did it.

In my opinion in that situation it was fairer to let the dealer continue as he had done it nearly right, rather than having to change 2 of the original board cards. I can only apologise if the decision put you on tilt but I have to try and give the fairest available solution to a mistake. This is exactly why dealers should call floor immediately rather than trying to rectify the mistake themselves.

Sorry :/

It waas indeed Table 31 - I was somewat tilted by seeing the card that should give me a decent pot (and stack) disappearing back into the deck...

The dealer concerned was obviously not a regular DTD dealer - his casual flicking of cards through the air was commented on by a couple of players and his general style just wasn't up to your normal standards.

I've had a trawl through Robert's Rules and found this
8. A dealing error for the fourth boardcard is rectified in a manner to least influence the identity of the boardcards that would have been used without the error. The dealer burns and deals what would have been the fifth card in the fourth card's place. After this round of betting, the dealer reshuffles the deck, including the card that was taken out of play, but not including the burncards or discards. The dealer then cuts the deck and deals the final card without burning a card. If the fifth card is turned up prematurely, the deck is reshuffled and dealt in the same manner.

irritatingly enough it is what he did, and as I said in the OP if the 'river become turn' had been a spade I might have just kept quiet.

I just wish the guy in the seat next to me had been more alert and stopped him


For clarity - If I have any criticism here it's of the dealer. I'm not criticising the ruling nor the way in which it was handled by you. Swift and decisive is fine, especially on a shortish clock :-)

[JaffaCake]

Don't think the river should become turn no matter what the result, the whole point is to keep the original board intact as much as possible, and therefore the card that is the river could never have been the turn.

As an aside, I have only played at DTD twice, but have to say the professionalism of the dealers during the ukipt was noticeable, as was their eagerness to call the floor and get the right decision over quite small things, or even if the dealer knew the 'right' procedure, getting the floor to reassure the punters that everything is going in the right way.

Also little things,, like talking in languages other than english in hands, people looking at their cards then running off for a ciggy or a piss and therefore passing before their turn, each time the dealer had a word with them without needing prompting from a player. That kind of thing helps the game flow and also stops any bad blood or atmos between players and is much appreciated

[Cf]

I don't like the rule where the river card is placed face down on the table after an exposed turn, for 2 reasons:

1) One of the reasons for using burn cards is so players can't see what the next card is. Having it sat there in the middle of the table misses the point of burn cards. If a card is marked it is potentially sat there for a player to see.

2) Potential mistakes from having a card sat there face down in the middle of the table. Scooping it into the muck. Accidently burning and dealing an extra card. Little things really.

I guess the big argument to do it that way is to at least preserve some of what "should" happen. I'm of the opinion they're just random cards. I know a lot of people have a hard time getting their head around this though.

Reading RRs version actually doesn't have these issues and incorporates an element of keeping a card that should have been dealt. I think RRs is superior to the DTD rule. But I'm of the opinion even that isn't neccesary. Just reshuffle and deal the turn then the river as usual imo.

[Bongo]

I agree with that cf.

To preserve the river (if you are so inclined) and function of the burn card you'd have to take the burn and river together and keep the burn on top of the river before separating them at the correct time. Seems a bit of a faff.

The only reason I can think of for the rule is that it might keep the sort of player you want in the game happy.

[Cf]

I agree with that cf.

To preserve the river (if you are so inclined) and function of the burn card you'd have to take the burn and river together and keep the burn on top of the river before separating them at the correct time. Seems a bit of a faff.

The only reason I can think of for the rule is that it might keep the sort of player you want in the game happy.

That works. Or you could I guess wait until it's time to reshuffle the turn. Take the top 2 cards off the deck, put to one side. Shuffle. Deal turn. Place cards back on top of deck. I don't object to keeping the intended river card as such as it's still a random card. But I do object to board cards being face down on the table. Presumably there's a reason why we don't just deal the entire board at the start of the hand. (Tilts me in pub games where people occasionally do this lol)

[doubleup]

For clarity - If I have any criticism here it's of the dealer. I'm not criticising the ruling nor the way in which it was handled by you.

errr no - dtd had a procedure that differs from the "standard" procedure so it is their responsibility to ensure that dealers are aware of their non-standard rule.

[dik9]

Double up is correct the onus is on us to tell the dealers.

What the dealers do know however, is although this can be rectified simply they are told to call the floor. Nothing worse than going to a table for a floor call after the dealer has tried to rectify and messed up.

[david3103]

For clarity - If I have any criticism here it's of the dealer. I'm not criticising the ruling nor the way in which it was handled by you.

errr no - dtd had a procedure that differs from the "standard" procedure so it is their responsibility to ensure that dealers are aware of their non-standard rule.

err yes - I know who I'm criticising

The dealer created the situation by not being aware that there was a player yet to act. He then compounded it by turning the river over instead of dealing a new turn. I queried it and then called the floor, he came promptly, made an acceptable ruling, given that by the time we had the chance to get him there the dealer had allowed the action to continue to the extent that SB had bet and BB had shoved both having seen the incorrect turn card.

[doubleup]

For clarity - If I have any criticism here it's of the dealer. I'm not criticising the ruling nor the way in which it was handled by you.

errr no - dtd had a procedure that differs from the "standard" procedure so it is their responsibility to ensure that dealers are aware of their non-standard rule.

err yes - I know who I'm criticising

The dealer created the situation by not being aware that there was a player yet to act. He then compounded it by turning the river over instead of dealing a new turn. I queried it and then called the floor, he came promptly, made an acceptable ruling, given that by the time we had the chance to get him there the dealer had allowed the action to continue to the extent that SB had bet and BB had shoved both having seen the incorrect turn card.

well thats fair enough, but if you want to start a thread to moan about a dealer, call it that and not a ruling query.