Hand retrieved from muck at Binions - bad ruling?

[luckydonut]

3 tables remaining in 8pm tournament. I have about 4 big blinds left and decide to push and try to steal with A7. I get one caller. By the time I go to flip my cards, the dealer has mucked my opponent's hand. Floor is called. Floor whispers to player. Player whispers back to floor. Floor retrieves two nines from the muck and the hand is played out. Clearly I busted out, or I would not be posting this yet [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I asked why this decision has been made when earlier this week I saw the exact situation called the other way, the players hand being ruled dead and his chips forfeited. At that time, the floorperson even fetched a printed copy of TDA rules to explain to a very peed off player why he could not retrieve his hand.

The explanation tonight was "I have discretion here, and I'm doing it for the integrity of the game". At the time I accepted I was fighting a losing battle, and that it would be extremly bad karma to push any harder for free chips when I was clearly going to be facing a better hand. The problem I have now having dwelled on it on the ride back is not so much that the hand was allowed to be played out (in fact, if it's easy to retrieve the hand, I think this should be done) but that it was done covertly. I know this is a very paranoid view, but rules exists for this very reason - for the integrity of the game. Surely if it was possible to retrieve the hand, the player should have named his hand out loud, then we examine the muck face up to see if indeed that hand is there. Although I'd be a fool to suggest this is what happened tonight (and I don't believe it is) it would be absolutely possible for the floorman to plant a strong hand with the player.

Anyone have experience with similar rulings? I've seen hands mucked by the dealer called dead countless times - this is the first time I've seen one retrieved.

[Rick Nebiolo]

I'm in favor (and LA rules allow) of retrieving discernible cards from the muck in cases where the action is equal (e.g., the accidental mucker has previously called all action) but I can never see going through the entire muck; it's just too easy to name two good cards and they are nearly sure to be retrieved in a large muck pile.

But let's say the mistakenly (and unfairly) mucked cards are in a group of three or four at the edge of the muck and everyone agrees that the correct two cards are among those three or four. Let's also say there is further action. I don't like whispering. If I was the floor I'd have the mucker write down the exact cards on a post-it note; I'd look for those two cards (among the group of three or four) and retrieve them on the following condition: The player must show at the end of the hand (and they will be set aside if mucked on a latter round) and that they must match what is on the written note in order to win the hand.

Using this technique everyone can see that there is no possible collusion between the floor and player.

~ Rick

[DayTripping]

Benny Binion would never let this happen.

[bav]

I see no reason at all for this discussion between the floor and the player to have been done in secret since you were all-in. The player should have announced outloud to everybody "I had two black nines" (or whatever).

I'd place a small wager that the guy with 99 is something of a regular and got treated a little better than a run-of-the-mill off-the-street patron would. In my too many hours of B&M daily tourney play I've never ever seen a floor person go through the whole muck to retrieve two cards. I have seen it when the victim could state "I had two kings and I can point at which two cards they are" (and yeah, he pointed at two face-down kings among a jumble of 4 or 6 cards). I agree with Rick's thoughts that it's just not ok in this situation to paw through the whole muck. I have seen the floor give back the victim's last bet, and sometimes all of their bets from the current betting round as a remedy.

No, don't much like this ruling.

[luckydonut]

This is really eating me now I've had chance to sleep on it. It's the first time I've come close to thinking I may have seen house collusion in a Las Vegas cardroom, and that really doesn't feel great, however unlikely it still is. I'm also pretty annoyed that I was made to look like a desperate angle-shooter. If the decision had gone the other way, nobody would have blamed the player for causing a fuss (just like it happened earlier in the week) but it's totally unsporting for me to ask for a house rule to be used consistently in this spot.

I did ask the floorperson whether the player told him the suits as well as the card values. By doing so I'm already implying the player is a cheat, and getting cold stares from around the table. He said yes but that was that; neither of them either offered to call the hand before it was turned up. I held back from asking outright "do you know him?", although I'm starting to wish I did. Obviously I'll be better prepared if this ever happens again to insist that the player at least names the cards out loud (there was no further action, but the post-it idea would work for me too if there was).

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the first time I've come close to thinking I may have seen house collusion in a Las Vegas cardroom

[/ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt that's what it is. I imagine the player really did have two nines and the floor retrieved the correct cards. But yes, they could have flat-out cheated.

I don't think he shoulda done it at all, but if the floor is going to do this I really don't like the way he went about it exactly because it could have been rigged. The floor didn't use a procedure that left you feeling comfy that the right two cards came out (whether or not you like the idea of digging the cards out) and thus created an appearance of impropriety. Bad.

[Brad1970]

IMO, when they hit the muck, they're dead. Move on to the next hand.

[AngusThermopyle]

Since you were all in, the conversation between the floor and the player should have been public.
If he is going to BS the floor, do you think "pocket black nines" would be his choice of made-up hands?
"retrieves from the muck" covers a lot, from "picks up the entire muck and finds the nines" to "turns over what the player and dealer thinks are his cards".
Yes, player should 'protect his hand', but this seems to be as much a dealer error. The floor tried to rectify that. He could have just given him his chips back and let you have your 'steal'.
"bad ruling"? Not good. Not bad. If the earlier case was "exactly the same", then it was inconsistent, which does bother me. "integrity of the game" implies consistent rulings.

[StepBangin]

Why was the hand mucked in the first place?

Your opponent needs to protect his hand from an accidental muck.

However, I dont think you should be too upset. In reality, he had the best hand and you the worst. It would have been this way even if it played out correctly.

[pismeyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, this never should have happened. Unfortunate this happened at Binion's. I've played many, many hours there and the dealers have always been on top of their game

P