Two flops - right ruling?
 

A bizarre dealer mix-up in a hand I was not involved in last night. 1/2 NL live, dealer is having an off-night (I think he had a cold or something) and after a raise and a call two players see the flop. Bet, call and he burns and flips another three-card flop out. Woops!

I suggested to the dealer (and later the floor) that the first card off, which was easily identifiable, should be left up as the turn and the remainder two cards should be shuffled back in (not unlike a premature turn card). Floor ruled the hand was dead and chopped the small pot to the two remaining players, one of whom flopped top pair and the other who flopped bottom set (DOH!).

Any thoughts on whether this was the right ruling? I always try to respect the floor and dealer rulings when they're reasonable, and I didn't speak up after my suggestion was offered (side issue: maybe I shouldn't have offered an opinion at all?). More curiosity than anything as I didn't have any investment in this situation other than academics.

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

they should have taken the second flop and second burn, put them back in the deck, reshuffle and burn/turn
Absolutely horrible floor decision

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

I don't think you need toend the hand and chop the pot. However if the two players wanted to chop the pot here I would probably allow it.

If the dealer is certain of the order of the cards (this is not always the case because cards somees slide) I would be inclined to leave the first card up, have the second exposed card be the burn, and treat the third card as any other premature river (shuffled back into the stub).

If there is any doubt about the order of the cards I would have them all shuffled back in

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

i'm pretty sure the floor ruled incorrectly in this instance (of course, house rules should always apply, though).

1) do NOT pull back 2nd burn card
2) pull back the three "second flop" cards
3) re-shuffle deck
4) cut deck
5) top card is exposed as the turn card
6) action follows accordingly

i believe this is how it would be done in a majority of rooms. i do not think you should pull in the burn card in any instance. i'm not sure why, though.

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

This is so, so, easy:

--put the three flop cards back on top of the deck IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WERE. To do this, the dealer must completely "undo" everything he did.

For example, if he's a right-handed dealer, and he spread the flop to the right (in a way that the top card slid furthest to the right, and the middle card ended up in the middle), he needs to slide it back to the left into one pile, being careful to keep them in their original positions; turn the pile face down; and put the cards, one at a time, back on top of the deck.

--the card on top of the deck now is the turn card. The next card is an exposed burn card. The following card is the prematurely exposed river card.

--Put out the turn card. Show everyone the exposed burn card, then put it face-down with the other two burn cards.

--Show everyone the exposed river card, and tell them that it will be shuffled back in, if necessary.

--Resume the action on the turn.

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A bizarre dealer mix-up in a hand I was not involved in last night. 1/2 NL live, dealer is having an off-night (I think he had a cold or something) and after a raise and a call two players see the flop. Bet, call and he burns and flips another three-card flop out. Woops!

I suggested to the dealer (and later the floor) that the first card off, which was easily identifiable, should be left up as the turn and the remainder two cards should be shuffled back in (not unlike a premature turn card). Floor ruled the hand was dead and chopped the small pot to the two remaining players, one of whom flopped top pair and the other who flopped bottom set (DOH!).

Any thoughts on whether this was the right ruling? I always try to respect the floor and dealer rulings when they're reasonable, and I didn't speak up after my suggestion was offered (side issue: maybe I shouldn't have offered an opinion at all?). More curiosity than anything as I didn't have any investment in this situation other than academics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do floors ever make this ruling and rake the pot before the chop?

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is so, so, easy:

--put the three flop cards back on top of the deck IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WERE. To do this, the dealer must completely "undo" everything he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop there please.

First off, a good floor would find out what the best ruling is based on the best intetions of the game. Whether that is chopping the pot up, calling it a missdeal and returning all bets, or reshuffling the deck with the "second" flop shuffled as well.

You don't reconstruct the deck this way ever! The same as if 4 cards came out on the flop, it's a full shuffle and deal of the flop. It's inconsequential in that situation about the burn card as it's face down anyways.

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't reconstruct the deck this way ever! The same as if 4 cards came out on the flop, it's a full shuffle and deal of the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I thought that dealing procedure had the cards placed and spread out in a certain way, so you COULD easily correct such a mistake without having to re-deal the flop?

Pull off the top three cards, turn them over, spread them in one direction... and the extra card is easy to identify and deal with as the turn's exposed burn card

Am I missing something?

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't reconstruct the deck this way ever! The same as if 4 cards came out on the flop, it's a full shuffle and deal of the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I thought that dealing procedure had the cards placed and spread out in a certain way, so you COULD easily correct such a mistake without having to re-deal the flop?

Pull off the top three cards, turn them over, spread them in one direction... and the extra card is easy to identify and deal with as the turn's exposed burn card

Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, you don't reconstruct the deck because now you know every card coming out instead of the just accidentaly exposed card type of thing during the initial deal. In the above situation, 3 cards are exposed that shouldn't be. That's turning one over and making it the burn card, the next is the turn, the next is the final burn. That's too many cards for the table to know. They aren't supposed to have information of any burn cards/upcoming turn or river cards. (obviously preflop dealt exposed cards is different).

Re: Two flops - right ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't reconstruct the deck this way ever! The same as if 4 cards came out on the flop, it's a full shuffle and deal of the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I thought that dealing procedure had the cards placed and spread out in a certain way, so you COULD easily correct such a mistake without having to re-deal the flop?

Pull off the top three cards, turn them over, spread them in one direction... and the extra card is easy to identify and deal with as the turn's exposed burn card

Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, you don't reconstruct the deck because now you know every card coming out instead of the just accidentaly exposed card type of thing during the initial deal. In the above situation, 3 cards are exposed that shouldn't be. That's turning one over and making it the burn card, the next is the turn, the next is the final burn. That's too many cards for the table to know. They aren't supposed to have information of any burn cards/upcoming turn or river cards. (obviously preflop dealt exposed cards is different).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had read his entire post, he said that the turn should be redealt and then the deck reshuffled. The table wouldn't have knowledge of the coming river card.