home game controversy needs settling
 

16 person home-game tournament is down to 5 players. First 3 players fold to the blinds. SB goes all-in with QQ. BB (slightly smaller stack than SB) thinks for a long time and finally calls with A7o.

The players turn their cards face up, and after everyone sees what they have, the BB notes that the dealer (one of the other three remaining players) absentmindedly shuffled the folded cards back into the deck. BB says that it's a misdeal, and that the hand should start over. SB says that because the hands were already face up, the dealer should deal the cards out despite the improperly shuffled-in cards.

Who is right?

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

It shouldn't be a misdeal. there was already to much action. The folded cards actually make no difference here since each player acted without knowledge of the folded cards. Just proceed. Then kick dealer in the nuts.


(and it has nothing to due with the fact that the cards had been turned up)

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

[ QUOTE ]
16 person home-game tournament is down to 5 players. First 3 players fold to the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop right there- end of story. Once 2 players take action, it can't be a misdeal unless duplicate cards are discovered.

Besides, BB should PREFER all of the cards go into the deck. He's just trying to get out of being all-in with Ace-blah off.

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just proceed. Then kick dealer in the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

Here's one for you, psand: After the two all-ins, the dealer notes that 6 cards were lying on the floor.

Do you shuffle into the stub, or put aside as dead cards?

Does it matter if they are face up?

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

[ QUOTE ]
BB should PREFER all of the cards go into the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually he should not care one way or the other. While if a player folded an Ace that benefits him by increasing his outs, he has no way of know ing that a player folded an ace. If no player folded an ace then it is to his disadvantage.

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

here is the problem with this. I don't want to put cards into the deck unless I know they came out of the deck. Now if the scenario was that the dealer dropped the cards and knew that he had just dropped these six cards off the top of the deck but they were no longer in order, i would be inclined to shuffle them into the deck. If they had been exposed I would make sure all players got to see them (if there was to be any action -- in this case all were already all-in)

There is a rule that "One or more cards missing from the deck does not invalidate the results of a hand" you raise the issue of it being discovered before the hand is over.

I am inclined to play the hand out without the cards in the deck. However I suspect tha will be in the minority on that position, and I would not be terribly offended if the hand was decalred void and all bets returned.

I do not think in this case it matters whether the cards are face up or face down.

If this situation arose in a hand involving anyone who I considered to have a history of shot taking, I would be inclined to stop inviting this player.

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

[ QUOTE ]
The folded cards actually make no difference here since each player acted without knowledge of the folded cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the cards matter. They DO have knowledge of the folded cards. They know they weren't very strong. For example, there is a greater probability that non-aces got dealt back into the deck. This benefits the QQ hand. The Ax hand has a valid gripe here, as his hand is now slightly weaker. Not sure what can be done about it though.

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually he should not care one way or the other. While if a player folded an Ace that benefits him by increasing his outs, he has no way of know ing that a player folded an ace. If no player folded an ace then it is to his disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what he knows, it matters what is probable. And it's more probable that the deck was more ace-rich without those disgards dealt back in.

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just proceed. Then kick dealer in the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

Here's one for you, psand: After the two all-ins, the dealer notes that 6 cards were lying on the floor.

Do you shuffle into the stub, or put aside as dead cards?

Does it matter if they are face up?

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting problem. Based on the above I would put them aside and continue. If you want to elaborate on the facts or provide a more detailed desciption (Like, say cards are face up where only one of the two players could see them) then I reserve the right to modify my answer... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

ps. I'll also change my answer if you can provide sufficient reasoning that shows I'm wrong to set the cards aside.

Re: home game controversy needs settling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The folded cards actually make no difference here since each player acted without knowledge of the folded cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the cards matter. They DO have knowledge of the folded cards. They know they weren't very strong. For example, there is a greater probability that non-aces got dealt back into the deck. This benefits the QQ hand. The Ax hand has a valid gripe here, as his hand is now slightly weaker. Not sure what can be done about it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know first 3 players didn't fold Ace-rag? or somebody folding Q, rag? Unless you ask you can't. Sure the probability is greater that players received cards other than an Ace (or Queen) but it's irrelevent to this discussion.

Bottom line - There has been substantial enough action to warrant the continuation of this hand. Deal out the board.