Ruling re: exposed card

tipperdog · #1 06-27-2007, 12:31 PM

Guy in 6 seat just won a big pot and has lots of chips piled in front of him. He is stacking them at a normal pace, not delaying or anything, and the dealer proceeds to deal the next hand before stacking is complete (all of which is completely normal).

When dealer pitches 2nd card, it flips up and exposes some random middle card. Stacking player doesn't seem to notice (or at least doesn't say anything). Two folds. I raise and all fold to the stacking player, who asks for a replacement card. He says the dealer pitched the card into the chip mass, causing it to flip. Dealer says it hit players' hand and is therefore his responsibility. Player vehemently denies that he touched the card. Other players at the table claim it's a misdeal.

Floor is called. What's the ruling? And does it matter if player touched the card?

CORed · #2 06-27-2007, 12:39 PM

The dealers and floor people here are better qualified to answer than I, but I believe that since significant action occurred, it's too late to replace the card. I'm not sure whether it's a misdeal, or the hand with the exposed card is dead. The dealer should have burned the exposed card and replaced it before betting started, but apparently didn't notice in time.

It shouldn't IMO, matter whether the care bounced off chips or the players hand. It is an accidentally exposed card and should be treated as such. If the player deliberately exposed the card it would, of course be his responsibility, but a pitched card bouncing off a player's hand happens fairly often, and I've never seen it treated any differently that when the card just happens to flip because the dealer pitched it wrong.

tourney guy · #3 06-27-2007, 01:05 PM

I do not think it can be a misdeal if the whole table has acted before the player asks for a new card.

He has to play the hand - and I would recommend folding.

psandman · #4 06-27-2007, 01:54 PM

It doesn't matter if the player touched the card or not. If the card is pitched and as a player goes to grab it it rides up his hand and gets exposed it was exposed on the deal and gets replaced.

the distinction is whether a player exposed a card under his control, not whether or not it touched the player. the card should be replaced, but the player should ask for the replacement immediately. if he looked at his other card first I would be inclined to think he was taking a shot here . . . if he likes his hand as is he doesn't say a word. If he doesn't like he asks for a replacement card.

*TT* · #5 06-27-2007, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if the player touched the card or not. If the card is pitched and as a player goes to grab it it rides up his hand and gets exposed it was exposed on the deal and gets replaced.

the distinction is whether a player exposed a card under his control, not whether or not it touched the player. the card should be replaced, but the player should ask for the replacement immediately. if he looked at his other card first I would be inclined to think he was taking a shot here . . . if he likes his hand as is he doesn't say a word. If he doesn't like he asks for a replacement card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner!

tipperdog · #6 06-27-2007, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if the player touched the card or not. If the card is pitched and as a player goes to grab it it rides up his hand and gets exposed it was exposed on the deal and gets replaced.

the distinction is whether a player exposed a card under his control, not whether or not it touched the player. the card should be replaced, but the player should ask for the replacement immediately. if he looked at his other card first I would be inclined to think he was taking a shot here . . . if he likes his hand as is he doesn't say a word. If he doesn't like he asks for a replacement card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner!

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor ruled that the player was not entitled to replacement card. Action was to him and he could either call, raise, or fold. I was happy with the decision because I had AA would have hated to see a misdeal.

The odd thing was that the floor based his decision on the rule that "it's the players' responsibility to protect his cards." WTF does that have to do with this situation?

Also, I'm fairly certain there was no angle-shooting going on. The guy was a tourist excited to have won the big pot on the previous hand. He wasn't focused at all on the pending action.

juanzo · #7 06-27-2007, 08:27 PM

Player's responsability is to ask for the replacement before any action ocurs. Had he do it and card'd have been replaced for the burn one.
Once significant action is taken, the player has miss his oportunity

bav · #8 06-28-2007, 05:44 AM

Doesn't matter that there was action. Give the player a new card. That's EXACTLY what should have happened immediately and automatically, anyway. There's no reason at all you can't now fix it. No misdeal. No, he doesn't have to play with the exposed card. No, his hand isn't dead. This is a no-brainer.

Mr Rick · #9 06-28-2007, 09:47 AM

I agree with Bav. It is very similar to the case where the dealer doesn't give the last player/players their second card. When action gets around to them, the dealer just gives them their next card. I've seen this several times.

BoyChick · #10 06-28-2007, 09:59 AM

It doesn't matter if the player touched the card. Unless he did it on purpose, it's an accident. If a card accidentally flips, and it's the dealer's fault, it gets replaced. So it's logical that it would be the same if it gets accidentally flipped b/c of the player. It's not a misdeal, he should just get a new card and proceed with the action.