A floor call I had never seen

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
The other problem with this is the players up front often start playing before the dealer is done dealing so the existence of a bet and raise does not mean he wasn't on top of it to speak up the moment he didn't get get his fourth card.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, then I would say give button the burn card if he stopped action in a reasonable amount of time after he realized dealer wasn't going to give him his fourth card.

Usually two actions is sufficient time to call a stop in play. Early actions by UTG and UTG+1 should not count as actions for this type of ruling.

If this is the case, I hope you gave button the flop burn card.

[Buckeyes]

I would think the floor might do one of 3 decisions. 1. declare a misdeal. 2. give button final card. 3. Declare the buttons hand only a dead hand. Any of these decisions would be acceptable to myself as a player and i would forgive the dealer as an honest mistake and accept the floor decision as your a busy guy and have other things to attend to so get a final word out as quickly as possible and move to the next hand. HOWEVER That dealer better not continue on stupidity or a tip could be null invoid in the future due to lack of paying attention.

[SlightlyMad]

Action has occured, in spite of our button not getting his wrong last card. We all know the button's not going to get the right one; concentrate next time, dealer. The correct flop/turn/river will come out if you give the button a fourth card ... so let's get it done and move on. If the player doesn't like the ruling, they can always fold their perfectly good hand.

Misdeal feels like the wrong ruling in spite of the fact that two players received the wrong cards. And a dead hand (because of dealer error) because the dealer didn't finish dealing cards out feels wrong as well ... but I can see the floor peeling off the top card to the button AND killing one/both hands to restore the flop/turn/river to its proper state and preserve the integrity of the "eight" good hands that were dealt.

Interesting example.

[youtalkfunny]

I've never called a misdeal after this much action, but I think you have to in this case. All the action occurred before the cards were distributed, and when the distribution of cards becomes this messed up, you've got to "no action" this hand.

Eager to see what RR ruled.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never called a misdeal after this much action, but I think you have to in this case. All the action occurred before the cards were distributed, and when the distribution of cards becomes this messed up, you've got to "no action" this hand.

Eager to see what RR ruled.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something else I forgot to include. This hand took place at about 1:38 and at 1:34 I had announced "last three hands" so everyone is playing as fast as they possibly can because they want to get out of there to beat the traffic as the casinos are about to close (by law). It appeared the button did not have time to protect his hand as the dealer had not yet returned the exposed burn card to the top of the deck, so I had the dealer give him the top card off the deck. A number of people suggested I should have killed his hand. Later (after I made the OP here) I looked up what the local gaming regulation says and found this.


[ QUOTE ]
47.1-1021 Dealing. A card dealt must be the top card of the deck. After the first card of the hand has been dealt to a player, the deal continues in a clockwise direction. The order of cards may not be disturbed during the deal of a round, except in the remedy of too few cards or for the purposes of error correction in the event of an exposed card.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the part that I bolded it appears that the Division of Gaming recognizes that a player is entitled to the correct number of cards and might even permit going back and giving a player a card if they are skipped during the initial deal.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I charge the button with constructive knowledge if not actual knowledge, by that I mean that if he didn't know he had only three cards he should have known it. I know you believe that players have no obligation to protect themselves, but this is part of protecting your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something you are overlooking here. The button does not have the dealer deal to his left after his last card, so he doesn't get an opportunity to protect himself in this case because the dealer doesn't "pass him by." The other problem with this is the players up front often start playing before the dealer is done dealing so the existence of a bet and raise does not mean he wasn't on top of it to speak up the moment he didn't get get his fourth card. On the other hand everything you have said about consistent dealing procedures is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

There may not have been a deal to the left, but the dealer now stopped brought in an exposed card and dealt an additional card to another player (maybe not the player on the immediate left of the button but still a very overt action which should have alerted the button).

As to the action before the the deal is complete, I took for granted that if there was an issue about the action happening early you would have mentioned it. While its not uncommon for a player to call or muck befor ethe dealing is complete, its a little less common for a raise and call to occur.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the action before the the deal is complete, I took for granted that if there was an issue about the action happening early you would have mentioned it. While its not uncommon for a player to call or muck befor ethe dealing is complete, its a little less common for a raise and call to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to mention in the OP that the room was about to close so everyone was plying at a frantic pace. Also the last couple of hands of the night are often cappped before the cards are out so it is impossible to determine when this action took place. It was late and I had worked a long shift when I got home and made the OP so I did leave out a couple more details.

[Boris]

If the action took place before the deal, meaning they bet blind, then it's a misdeal.

If the action took place after the players received their cards then the button's hand is dead.

[GreedIsGood]

[ QUOTE ]
If the action took place before the deal, meaning they bet blind, then it's a misdeal.

If the action took place after the players received their cards then the button's hand is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that doesn't help if the UTG acts before the deal ends. In that case the button never has a chance to let the dealer know of the mistake before action takes place.

Now I never look at my cards before it's my turn to act, but I do count them.

In this case, if the button spoke up as soon as it was clear the dealer wasn't going to give him a forth card, then I'd rule that he should get the current top card. If he waited and then noticed his hand was short, it's dead.

[psandman]

With that information I would think a misdeal is an appropriate decision (still curious why your dealer has no idea whether the action occurred before or after the deal was completed). I don't like just giving another card because your probably not going to do that everytime a player is shorted a card. It wouldn't be terrible to give him the next card, but I just think its a bad precedent.