Dealer forgot to burn a card

[ShannonRyu]

This lead to some drama at our usually non-dramatic game this week: 17 players, down to 4 (all in the money), actual cards are insignificant I believe (3 of the 4 players in the hand, two of them all in pre-flop), but the dealer failed to burn a card before the flop, then burns and flips the turn, then burns and flips the river (giving one guy with pocket 3's a set of 3's and the winning hand. A player then notices that the burn cards were short one, and the dealer (not in tourney anymore) admits he may have forgot to burn pre flop. He says "I know I burned before the river, I peaked at it and it was an Ah, and I know I burned before the turn, I looked at it too." he was right, we flip the two burn cards over and he was correct. the only other down cards in the muck were from the lone folder. The dealer then says that because there could have been no action post flop anyway, he was going to back the cards up and reconstruct the community cards correctly, in doing so takes the river 3 and makes it the pre-river burn card, and the guy with pocket 3's loses (to a pair made on third street, which now is second street).

How should this have been handled?

[Khabbi]

Sounds like it was handled properly. I would have ruled the same.

[psandman]

You don't back up the cards at this point.

Consider the Turn and River to be action.

If you back up the cards then when this happens a player who notices gets two chances to draw. First he says nothing and waits to see if he would win. If his hand wins he says nothing and takes the pot. If his hand is a loser he points out the missing burn and gets to draw again.

If the player brings it up immediately you correct, once they see the next card there is to much action.

[NutCrackerr]

This was handled horribly. You do realize that the only reason the dealer burns cards is to prevent a player from getting information about the next card to be turned over in case the cards are somehow marked. If the deck is shuffled properly any five cards out of that deck could make your board.

[geoncic]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't back up the cards at this point.

Consider the Turn and River to be action.

If you back up the cards then when this happens a player who notices gets two chances to draw. First he says nothing and waits to see if he would win. If his hand wins he says nothing and takes the pot. If his hand is a loser he points out the missing burn and gets to draw again.

If the player brings it up immediately you correct, once they see the next card there is to much action.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you were to change the action, shuffle all the cards including burn cards (excluding mucked cards) and deal again.

Let me guess, the guy who lost to the trips noticed after the river, and also noticed he still would have paired to win if you moved the action back one card.


Isn't burning just used to make stacking a deck or using marked cards a little bit more difficult (I don't really see the point of burning)?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't back up the cards at this point.

Consider the Turn and River to be action.

If you back up the cards then when this happens a player who notices gets two chances to draw. First he says nothing and waits to see if he would win. If his hand wins he says nothing and takes the pot. If his hand is a loser he points out the missing burn and gets to draw again.

If the player brings it up immediately you correct, once they see the next card there is to much action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this but I could be wrong. I take action as meaning players are placing bets and making decisions based on the cards in play. Here they are all-in pf and there is no more betting.

I would reconstruct the proper cards if possible. If it is not possilbe, I would shuffle and redeal the board cards.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't back up the cards at this point.

Consider the Turn and River to be action.

If you back up the cards then when this happens a player who notices gets two chances to draw. First he says nothing and waits to see if he would win. If his hand wins he says nothing and takes the pot. If his hand is a loser he points out the missing burn and gets to draw again.

If the player brings it up immediately you correct, once they see the next card there is to much action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this but I could be wrong. I take action as meaning players are placing bets and making decisions based on the cards in play. Here they are all-in pf and there is no more betting.

I would reconstruct the proper cards if possible. If it is not possilbe, I would shuffle and redeal the board cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you choose to disagree thats fine, but how about addressing the issuee that your solution encourages players to remain silent unless they don't like the final board.

[Small Fry]

Once the action continues play stands. In this case the error was pre flop and since no player could act on the flop, being all in, once the turn was burned and dealt I would rule that was sufficient action for the hand to continue and stand as dealt. Since no one pointed out the descrepency till the hand was concluded the hand stands as dealt. IF a player called attention to the missing burn card after the turn was dealt, the hand would still play to conclusion but I may have the dealer burn two cards to arrive at would have been the "real" river card. But the flop and turn are remaining as dealt. Only if a player called attention to it immediately on the flop would I have redealt the flop with the proper cards. But the hand would still continue. No one gains any individual advantage by knowing what the burn card is - even if there was still more betting to come.

[Khabbi]

So here is what happened. There are 8 cards involved in the flop: 5 board cards (bold) and 3 burn cards.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

But here is what should have happened:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

If the board was properly reconstructed, the only two cards that should have been the same were cards 2 & 3, but you said that 3rd street became 2nd street. How does that work?

I still say that in theory the board should have been reconstructed as it was meant to be, but it should have been done properly.

[muxplust]

[ QUOTE ]
So here is what happened. There are 8 cards involved in the flop: 5 board cards (bold) and 3 burn cards.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

But here is what should have happened:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

If the board was properly reconstructed, the only two cards that should have been the same were cards 2 & 3, but you said that 3rd street became 2nd street. How does that work?

I still say that in theory the board should have been reconstructed as it was meant to be, but it should have been done properly.

[/ QUOTE ]
agree