Two Canterbury Rulings

Kevin J · #1 10-20-2006, 11:14 PM

First, let me preface this by saying that this is one of the best run card rooms I've ever played. The overall level of competence is impressive from the floor, to the dealers, to the girls who work the board (I still can't figure out how they manage a 35 table board so smoothly). But I was a little dismayed at these two rulings today. One I know should be wrong, the other (the first one I mention), maybe I was wrong.

I posted $30 for my big blind and saw that the button was right and that the dealer started dealing in the proper order. I then turned around to either talk to a waitress or friend who was standing behind me. There had been a raise, a couple folds, and a re-raise by the time the action got to me. I go to look at my hand, but I only had one card. The sb got two, UTG got two, but somehow the dealer only gave me one.

The ruling was I'm S.O.L. I lose my $30 and my one card hand is dead. The reasoning behind this rule is, it's my responsibility to protect my hand. My reasoning was, I was never dealt a proper hand to protect! Why should a player be penalized $30 for what is clearly a dealer mistake? But maybe I'm wrong?

I understand not wanting to call a misdeal after such significant action. I guess I also understand how it's not fair to the other players to give the BB his money back. After all, the initial player raised thinking there was $50 in the pot and it's not fair to take $30 of it away after he raises and another guy re-raises. So maybe their rule is the correct one? This has honestly never happened to me before in 8 years of playing, because I'm usually pretty good at paying attention. But I've seen this happen before and the BB was always given his money back (or dealt a random 2nd card), because it's not fair to ask him to post $30 without being dealt in. How do other cardrooms handle this? Had I been dealt two cards, I fully understand how it's my responsibility to protect them (from the dealer taking them away, etc.).

One other rule I found out today is that the button is allowed to straddle in a 3-hande game! I know you cannot straddle in a 3-handed limit hold'em game at Commerce and most other rooms I play. It's a clear advantage for the button to make it a 3-blind game and in effect, post a big blind on the button. I HATED this rule, because a 4th player kept getting up on my big blind and I basically got my big blind straddled for 20 minutes straight without being able to do the same. I suppose I could've just got up, but I really wanted to play 3-handed. Next time, I guess I'll have to just walk too and let them play heads-up if they want.

Other than that, I love Canterbury!

Bremen · #2 10-20-2006, 11:34 PM

The first ruling is correct. You need to notify the dealer you only have one card when it happens, not after there has been action.

RR · #3 10-20-2006, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The ruling was I'm S.O.L. I lose my $30 and my one card hand is dead. The reasoning behind this rule is, it's my responsibility to protect my hand. My reasoning was, I was never dealt a proper hand to protect! Why should a player be penalized $30 for what is clearly a dealer mistake? But maybe I'm wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you possibly know it was a dealer mistake, you could have been dealt 1, 2, or 3 cards since you stated above
[ QUOTE ]
I posted $30 for my big blind and saw that the button was right and that the dealer started dealing in the proper order. I then turned around to either talk to a waitress or friend who was standing behind me. There had been a raise, a couple folds, and a re-raise by the time the action got to me. I go to look at my hand, but I only had one card.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly were not watching the dealer deal so it is quite possible you got 2 cards and one of them was mucked with someone else's hand. If you had been watchign and the dealer started to skip you you could have protected yourself by saying "wait."

[ QUOTE ]
One other rule I found out today is that the button is allowed to straddle in a 3-hande game! I know you cannot straddle in a 3-handed limit hold'em game at Commerce and most other rooms I play. It's a clear advantage for the button to make it a 3-blind game and in effect, post a big blind on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

No straddle 3 handed used to be a rule (and I think it still should be), but with some places allowing MS straddle (PL) a lot of the idea that being last both pre and post flop being too strong hsa fallen by the wayside.

luckychewy · #4 10-20-2006, 11:38 PM

first is standard. 2nd is houses rule i guess, but can't you just negate any advantage by straddling every button of yours?

Kevin J · #5 10-20-2006, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
first is standard. 2nd is houses rule i guess, but can't you just negate any advantage by straddling every button of yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never got the chance, because by the time it was my button the 4th player was back in the game. That's what frustrated me.

And why should it be standard to screw a guy out of $30 bucks? The cards are clearly out of order anyway, so why not at least give the BB another card? Also...

Are you saying that if you are sitting at the table on the button, and happen to be ordering food, and don't notice that the dealer hasn't dealt you in at all, you have no right to a hand?

Bremen · #6 10-21-2006, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that if you are sitting at the table on the button, and happen to be ordering food, and don't notice that the dealer hasn't dealt you in at all, you have no right to a hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

Kevin J · #7 10-21-2006, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you possibly know it was a dealer mistake, you could have been dealt 1, 2, or 3 cards since you stated above

[/ QUOTE ]

The muck pile was counted. The dealer just skipped me on the 2nd card.

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly were not watching the dealer deal so it is quite possible you got 2 cards and one of them was mucked with someone else's hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since this wasn't the case, does it change your mind?

[ QUOTE ]
If you had been watchign and the dealer started to skip you you could have protected yourself by saying "wait."

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt.. And this is really what it comes down to... I've always understood that it's the player's responsibility to protect his hand once it's been dealt to him. But I didn't know it was the player's responsibility to watch the dealer and make sure he's not screwing up and doing his job correctly. I'm not trying to be a smartass. I just don't think that onus should fall on the player. The way I see it, I paid my blind and I'm entitled to receive two cards and vie for the pot if I choose. If I were a dick (and didn't like the place), I would liked to have seen what the Minnesota gaming commission would have to say about a casino forcing a patron to place a bet, while refusing to provide him with a legitimate hand to play. FWIW- I'm not a dick and didn't want to slow the game, so I just let it go without much of an argument.

RR · #8 10-21-2006, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The muck pile was counted. The dealer just skipped me on the 2nd card.

Quote:
You clearly were not watching the dealer deal so it is quite possible you got 2 cards and one of them was mucked with someone else's hand.

Since this wasn't the case, does it change your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I have seen some sets of rules that make it a misdeal if the blind has the wrong numnber of cards reguardless of the previous action if it is noted beofre the blind acts.

Kevin J · #9 10-21-2006, 12:17 AM

Well so far, I seem to be wrong. I'd like to hear from a few more people (hopefully Rick N?), before totally backing down. I just don't see it that way. You pay your blinds, you should be entitled to a hand if you're sitting at the table. I don't see why it should be the player's responsibility to watch the dealer's every move and make sure he/she isn't screwing up. I don't toke dealers because they wear cool shirts. And (I thought), the reason I pay over 35k a year in additional rake and time fees, is because I can trust the house to ensure their employess do their job correctly and I get a fair deal in their games.

Andy B · #10 10-21-2006, 12:50 AM

The ruling is correct. I doubt that any room is going to undo that much action because you didn't get a second card. It is incumbent upon you to speak up. It sucks, but I can't think of a better way to handle it. Can you?

The rule allowing a straddle on the button is new, I think less than a year old. I haven't played three-handed since it went into effect, but I like it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]