Randy - exposed card question - help?

[lmcjaho]

Okay, so we all know that in Texas Hold'em when a card is exposed on the deal the exposed card (unless it is the SB or BB's first card) replaces the burn card, and the dealing continues in order and the player who had the exposed card is dealt his replacement card as the last card (what WOULD have been the burn card) right?

So what happens if the exposed card is the Button's FIRST card? In that case under the procedure above the 2nd card for the rest of the table would be dealt, the button would get their (would have been) 2nd card, and then their 1st card right away... Only someone has made the contention (which I am currently unable to either deny or confirm from my searches of Robert's Rules of Poker and other sources) that the Button cannot be dealt two CONSECUTIVE cards like this.

Is this contention correct or not?

If it IS correct, how does the exposed-card deal work for the Button?

If it is not correct, does anyone have a link to a rule that states this is okay (I know, hard to prove a negative) that I can show the (very inexperienced but willing to learn) Floor at a new room I just starting dealing for?

The following is the only info I have found vis-a-vis exposed cards and misdeals in Robert's Rules of Poker:

[ QUOTE ]
MISDEALS

1. The following circumstances cause a misdeal, provided attention is called to the error before two players have acted on their hands. (If two players have acted in turn, the deal must be played to conclusion, as explained in rule #2)

(a) The first or second card of the hand has been dealt faceup or exposed through dealer error.

(b) Two or more cards have been exposed by the dealer.

(c) Two or more boxed cards (improperly faced cards) are found.

(d) Two or more extra cards have been dealt in the starting hands of a game.

(e) An incorrect number of cards has been dealt to a player, except the top card may be dealt if it goes to the player in proper sequence.

(f) Any card has been dealt out of the proper sequence (except an exposed card may be replaced by the burncard).

(g) The button was out of position .

(h) The first card was dealt to the wrong position .

(i) Cards have been dealt to an empty seat or a player not entitled to a hand.

(j) A player has been dealt out who is entitled to a hand. This player must be present at the table or have posted a blind or ante.


[/ QUOTE ]

No mention of the button at all with regards to exposed cards....

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Only someone has made the contention that the Button cannot be dealt two CONSECUTIVE cards like this.

Is this contention correct or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not anywhere I've played. SF Bay Area, LA, LV.
Nothing against giving him two consecutive cards.

[RR]

There are some places that do not allow the button to receive consecutive cards. In most of these rooms exposing the button's first card is a misdeal. In a few of these rooms the dealer sets the deck against the table, spreads it a little and finds the third card from the bottom and gives that to the button. I prefer to let the button get 2 in a row. With the advent of machines there is no argument at all for not letting them get 2 in a row.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
(i) Cards have been dealt to an empty seat or a player not entitled to a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone ever seen this result in a misdeal? I've always seen the empty seat's hand killed, and everyone else keeps the cards they have.

[bav]

Some rooms have a rule than an exposed card dealt to either blind or the button is a misdeal. Others it's only the first card dealt to the big blind. Others it's just the button. There is no consistency at all from room to room.

Yeah, I've seen a few instances where a dealer declared a misdeal when an absent player got cards long as it was caught before any action. But normally they just muck the extra two cards and everyone plays on.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some places that do not allow the button to receive consecutive cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I work in one of those places. If the first card dealt to the button is exposed, the card is replaced with a random card from the middle of the deck and the exposed card is now dead (in the muck - not the burn). If I'm not mistaken, this a CO Div. of Gaming rule, not a house rule (too lazy to look it up right now).

[toddw8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(i) Cards have been dealt to an empty seat or a player not entitled to a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone ever seen this result in a misdeal? I've always seen the empty seat's hand killed, and everyone else keeps the cards they have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won a 20k bad beat jackpot in a hand that this happened. I'm really glad they didn't declare a misdeal.