Interesting Situation Local B&M, Dealer Screwes Up, Chaos Ensues

[Lalu]

Live $100 NL game, preflop action unimportant (I am in Seat 5). Flop has come 766 and Seat 1 and Seat 7 get it allin putting about $200 in the pot each. Seat 1 shows A6 for trips and Seat 7 shows 98 for an OESD. The dealer deals out the turn card a J and then puts the deck down and begins to fan it out when the whole table is like "Wait, wait there is still the river card." The Dealer realizes the error puts the deck (and cut card) back in place (pretty carefully, took her about 10 seconds) and then deals out the River card, a Ten. Seat 1 immediately erupts upon seeing it saying "No, No that's not the right river card you messed the deck up, it wasn't in the right order." Seat 7 is like "What do you mean, that's the card she dealt, I win the pot." Then Seat 3 (a good friend of Seat 1's) chimes in with "No, no that's not the right river card the order was definitely messed up" and then says to Seat 7 "Don't be like that man, don't cheat, you know that wasn't the right card." In the meanwhile Seat 1 is continuing with the same argument aruging with the Dealer and with Seat 7. At this point, though I wasn't involved in the hand at all, I was frankly getting pretty peeved at Seat 1's (as well Seat 3's) attitude about the whole situation. The main thing to me being that he had plenty of time to object to the deck being out of order etc. prior to the river card being revealed and only chose to do so when he realized it beat him (and somehow I doubt he would have complained had the river card been a blank). Plus Seat 3 saying that Seat 7 was "attempting to cheat" seemed rather out of place as to me if anyone was trying to cheat it was Seat 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything given I wasn't involved at all, but like I said the attitude they were displaying made me rather angry so I politely (at least in my view) inquired as to why they didn't object to the river card being incorrect BEFORE it was revealed. Seat 3 told me "Well I just didn't think about it at the time" while Seat 1 (as expected) basically told me "You aren't involved in the hand don't say anything." My natural thought at that point (though I didn't say anything further) was "Well your friend (in Seat 3) sure is saying alot for someone not in the hand either, but you don't seem to mind that" (since of course I was disagreeing with his point of view while his friend wasn't). I didn't say anything after my original comment since it seemed certain that anything I'd say would just escalate the situation, and by then of course the Floor had been called over to rectify the situation.

The floor ended up reviewing a videotape of what happened and felt the cards were in the right order and awarded the pot to Seat 7 (I think correctly, though I'm fairly at a loss as to what they would have done if they'd viewed the deck as being in the wrong order since it took them a decent amount of time to check the tape, and we of course had moved way beyond that hand by then so of course the deck situation was not in any way, shape, or form recoverable).

I'm just curious what you all think about what the ruling should have been and my action. Should I have just kept my mouth shut? Like I said I'm not one to typically get involved in situations like that which don't really pertain to me, just this one happened to strike a nerve with me. Also, what should the floor have done if not what they did?

[bav]

You're right. You have to object to what's about to happen in that situation before it happens. You don't get two bites at the apple, and a river card coming out you don't like isn't a legitimate reason to complain. Floor shouldn't have pretended to review the tape, even.

[DGenR8]

Good ruling.

Some people truly believe that the order of the cards once the shuffle is complete should not be disturbed (and the casinos reinforce this idea by the way some misdeals are handled). But if a turn or river card is exposed prematurely, the remedy is for the exposed card to go BACK into the deck and the whole thing gets shuffled.

The bottom line is that the remaining live cards should have an equal chance of coming off, and whether the shuffle stops or continues through the hand (as happens on some poker sites) doesn't affect the integrity of the game at all. The guys arguing the point either don't understand the concept of "random" or (more liekly) they're trying to get around an outcome they don't like (e.g. a vulnerable hand gets outdrawn).

Re: your speaking up in this situation, I wouldn't. There's no way the floor's not getting involved here, and it's best to leave it up to them. But I certainly share your frustration at the goings-on.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
The Dealer realizes the error puts the deck (and cut card) back in place (pretty carefully, took her about 10 seconds)

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Dealer doesn't call the Floor to help before this, she should at this point ask "Everybody ok with this?" here, to stop the argument afterwards.

But once the river is put out, case closed. Speak up before that. I might not like how the Dealer reconstructed the stub, but if I don't say something before she burns, I give up my right to complain.

And as far as speaking up, I would wait until the Floor is called, and then add my $0.02 then (if it seems I have points/facts not made already to the Floor).

[cardcounter0]

Pot goes to Seat 7, Seat 3 and Seat 1 get a kick in the nuts.

I am sure they didn't actually review the tape, it just stalls for time, and adds authority to the floor when he comes back and tells Seat 1 to screw off.

[johnnyrocket]

fair ruling, go to the tape, if not in the right order chopped pot. I dont know what else could be done.

[mordecaibrown]

The dealer should have called the floor over to observe the action before dealing the river.
The live players should be the only ones in the hand with something to say. As we all know it's not the case most of the time.
You---have no business in this matter. It's hard for me to let something unethical go uncontested also.
M.

[Brad1970]

In the cardroom where I play, they have the house rules posted on the wall. One of those rules is that if you are seated in a game & you see a problem, then they ask you to speak up. When I say problem, I mean of course something like....somebody shorted the pot, the deck is fouled, pot pushed to the wrong player, somebody's marking cards, etc etc. That does not mean discussing the hand during play so that someone else's decisions may be altered or getting into an arguing match with others over proper procedure after the hand is over. That is what they have a floor supervisor for.

So, IMO, if you are in a game & see that an error (intentional or unintentional) is made, you are obligated to say something regardless if you are in the hand or not.

[Aces McGee]

I can't speak to the correctness of the ruling (I think it's correct, but I don't know the rules well enough to say for sure), but I will say that I absolutely would've spoken up in the way you did. I'll stay out of a hand if I'm not in it as long as the integrity of the game isn't being compromised, but it's not in my personality to allow someone to be bullied, particularly at lower-stakes games where the players are less likely to be familiar with procedures, and/or more likely to be intimidated because of a lack of experience.

-McGee

[jacksquat]

middle stages mtt, two players more or less even in chips, get it all-in post flop. i am not paying attention (tipping the cocktail waitress) as the turn and river come off, and the dealer pushes the pot to player b. as the dealer is collecting the cards i ask what the winning hand was, and player b says "pair of jacks, king kicker." with that no less than three players claim player a had a straight. all hell breaks loose, tournament is stopped, and forty minutes later after "going to the tapes" the situation is resolved. when mostly everyone objects to the ruling, i get my arse reamed by td for creating the controversy. so much for speaking up!!