Home Tourney question

[NCAces]

So, we are playing a 10 seat NLH tournament. After the flop, HU, one player all-in, no additional action to come.

Dealer burns and turns.

Dealer burns, and the River card is face up in the deck. At first we thought the dealer had flipped the deck accidently and was dealing from the bottom. Instead, there were two or three other cards face up that had been that way through the entire hand, and then the rest of deck face down.

What's the call?

We decided that since the card being face up didn't in any way effect the action (because there was no more action with HU action and one player all-in), that the River card played.

The loser of the hand was a great sport, but thought that the hand should be declared dead and split between the two players.

Thanks for the assistance.

NCAces

[mug77]

Dead hand or that is a burn.

[Annorax]

Treat the face up card as a meaningless scrap of paper... remove it from the game, then use the next face down card as the river.

IIRC two or more faced cards kill the hand, but I'm not sure on that.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
So, we are playing a 10 seat NLH tournament. After the flop, HU, one player all-in, no additional action to come.

Dealer burns and turns.

Dealer burns, and the River card is face up in the deck. At first we thought the dealer had flipped the deck accidently and was dealing from the bottom. Instead, there were two or three other cards face up that had been that way through the entire hand, and then the rest of deck face down.

What's the call?

We decided that since the card being face up didn't in any way effect the action (because there was no more action with HU action and one player all-in), that the River card played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, as already posted, you ignore a SINGLE face up card and go to the next face down card. Multiple boxed cards should kill the deal

However, since it doesn't affect the play (with the all-in), and the action was already completed, then I think your ruling is reasonable.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
IIRC two or more faced cards kill the hand, but I'm not sure on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rechecked, you are correct- muliple backwards ("boxed") cards calls for a misdeal. In this case, I think the OP ruling that the action wasn't affected could be a reasonable ruling as well... as long as the dealer and shuffler were not involved in the hand.

[NCAces]

Thanks for all the feedback. Reading Robert's and your thoughts, here is what I think the ruling should have been:

1. Once there has been action, a misdeal cannot be called. RR, Misdeal, no. 2. If the 2 boxed cards had been discovered on the deal, or before action, then a misdeal would have been proper. Clearly there is a difference if this happens during the deal versus later in the hand.

2. RRules clearly state that if there is 1 boxed card, you burn it and deal the next card in turn. What it doesn't state in this circumstance is how to handle multiple boxed cards.

3. Because their has been action, we can't declare a misdeal. The best thing to do would have been to burn the next exposed card(s) with the River card being the next faced down card.

In our circumstance, I don't think that would have altered the outcome as the next face up card didn't make a difference. And, because there was no additional action I don't think there was any prejudice.

Still open to any additional insight, and really appreciate the feedback.

NCAces

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for all the feedback. Reading Robert's and your thoughts, here is what I think the ruling should have been:

1. Once there has been action, a misdeal cannot be called. RR, Misdeal, no. 2. If the 2 boxed cards had been discovered on the deal, or before action, then a misdeal would have been proper. Clearly there is a difference if this happens during the deal versus later in the hand.

2. RRules clearly state that if there is 1 boxed card, you burn it and deal the next card in turn. What it doesn't state in this circumstance is how to handle multiple boxed cards.

3. Because their has been action, we can't declare a misdeal. The best thing to do would have been to burn the next exposed card(s) with the River card being the next faced down card.

In our circumstance, I don't think that would have altered the outcome as the next face up card didn't make a difference. And, because there was no additional action I don't think there was any prejudice.

Still open to any additional insight, and really appreciate the feedback.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have it pretty much nailed.