Question on a Floor Ruling at WSOPC Rincon $1k

Eric Lynch · #1 (**permalink**) 04-03-2009, 02:35 AM

I had a question on a floor ruling in the WSOP Circuit event in Rincon in the $1k last week. I'm going to try and break down the action as best I can remember, and I'm curious what everyone thinks the proper ruling here would be.

9 handed in the $1k event, blinds are 100/200 big blind is in the 1 seat, I'm in the 3 seat. Seat 2 limps, I limp, seats 5-7 also limp (seats 4 and 8 folded). Seat 9 in the small blind then makes in 2100 more. Seat 1 (big blind), 2, and 3 (me) all fold. Then seat 6 folds out of turn. The dealer, while seats 5 and 7 still have cards, pushes the pot to the 9 seat and mucks his cards.

The floor is immediately called over (as it should have been) and the dealer explains the action to the floor. The 9 seat is protesting the fact that his hand was mucked, the dealer says he is unsure which cards belonged to the 9 seat, and the 9 seat's hand is declared dead.

What should be done at this point?? I'm honestly not sure. Before I say what the floor ruling was, just to make sure I've explained this right the key points still outstanding:

1) The 2100 chip raise from the 9 seat. His hand is declared dead as his hand was mucked and irretrievable. Does the 2100 stay in the pot or not?

2) There are only two remaining players with cards, seats 5 and 7, how do they proceed? Does it change anything if the 2100 stays in the pot or not?

FWIW I think the floor handled the overall situation pretty well, it was just one of the rare instances in a floor ruling where I really wasn't sure what the correct ruling should be, and I'm really still not.

-Rizen

Todd Terry · #2 (**permalink**) 04-03-2009, 08:10 PM

They should allow the 9 seat to tell the floor his cards and have them retrieved from the muck (which I've seen done before). If the cards he says aren't in there, disqualify him from the tournament. Declaring seat 9's hand dead is an outrage. As for how it plays out once his hand is declared dead, the 2100 stays in the pot, his raise is still in play, action's on the 5 seat to call, raise or fold.

Chris Vitch · #3 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 03:56 AM

A few things...

1) There is no way the 2100 can come out of the pot, that's the only thing that I'm certain would be a terrible ruling.

2) How much time elapsed from the time the 6 seat folded out of turn and the dealer pushed the pot to seat 9? If more than say 5 seconds I would certainly rule that seat 5 failed to protect his action and his hand is dead. Seat 7 maybe, I'm less sure about his hand since he had seat 5 to act in front of him.

3) Was seat 9 aware of what happened the whole time? Meaning when the dealer was pushing him chips did he know other players were still in the hand? If so his hand is 100% dead for letting the dealer muck it. If not, its closer, but I still think out of everyone he is the *most* at fault (besides the dealer). The more I think about it the more I realize he definitely screwed up somewhere, one of the things about sitting in the 1 or 9 seat is you have to be extra careful to protect your hand from overzealous dealers.

Eric Lynch · #4 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 01:59 PM

Todd - I've seen this done before as well, but in all cases the hand had hit the muck but was relatively easy to know it was near the top. I'm not sure it's fair to disqualify him if the cards aren't in the muck just because I know sometimes I can't remember exact suits as well, especially amongst all the commotion.

Chris - The pot was shoved to the 9 seat immediately following the 6 seat's fold. The 9 seat's cards were not protected and the dealer grabbed them and mucked them. Still his fault, and he wasn't protesting at all, but it was pretty much instant. Seat 7 was already complaining as the pot was being pushed.

FWIW - the initial ruling was that the 2100 stay in the pot and seat 5 had the option of calling, raising, or folding. I protested this because it seemed really unfair that suddenly the 5 and 7 seats were going to get to play with 2100 in dead money in the pot, which essentially changed the action after I'd folded. The 9 seat was obviously protesting this as well, but mainly because his 2100 raise had been almost an 'all in' and he would have been left with < 2000 chips.

The final ruling was that the 2100 come back and seat 5 and 7 play the hand out. Honestly after the fact I really think the 2100 should have stayed in and seat 5 and 7 should have played it out. That's probably what would have happened had I not protested it. It was a difficult situation for the floor IMO and I didn't really help make things easier. I was a bit emotionally tied into the hand because I almost shoved over the 2100 raise (this particular player had been raising limpers out of the blinds A LOT and showed up with J9o doing the same thing a bit later).

I still think it was a weird situation and wasn't sure what the ruling should have been. If the 9 seat's hand was at all retrievable I think that is the best solution, but his cards were mucked into the middle of the stub so I think retrieving them is pretty much out of the question. Thanks for the input.

-Rizen

Barry Greenstein · #5 (**permalink**) 04-04-2009, 11:35 PM

I texted Matt Savage and asked for his opinion, but he hasn't responded yet.

I have heard about players who went all-in before the flop with Aces while sitting in the 1 or the 9 seat, and then had the dealer muck their cards. The ruling is that their chips stay in and they are out of the tournament if someone behind them puts chips in to cover them. This seems like the same situation.

Chips stay in, unless not covered by the remaining opponents. Play continues with 2100 to call by the next player.

Barry

Todd Terry · #6 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 09:14 AM

There has to be a difference between having an unprotected hand mucked by the dealer and having your hand mucked by the dealer while he's pushing you the pot. While the failure to protect your hand can justify killing your hand in the first situation, I don't see how it can in the second situation. If you don't allow the player to retrieve his cards, even if they're mixed in the muck, then I think the next fairest thing to do is declare a misdeal. There's probably not a rule that covers this ridiculous situation it because it never happens.

Bryan Devonshire · #7 (**permalink**) 04-05-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Greenstein

I texted Matt Savage and asked for his opinion, but he hasn't responded yet.

sweet jeebus was this a 381 character text?

Barry Greenstein · #8 (**permalink**) 04-06-2009, 12:35 AM

Matt's response:

Not being there makes it more difficult for me obviously but I could rule two different ways on this pot.

1. If this is strictly dealer error and the player had his protected cards removed I would give the player back his 2,100 and have the hand continue. I would also have the dealer written up for NOT paying attention.

2. If the player left the hand unattended and the dealer did this I would leave the 2,100 in the pot and then have the hand continue. The player in seat 9 has to take a little of the blame for leaving hand unprotected. The dealer would also deserve a write up here for not paying attention.

I would NOT dig through the muck for player's hand but if they were retrievable (even touching the muck) I would give the cards back. I have never been a fan of asking the player what his cards were.

The situation is an ugly one for sure