REPOST: Question on a Floor Ruling at WSOPC Rincon $1k

[Eric Lynch]

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 8 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

[Rant2112]

My inexperienced opinion:

Seems like the whole hand just needs to be unwound like it never happened.

There is no fair way to continue.

Guy who bet 2100 can't possibly have that taken from him due to dealer error. You also can't just take the 2100 out because seats 1, 2, and 3 all folded based on that 2100. If all of their cards are retrievable (ultra doubtful) then I guess you could continue without the 2100 raise.

I'm learning that I need to protect my cards better, wow.

[BruceML]

"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 8 [EDIT - THIS MUST MEAN 9] seat and mucks his cards."

I find it hard to believe that Seat 9 could possibly have watched his cards being mucked and being awarded the pot without noticing that Seats 5 and 7, staring him right in the face, still had cards (making me wonder also if the dealer was blind). If that did happen seems it did only because the dealer first mucked Seat 9's cards then awarded the pot (in reverse order of what is proper) and if that occured how did he muck those cards if they were protected. And how did this all happen without Seats 5 or 7 (or for that matter anyone else at the table) saying a word. Does this dealer have superhuman speed??

I can only see this happening if Seat 9's cards were mucked as the first step in this mess and then only if they were unprotected. That so, I would say Seat 9 is SOL and play continues as if he voluntarily mucked.

A TDA rule applies:

28. If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to his money back. An exception would be if a player raised and his raise had not been called yet, he would be entitled to receive his raise back.


(Note that, under this rule, I would not apply the exception because of the significant action after his raise, multiple folds, but the rule does seem to say a return of the bet is appropriate. I don't like that application of the rule however. Seat 9 could have avoided the problem by protecting his hand.)

If Seat 9 is considered to be in no way at fault, then I think his bet should be returned and the hand continues.

Again, a TDA rule:


31. Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can, on occasion, dictate that the technical interpretation of the rules be ignored in the interest of fairness. The floor person�s decision is final.


But the hand description to me seems incredulous - all this happening (award pot and muck hand) with no one noticing/[pointing/yelling, etc., unless, of course, a naked bombshell of a women just then walked by and only the dealer at the whole table was gay (or female).

[Eric Lynch]

Well, this is how it went down (your assumption that I meant seat 9 was correct and I have since updated it). Seat seven did ask the dealer 'what on earth are you doing?' as he was shoving the pot to seat 9, and seat 9s cards were unprotected and he was pretty oblivious. Seat 5 was contemplating his play and apparently not paying attention to anything else.

FWIW - I was specifically told that unwinding the hand and pretending it didn't happen was NOT an option (not arguing it should be).

I'll say what the ruling was at the latest tomorrow. I'd like to hear a few more opinions first.

-Eric

[KTeller™]

where i've dealt home games, and seen at casinos'.. basically seat 9's hand is dead and the money has to stay in the pot. Two remaining players with chips, have the option to continue the action from there on..

its hard to understand all of it without being there. i see the six folding out of turn and then them not seeing the five seat, but the fact that the seven seat was still in, just makes no sense to me. It would be different if six mucked and then nine took the pot and mucked only to see seat five still alive.. thats one thing.. but action should of been on seat 7, at the point in which 5 should announce he has cards and bringing back the action to that seat..

all in all, i dont see seat nine getting his cards back EVER!!! and he cant win the hand w/out cards.. the question is the 2100 bet where that goes.. i rule into the pot and i wonder what happened?

See if they muck and then six went out of town, then seven announced reraise, action would fall back to five to make the orginal call and the action of seven no pending, unless the seat five mucks and changes nothing..


i am talking in circles, so ill stop

[Imasmrtazz]

Is seat nine really at fault for not protecting his hand when he is being awarded the pot? The pot is being given to him, maybe the other players still in the hand had their cards hidden by chips and he did not see them. How long is he supposed to protect his hand?

Now that being said, my opinion would be he gets his 2100 back, and the three players that did not fold chop what is left in the pot.

[minordeity]

Originally Posted by Imasmrtazz

Is seat nine really at fault for not protecting his hand when he is being awarded the pot? The pot is being given to him, maybe the other players still in the hand had their cards hidden by chips and he did not see them. How long is he supposed to protect his hand?

Now that being said, my opinion would be he gets his 2100 back, and the three players that did not fold chop what is left in the pot.

Pretty much that ^. I can see seat nine leaving his cards unprotected in order to start stacking the chips from the pot. While he does that the dealer mucks his cards. Seat 7 then wakes up and says something while seat 5 is still doing air guitar to his ipod. I guess it comes down to who is ultimately responsible for overseeing who is still alive in the hand, the players or the dealer.

PS... This is why you tip the good dealers!

[Pendulous Threads]

Wow, what a nasty situation to be in. To have a dealer push you a pot and muck your hand aftter someone folds out of turn, seat 9 has to win this pot even without a hand. This is a grey area. Seat 9 should not have his/her hand in an unprotected fashion, but if a pot is coming your way, you are going to remove your protection.

I say

Seat 9 receives 2100 returned. As a penalty for not protecting a hand, seat 9 gets no further chips. Seats 5,7 split the remaining 1400 for 700 chips. Action continues.

[TeddyKGB]

this hand is so fckd that its officially declared an official cluster fck and everyone gets their money back. heres why.......

you have three dudes, including the BB who had money in there, folding to a raise from a hand that is now declared dead.

you cant award the pot to the nine seat or continue with the hand because you cant tell what cards he had unless he got to identify the cards to the TD who maybe could have retrieved same from on the edge of the muck, but its too late for that bc they declared his hand dead, maybe incorrectly

you cant leave the 9 seats money in the pot because he really did nothing wrong (i d think rule 28 should apply once the dealer shoves you the chips) excepting maybe being a little inattentive, you cant continue without him bc maybe without him and his raise the three dudes who folded in turn would have played.

the best option overall may have been to have the 9 seat tell the TD what his cards were, and if retrievable from a likely spot in the muck, the hand could have continued without the turd burglar who folded out of turn and ruined eveyones life, but its most likely too late at this juncture.

if I was TD id cancel the hand, give everyone a stern lecture about folding in turn and proper dental hygine habits, then use the commotion caused by the hand to slip a few black chips in my pocket and maybe pinch a cute waitress on the rear and blame edog.

see TDA rule 4400.18 When in the course of a hand things become so irretrievably fcked that its impossible to unfck without fckking the majority of the innocent degenerates at the table, then fck it, start over.

[Phildo449er]

This is a pretty ****ed situation.

I think rule 28 would be the rule that applies, it sucks for rule the guy in seat 9, but he did let the dealer muck his hands. the key is you have to pay attention. I've seen a guy call all in at a final table and get his hand mucked. The answer then was, "sorry, you need to protect your hand" and since he called, he didn't get anything back (and someone else at the table tried to fight the floor, but that's another story).

That seems like a really huge raise, so he has to be aware of who is in the pot, and should have been paying attention to what was going on in the hand, but he should get his 2100 back, and 5 and 7 should continue.

The other thing I can see (and this is a pretty dumb idea) is treating the 2100 as if it was a blind from a stack where someone was not at the table, so if somehow 5 and 7 decide to fold, you can give the pot to 9, but in the likely event that one or both of them calls, you let them play the hand. That said, I think the right thing is to give 9 his 2100 back,and move on like that craziness never happened.