Tourney Rules Question -- Player with 3 hole cards at showdown (Hold'em) (1 Viewer)

[karsus]

Hi all, had an interesting situation happen at our monthly league game last night.

Hand was dealt correctly, significant action from multiple players. At the River, one player went all in which was called by one other player (also all in) everyone else folding. When the player flipped over their cards the calling player had 3 hole cards (should have only had 2).

The table agreed that it is almost certain that one of the burn cards from the dealer got mixed in with the players hole cards (they were sitting next to the dealer); the player clearly identified the cards that were theirs and was equally shocked at suddenly having 3 cards vs 2. In this specific situation any 2 card combination of the 3 cards would have won the hand and the losing player agreed that the hand should go to the other player.

However, had the cards not made the situation easy it could have been a more challenging situation. At this point in play it would be incredibly challenging (if not impossible) to unwind the play and bets (not just the 2 players involved, but the broader table that was also in on the action). The player with three cards ended up in that situation through no fault of their own (the dealer was sloppy with the burn card) and was betting based on the 2 hole cards they were dealt.

My reading of Roberts Rules would say that the player's hand would be dead "1(d) The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game" but that seems pretty harsh considering it was the dealers mistake and would result in being out of the tournament.

I guess my question is: What would have been the right way to handle that situation as per the rules? and in the spirit of 'fairness' how would the community address the situation had the cards not made it easy?

 

[DoubleEagle]

By rule, the hand is dead. It is always the players responsibility to assure they have the correct number of cards.

 

[upNdown]

That’s a simple one. The hand is dead and the unfortunate player loses.
I’ve seen this happen is Casio/cardroom tournaments, though it rarely makes it to the river before the illegal hand is discovered. It sucks for the player because it isn’t their fault, but that’s why you should always verify that you haven’t cards immediately, and protect your hand thereafter. Once significant action has taken place, it’s too late to call it a misdeal - that hand is dead. Like I said, I’ve seen a player lose their blinds this way, which, toward the end of a tournament, really stinks.

 

[karsus]

That’s a simple one. The hand is dead and the unfortunate player loses.
I’ve seen this happen is Casio/cardroom tournaments, though it rarely makes it to the river before the illegal hand is discovered. It sucks for the player because it isn’t their fault, but that’s why you should always verify that you haven’t cards immediately, and protect your hand thereafter. Once significant action has taken place, it’s too late to call it a misdeal - that hand is dead. Like I said, I’ve seen a player lose their blinds this way, which, toward the end of a tournament, really stinks.

I think it was actually the burn card from the river that got mixed into their hand... not that it changes the rules, just makes it that much more tragic

 

[upNdown]

I think it was actually the burn card from the river that got mixed into their hand... not that it changes the rules, just makes it that much more tragic

Yeah - either way it’s dealer error, which is tragic. But if his cards were protected with a chip or a goofy toy on top of them, the dealer likely never would have made that mistake.
“always protect your cards” is a good rule, but “always always always protect your cards when you’re sitting next to the dealer” is an even better one.

 

[ArielVer18]

Luckily for the player with three cards, you guys resolved it quickly and let him win the pot. This is a good teaching moment for your players to "protect your hand at all time."

 

[buzzmonkey]

The dealer should be placing the burn cards under a corner of the pot to avoid this.

 

[MikesDad]

Burn cards under the pot or under dealer button in home game

 

[JustinInMN]

The table agreed that it is almost certain that one of the burn cards from the dealer got mixed in with the players hole cards (they were sitting next to the dealer); the player clearly identified the cards that were theirs and was equally shocked at suddenly having 3 cards vs 2. In this specific situation any 2 card combination of the 3 cards would have won the hand and the losing player agreed that the hand should go to the other player.

I am OK with this as a one time ruling in a home game if everyone is comfortable, but the letter of the rule is this is a dead hand.

The dealer should be placing the burn cards under a corner of the pot to avoid this.

View attachment 1307933

100% this times 100. Cannot emphasize this enough, burn cards always under the pot separate from the muck, separate from player hands.

Seriously, @buzzmonkey should just post this 10 times in a row on this thread to make the point. Not a lot of home game players think about it, but it's actually a very important procedure to observe.

EDIT TO ADD:

I don't at all get the mechanics of how this is possible...

However, had the cards not made the situation easy it could have been a more challenging situation. At this point in play it would be incredibly challenging (if not impossible) to unwind the play and bets (not just the 2 players involved, but the broader table that was also in on the action). The player with three cards ended up in that situation through no fault of their own (the dealer was sloppy with the burn card) and was betting based on the 2 hole cards they were dealt.

Was the player in question seated next to the dealer and the burn dropped in front of him? Did the dealer actively pitch the card in the direction of the player in question? Either way, I am just having a hard time with the idea that the player in question has no fault at all here. The dealer probably has plenty of fault as well (as we have established, burn cards should go under the pot), but I just don't see how the player in question picked it up on accident unless he wasn't protecting his hand (at all) in the first place.

 

[TheOffalo]

“always protect your cards” is a good rule, but “always always always protect your cards when you’re sitting next to the dealer” is an even better one.

One of the very first times I played poker at a casino, I was to the left of the dealer, and he told me to make sure I protect my cards so he didn’t accidentally sweep them when he’s picking up folded cards. So I always try to protect my cards but especially next to the dealer.

 

[upNdown]

One of the very first times I played poker at a casino, I was to the left of the dealer, and he told me to make sure I protect my cards so he didn’t accidentally sweep them when he’s picking up folded cards. So I always try to protect my cards but especially next to the dealer.

Famous incident from WSOP - watch that idiot dealer grab her cards from behind her all in stack.
BTW, although I mock the little toys people use as card protectors, I guess they're right. Because when you're all in, you can't use chips from your stack to protect your hand. And if you're sitting next to a big dummy dealer, beware!

 

[buzzmonkey]

Famous incident from WSOP - watch that idiot dealer grab her cards from behind her all in stack.
BTW, although I mock the little toys people use as card protectors, I guess they're right. Because when you're all in, you can't use chips from your stack to protect your hand. And if you're sitting next to a big dummy dealer, beware!

I wonder if this is when the All-In lammers started being used by Dealers at the Series.

 

[Taghkanic]

Hi all, had an interesting situation happen at our monthly league game last night.

Hand was dealt correctly, significant action from multiple players. At the River, one player went all in which was called by one other player (also all in) everyone else folding. When the player flipped over their cards the calling player had 3 hole cards (should have only had 2).

The table agreed that it is almost certain that one of the burn cards from the dealer got mixed in with the players hole cards (they were sitting next to the dealer); the player clearly identified the cards that were theirs and was equally shocked at suddenly having 3 cards vs 2. In this specific situation any 2 card combination of the 3 cards would have won the hand and the losing player agreed that the hand should go to the other player.

However, had the cards not made the situation easy it could have been a more challenging situation. At this point in play it would be incredibly challenging (if not impossible) to unwind the play and bets (not just the 2 players involved, but the broader table that was also in on the action). The player with three cards ended up in that situation through no fault of their own (the dealer was sloppy with the burn card) and was betting based on the 2 hole cards they were dealt.

My reading of Roberts Rules would say that the player's hand would be dead "1(d) The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game" but that seems pretty harsh considering it was the dealers mistake and would result in being out of the tournament.

I guess my question is: What would have been the right way to handle that situation as per the rules? and in the spirit of 'fairness' how would the community address the situation had the cards not made it easy?

Player with three cards has a dead hand. Can’t see making an exception for that one.

 

[upNdown]

Player with three cards has a dead hand. Can’t see making an exception for that one.

Right and the reason is that even if any combination of the three cards made a winner, the player still had the advantage of having three cards all along - kinda like a freeroll. If you're 100% sure that a burn card ended up in his hand, I understand the ruling. But how can you be 100% sure? Also rules are rules. On the other hand, if a dealer is in a hand and he can kill his opponent's hand by sliding a burn card in there, that's no good too. Homegame issues, ammirite?

 

[PlaidDragon]

When the player flipped over their cards the calling player had 3 hole cards (should have only had 2).

I've seen this very thing happen playing in Vegas. Player two spaces to my right revealed he had 3 hole cards. The weird thing was, he didn't reveal this until the turn.... and had been betting it ! (he'd had a few)

It was a dealer mistake that caused the problem. Dealer calls a higher-up. Higher-up: "I'm sorry, Sir, but your hand is dead."

The player protested briefly but ultimately (wisely) gave up.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Huh, this is interesting. In that, obviously everyone pretty much knows that instantly means the hand with 3 cards is dead.

But, what if everyone saw they had two cards, and then bam dealer placed that burn card as thought in there? And without peeking at any card, the player can whisper to anyone at the table their exact two cards, number and suit? At a home game, this is still dead and pot to the only live hand left?

At a home game, how much of it is the letter of the law vs the spirit of the rule? (and does that change dependent on the amount of $ at risk)

 

[JustinInMN]

At a home game, how much of it is the letter of the law vs the spirit of the rule? (and does that change dependent on the amount of $ at risk)

I mean, I am okay with the ruling made on a one time basis, especially given the players are confident the "third" card was the river burn (meaning no real freeroll). But the reason the letter of the law is important is that the onus must be put on the player to protect his hand. Otherwise we find we are making so many exceptions to rules and inventing so many procedures for contingencies that won't come up if players just protect their hands. How many players are going to go for the "whisper the whole cards" procedure before it starts to feel like an angle? Used sparingly, probably okay.

Ideally, we shouldn't have to make exceptions to the rule unless a dealer is deliberately trying to kill a player's hand (in @upNdown 's example), and maybe the occasional noob correction where we feel confident in what happened and what belongs. But the only way to keep these situations rare is to keep the onus on the player to protect their hand.

 

[BGinGA]

I mean, I am okay with the ruling made on a one time basis, especially given the players are confident the "third" card was the river burn (meaning no real freeroll). But the reason the letter of the law is important is that the onus must be put on the player to protect his hand. Otherwise we find we are making so many exceptions to rules and inventing so many procedures for contingencies that won't come up if players just protect their hands. How many players are going to go for the "whisper the whole cards" procedure before it starts to feel like an angle? Used sparingly, probably okay.

Ideally, we shouldn't have to make exceptions to the rule unless a dealer is deliberately trying to kill a player's hand (in @upNdown 's example), and maybe the occasional noob correction where we feel confident in what happened and what belongs. But the only way to keep these situations rare is to keep the onus on the player to protect their hand.

Exactly. How many players who are careless with their hole cards would be equally careless if their cards were actually currency bills?

Treat your cards like cash. Protect them.

 

[4SUMERZ]

The house made the ruling, and I'm OK with that. It really is the responsibility of the player to pay attention to his 2 cards, especially in a Pineapple hand.
If the player sees an extra card come his way, he can immediately bring it to attention, but technically, the hole cards should be protected by a chip, or topper so that mistake can't happen.
At my home game, and we do self deal, and play 3 card pineapple as a dealer choice, and at the beginning of the night, I always make a point of telling the players that 3 cards at the turn, and the hand will be dead, no excuses. I always try to get the dealer to protect his hole cards with the dealer button if he doesn't protect them with a chip or topper. No one listens

So far, it hasn't been an issue, but the rule is stated prior to play. We all make it loud and clear to assure that everyone discards one card once the flop is tabled.

 

[ArielVer18]

I've seen this very thing happen playing in Vegas. Player two spaces to my right revealed he had 3 hole cards. The weird thing was, he didn't reveal this until the turn.... and had been betting it ! (he'd had a few)

It was a dealer mistake that caused the problem. Dealer calls a higher-up. Higher-up: "I'm sorry, Sir, but your hand is dead."

The player protested briefly but ultimately (wisely) gave up.

Did the dealer accidentally deal an extra card preflop? If so, this situation is slightly different because the player knew he had three cards, but said nothing. Drinking isn't an excuse. His hand is dead because he's suppose to call attention to the extra card when he noticed it preflop and not allowed to freeroll until the turn.

 

[karsus]

Thank you all for your insight and suggestions; I'll be making an announcement at our next event on protecting your hole cards, and proper dealing.

I know there were some posters asking on how we are confident that in this specific situation that the extra card was the river burn card , and not a player trying to freeroll. The player was seated next to the dealer; the player in question was constantly picking up their hole cards on every street to review them. So the entire table saw 2 cards in their hand, until the final showdown when three cards were revealed. Now, I guess it is possible that they are a card mechanic and spent the last two sessions pretending to be new to the game, but considering the low stakes involved; I don't think it would be worth someone's time to try to pull of that deception .

That being said, we will use this as a learning moment for the group and if any future situation like this happens, we will rule the hand dead.