Dead hand or reshuffle flop?

[Spence]

We've had several posts about action out of turn and when a hand becomes dead. Is there substantial action? How many players acted? Does the dealer count as an action? My post is a spin-off of those.
NLHE - 4 players
Called around to the BB. The dealer raps the table says 4 players and deals the flop. The BB says "I didn't get my option to raise". Floor is called.
Please see the threads below as reminders for what we talked about in the past and then I'd like to hear what the rulings are.
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=150.0
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=342.0

[Nick C]

Spence,
The BB should have no option to raise after the flop, it's too late. The dealer tapping and burning, and the BB not stopping the dealer is enough. We can never allow any player that much leverage, to see two flops! Let's think this out. You are the BB, the dealer fails to say, "option," you say nothing. After you see the flop-that you don't like-you say "hey, you didn't give me my option!" If the flop is to your liking, you say nothing... That should never be considered as pre-mature dealing for the reason stated.

Therefore my answer is: The BB still has a live hand and there is no reshuffle of the flop. We have to assume that the BB did not want to exercise his option to raise.

IMO, that's the only way it can be.

[Stuart Murray]

The TDA has better defined substantial action, as 2 actions involving chips or 3 not involving, therefore the flop has been prematurely dealt and should not play, even where the BB is checking, I only see 1 action here (The dealers rap and tap) had it been the UTG player who was missed and still had cards he would of had a dead hand (Button, SB, BB, Dealer Actions (4 Actions (Substantial action)))

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Stuart,
We disagreed on the very same situation on another post. Not giving the BB his raise option is not good enough to alter all of the proper board cards. I would never support such a ruling. I listed my reasons on the first reply to this post. The BB needs to know that he has a raise option and has plenty of time to act or stop the action if the dealer prematurely burns a card. I would hate to think that dealers will be reshuffling, or calling the floor if they forgot to say "option," to the BB.

I have a tough time thinking that I would let a dealer skip me if I wanted to raise on the BB position. I'd stop him real fast.

Stuart, I'd like to mention that in the above situation the SB had his turn to bet, therefore there were two actions, the SB and the dealer.

[K-Lo]

It does seem a bit crazy to have to re-deal the whole flop in this particular example. 

On the other hand, what if you have some crazy fast dealer that raps and burns so fast that the BB is right in the middle of saying "Wait"/"Time", etc. and oops... too late, flop is out?  While I might still be OK with taking away the BB's option in the original example, if the example was different and the UTG player has raised and we were still waiting for the BB to call, then now we have a more complicated situation if there is a super-fast dealer.

Nick, why would the SB action count as one action when it occurred before it was even the BB's turn?

[Nick C]

K-lo,
You answered the question yourself. When we consider substantial action the initial posted blinds do not count. Action in a multy handed pot begins with the first player clockwise to the big blind (UTG), on the first betting round. In any normal clockwise rotation of betting, the small blinds action (completing the bet or calling any raise) comes before the big blind. Even when head to head...If we do not count the dealer's action of tapping and burning, how can substantial action (as we know it), be possible?
By definition can substantial action even be possible when only two players compete for a pot?


I modified part of this post because I thought that it was a little too confusing. I mentioned the action begining clockwise to the button, which is true but only in later rounds, I think the point I am trying to get across is better defined as written above because it is pre-flop where the UTG is after the BB.

[K-Lo]

Hmm... I must be misunderstanding the situation.  Isn't the issue whether there has been substantial action after the BB's option was skipped?

[Nick C]

K-lo,

I believe the question by Spence was referring to the initial round of betting. At the point of the dealers tap and burn, all players are in for all bets. The issue is whether the board should be reshuffled because the BB was not offered his raise option by the dealer before he dealt the flop. I don't understand how any substantial action could follow the BB in this instance?

[K-Lo]

K-lo,

I believe the question by Spence was referring to the initial round of betting. At the point of the dealers tap and burn, all players are in for all bets. The issue is whether the board should be reshuffled because the BB was not offered his raise option by the dealer before he dealt the flop. I don't understand how any substantial action could follow the BB in this instance?

Oooh.... I see - this is an interesting point indeed.    Basically you are saying that under the "two player" rule, the BB could always argue that there hasn't yet been substantial action when it comes back to his turn after the flop is dealt.  Will have to try that at the next TDA Summit game.  lol

I have to admit, I have primarily applied the "substantial action" rule/definition only when considering whether or not there has been a misdeal, and not with regards to situations involving skipped players.  In my opinion, the misdeal situations are different because the cause of the misdeal may not necessarily be apparent to every individual player when it is his or her turn (e.g. cards were dealt to an empty seat). In the skipped player situation, however, each individual player knows (or ought to know) that his turn is about to be skipped once something -- anything -- happens after him before he has acted. 

I never liked RROP Rule 12 and the explicit reference to 3 or more players because in my mind, it is a bit of a red herring -- it should not be about how many players have acted.  The critical issue IMHO is how long the player who was missed delayed drawing attention to the irregularity, and was that delay reasonable.  In some cases, only one subsequent player may have acted prematurely while the second subsequent player takes time to think... at that point, there is still technically no "substantial action", but clearly, the missed player should have said something by then. As soon as he realizes something has happened after him, he needs to speak up... the fact that 2/3 players have acted should be but one possible factor to consider whether there has been what I would call "undue delay".  Similarly, if we can confirm that the dealer prepared to deal the flop by announcing the number of players, tapping the table, burning a card, counting out three cards, and then dealing the flop, then this fact should be given a significant amount of weight when determining whether there has been "undue delay". 

In contrast, if the dealer had a brain freeze and didn't do any of those things for whatever reason, and just dealt the flop out such that the missed player didn't really have a reasonable chance to stop the dealer until it was too late, then I think this should also be taken into consideration.

I would prefer to have a rule that states that if a player's turn is missed, but that player does not bring this fact to the attention of the dealer as soon as reasonably possible, and without undue delay, after the next player in a betting round has acted, or if he is potentially the last player to act in a betting round, then before the dealer initiates any further action (e.g. prepares to deal flop/turn/river or calls for a showdown), then his hand will be ruled dead if check was not an option, and may be ruled dead if check was an option on that player's turn.   

(What is "reasonably possible" and "undue delay" should be determined by the TD in consideration of various factors, which may include, but should not be limited to e.g. the amount of time passed between the next player/dealer action was made and the time the missed player made the table aware of the irregularity, the number of players that have subsequently acted, the speed at which any series of subsequent actions occurred, the actions that were or were not performed by the dealer in dealing further streets, etc., and some factors may be given greater weight than others depending on the circumstances.)

I prefer to see something closer to Nick's view in that the dealer's actions when dealing the flop should be enough warning for the skipped player almost all of the time.  In my mind, it is not really a question of whether the action that followed falls under the definition of "substantial action" or not.  In Spence's original example, I think Nick's argument makes sense, although theoretically I think there might be some rare situations where a reshuffling of the flop might be justified if there really was no undue delay on the missed player's part.

[Stuart Murray]

Hi Nick,

I have read your post, but unfortunately it does not change my opinion, substantial action has not occurred, the SB action was before the BB, therefore cannot be counted, and has no relevance IMO to whether the BB has acted or not.

TDA Rule 32: Substantial Action.
Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

I don't see substantial action here, where the BB was missed and the dealer raps and taps.

RROP IRREGULARITIES:

15. If the dealer prematurely deals any cards before the betting is complete, those cards will not play, even if a player who has not acted decides to fold.

16. If the dealer fails to burn a card or burns more than one card, the error should be corrected if discovered before betting action has started for that round. Once action has been taken on a boardcard, the card must stand. Whether the error is able to be corrected or not, subsequent cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error had occurred. For example, if two cards were burned, one of the cards should be put back on the deck and used for the burncard on the next round. On the last round, if there was no betting because a player was all-in, the error should be corrected if discovered before the pot has been awarded, provided the deck stub, boardcards, and burncards are all sufficiently intact to determine the proper replacement card.

For me it's pretty cut and dry, the BB was missed.  Was there a reasonable amount of time for the BB to call time? or was the BB missed for a legitamite reason? we don't know but if he was his hand would be dead for another reason, such as Unprotected Hand or At Your Seat.  What happens in the situation where there was a min raise, 3 players call, the BB is missed and the flop goes out, you can't kill his hand because substantial action has not occurred, you can't simply back the action up and allow him to call the min raise or fold (which is clearly defined in RROP) you have to reshuffle, the amount the BB is in for and the action before him should not be a consideration for what to do with the flop. It should be handled in the same manner every time, and by the book it's reshuffle the flop, with the turn and river remaining the same IMO.

(EDIT: There is definitely a case to consider if the BB Failed to call time within reason, and K-Lo's post about calling time is reasonable, but that's a rule 1 decision, and IMO should not further compound an already highly technical rule.)


Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Stuart,
I have not referred to the BB being skipped as anything at all to do with substantial action. There was none, the BB was in for all bets. The problem that exists in the original post is not covered in any rule that I've ever seen. It can easily be fixed.

The improper action is pre-mature dealing. The fault lies with the dealer for not giving the raise option to the BB.
   What caused this to occur?
If the Player intentionally hides his cards, or uses some other deceptive method to let action pass him by, then we have a different issue to deal with.
However, when the dealer is at fault (which we will consider as the most common error), What rule specifically covers this scenario?

Stuart quoted RROP Irregularities... a simple addition like the following:

If the raise option is not offered to the Big Blind pre-flop, the flop MUST be reshuffled... I don't like it, but in my opinion that's the way rules should be written.
What's wrong with this addition? I'll tell you what I think. There will be a new debate at tables everywhere when player's start arguing over whether the dealer gave the BB the option, or not!

OR

If the raise option is not offered to the Big Blind pre-flop, the flop WILL remain as long as the pot has not been raised... I like this one.

If the dealers are trained properly and concentrate on the game (instead of watching football on the Telly) this will never happen.


That's the way I see it.

[Spence]

I'm a little surprised that no one wants to take the hard line approach and kill the players hand. K-lo's response about the length of time passed being a factor on the ruling is exactly why I raised the question. This should be the point that we are arguing. Is substantial action a rule without question or is this the kind of circumstance where rule #1 supercedes everything else. My issue with the time passing approach is that it would be tough to enforce as the TD getting to the action is going to take some time as well. In this circumstance though, it seems pretty close to intentional to me so I think a penalty would be warranted. Killing the hand would be penalty enough or refuse the option of reshuffling and give this person a one hand penalty with the warning to be more observant in the future.

[Nick C]

I've got to be missing something here. Spence, your original question was about the BB being skipped his raise option on the first betting round. What hand should be killed? And why? I'm lost on this one.

[K-Lo]

Hi Spence:

When I first thought about how I might change the rule if I had the chance, I did consider whether it would be fair to take that hard line and suggest that the BB's hand should automatically be dead once the flop was dealt, no matter what.  I presume that one would favor taking that hard line if one was of the view that players who do not stop the flop from being dealt to explicitly accept/decline an option to raise their BB (where one assumes that the BB ought to know that he has the option) should be considered just as "guilty" as players who do not explicitly stop the flop from being dealt to decide whether or not to fold/call/raise while facing an outstanding bet.

It's hard though for me to accept that the degree of culpability should be the same in either case.  I thought it might be fairer if the hand were to be ruled dead if the missed action did not include check, but only may be ruled dead if the hand could include check (the usual penalty therefore being losing the right to bet).  I think I was imagining situations, particularly, involving newer players who may not realize that they even have an option in the BB (see * below).  If the dealer then forgets to ask them for their option, and an opponent later points this out, it would seem wrong to insist that the BB's hand would have to be killed given that the dealer is partly to blame.

I do agree with Stuart though, that currently, RROP #15 seems to apply squarely to the situation without more context. 

But we are toying with the possibility of new/amended rules now, no?

"If a player's turn is missed, but that player does not bring this fact to the attention of the dealer as soon as reasonably possible, and without undue delay, after the next player in a betting round has acted, or if he is potentially the last player to act in a betting round, then before the dealer initiates any further action (e.g. prepares to deal flop/turn/river or calls for a showdown), then his hand will be ruled dead if check was not an option, but if check was an option on that player's turn, then the player will have a live hand but loses his right to bet".

(*As an aside - It's less common now, but I recall seeing this problem (i.e. dealers/players forgetting that the BB has an option to raise) more often long ago, when certain dealers/players were transitioning from stud games into holdem - they were accustomed to not having any option available after putting in a forced bet.  As you know, in stud you have to choose to bring-in or complete from the get go and have no further option if no one subsequently completes or raises.  In those situations, it seemed that dealers new to holdem would sometimes just skip over the BB to deal the flop (especially when there was only a single BB posted, and the action went call-call-call), because it looked a lot like what they were used to doing when dealing Stud... and the BBs new to holdem didn't ever seem to notice or care. lol)     

[Spence]

I've got to be missing something here. Spence, your original question was about the BB being skipped his raise option on the first betting round. What hand should be killed? And why? I'm lost on this one.

In this case we are talking about the BB's being ruled dead under the same cuircumstances of a player who at the turn was not in for all bets before the dealer deals the next card. In those circumstances we would rule the hand dead as this player had more than enough time to bring the error to the attention of the dealer. We rule it dead rather than back up all betting AND have to reshuffle a board card. My question was under the same pretense of "what amount of time is long enough to call attention to an error before a harsh judgement may be ruled". The issue is surrounding whether or not substantial action is the best way to rule about those players who are missed. Sometimes only 1 player is missed and the next player is taking forever to decide what to bet. In those 3 minutes or so, shouldn't that be plenty of time to speak up? If you haven't why should you still be covered by substantial action? That is the root of the problem.
K-lo's rewritten substantial action rule is less definate in giving exact amounts to be basing a decision upon but makes the point about the integrity of the game. I wanted to know if anyone thought that if the BB had so much time to say something, and didn't, why should he still have a right to a hand?