flipped cards
very strange situation never happened before. dealing a private event with lots of fans. well, dealing to a table of nine, the card pushed to the dealer flipped over. The deal was continued, and the dealer received the last card. normally the deal would conclude with the dealer button then I would replace the turned over card with a fresh one and make that card the first burn card.
but luck as it has it, the replacement card for the dealer that card also flipped over.
now the dealer is sitting with zero cards.
would it be correct to pull the second card that flipped over make them the first and second burn and then give the dealer two consecutive down cards?
14 Replies
No. Two exposed cards in a deal is a misdeal and redeal.
As Dinesh said. Plus, how are you going to use the second flipped card as a burn? Remember the intent of the burn is protect from seeing back of the next card that plays. You will have to expose the back of the turn. At best you can re-cover with the prior exposed card but that is not going to really do the same.
Just declare misdeal when two cards are exposed. And slow down so you flip fewer cards.
If first card to the dealer is exposed it's a misdeal
because the dealer would get two cards in a row off the deck.
Not sure why that's important but it's how I was taught.
If first card to the dealer is exposed it's a misdeal
because the dealer would get two cards in a row off the deck.
Not sure why that's important but it's how I was taught.
One of those policies I've seen change and morph over the years dealing. First card. First two cards. First two cards and also last card to the button. None of the above. blah blah blah. Every house has their opinion. (And of course every player in the world knows the procedure they are aware of is the one that is RIGHT and everyone else is wrong)
Current TDA #35 is if either of first two OR if there are two 'total' (regardless of position) during the rest of the deal .. no adjustment for PLO!
Typically a Player can't cause a card exposure of a pitched card (as it's 'always' the Dealer's fault). But if a Player exposes a card during the Deal after they've received it, then that's on them .. but some Dealer's will be nice and call it a misdeal. GL
Current TDA #35 is if either of first two OR if there are two 'total' (regardless of position) during the rest of the deal .. no adjustment for PLO!
Typically a Player can't cause a card exposure of a pitched card (as it's 'always' the Dealer's fault). But if a Player exposes a card during the Deal after they've received it, then that's on them .. but some Dealer's will be nice and call it a misdeal. GL
Here is cash it is any card to SB, BB, Btn or two cards exposed. Why they have this no clue. It seems excessive. I like the 'first to btn' rule as that does lead to two consecutive cards. But there is no real logic to that one either.
As to adjusting for PLO, what kind of adjustment would you want? More than two exposed OK? How would this work?
As Quad mentioned there may be some room to room variety, but TDA now specifically says you can deal two consecutive cards to the dealer.
Dealing Rules
35: Misdeals and Fouled Decks
[...]
B: Players may be dealt 2 consecutive cards on the button (see also Rule 37).
But why would that be a PLO specific adjustment? Current TDA specifically allows btn to get consecutive cards in both PLO and holdem. So why make this a specific change for PLO.
Again what specific change makes sense for PLO.
Good, how long? Like I said.
Been dealing for a long time.
Always been standard that the button can't get two in a row.
Good, how long? Like I said.
Been dealing for a long time.
Always been standard that the button can't get two in a row.
Eve you stated that it is unknown why this is important. Maybe TDA realized there was no good reason and moved on from a non important, old procedure.
Because ‘that is how I was trained’ or ‘it has always been done’ don’t seem like justification to continue. And to bring this back to the start of this tangent, why would this be unique to PLO.
The first card in hold-em,
the first, second or third in Omaha,
is how you get two in a row to the button...
Glad that's not the rule now.
Why would the second card to one of the blinds be a misdeal?
Because that is the procedure. Never said I liked it or could justify it. It is just the procedure.
The reason I heard was because it would be easier for the dealer to cheat and give that guy a good starting hand if he could deal the button two cards in a row.
