Dealer exposed the whole deck

[Addicted]

After a lot of pre-flop betting and with three players still in the hand, the dealer picked up the deck and began to deal the flop.  As she placed the first card on the felt, she had some bizarre muscle spasm that caused her to drop nearly the entire deck face-up on the table so that less than 10 cards remained unexposed. We just gave everybody their money back and played the next hand.  Anything else we could have done?

For what it's worth, the muscle spasm was completely accidental.  The dealer was my sister who is 7 months pregnant. She claimed the baby gave her a strong suprise kick.

[Martini]

Interesting. Mostly because there was a lot of preflop betting. Not sure what the proper procedure is for THAT many cards being exposed but off the top of my head I would consider the following remedies:

* Leave all exposed cards face up for everyone to see and run the board with the remaining unknown cards in the stub. Messy since everyone would be trying to deduce hands from all of the exposed cards.

* Stop all betting and treat the pot as though everyone were already all in. Run the board with what is left in the stub and award the pot accordingly.

* Stop all betting. Take the entire deck and shuffle thoroughly. Run the board and award the pot accordingly.

* Stop all betting. Shuffle the deck, run the board three times (since there were three players), and award the portions of the pot accordingly.

* If agreed upon by everyone, return bets as was done. Button remains in the same place.

Under no circumstances would I suggest that the cards be shuffled together and allow betting after the Flop. That is just too much of an advantage to someone who could remember the exposed cards.

Personally I think I am leaning toward freezing the betting and running the board three times. I think that would be the best compromise of a workable solution which most accurately reflects everyone's pot equity in the hand.

[demon604]

Because so much of the deck was compromised, I think I'd just re-do the hand.

How do you run a board three times with less than 10 unseen cards in the deck? 

[pauld22]

Stop serving black pepper at the table?

[Martini]

Because so much of the deck was compromised, I think I'd just re-do the hand.

How do you run a board three times with less than 10 unseen cards in the deck? 

The options included either running *one* board with the existing stub OR reshuffling the stub and running the board three times, not running the board three times with ten cards.

I also found the following rule snippet from RRoP: "17. If the deck stub gets fouled for some reason, such as the dealer believing the deal is over and dropping the deck, the deal must still be played out, and the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible." so I now think the last option I had previously listed (returning bets) is not a good option anymore.

[Don't Miss Me While I'm On My Cruise]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

[Martini]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

Since there are enough remaining hidden cards to run the board, would you consider leaving all exposed cards open for viewing through the rest of the hand so that the playing field is level for all players? Normally an exposed card (or cards) would be announced and put face down again but under the circumstances would you make an adjustment to that procedure? I'm just thinking the someone on a Flush draw could quickly scan for their suit or that players might look for how many Aces or Kings they could see if they were dealt AK.

And would the ruling be any different if *all* cards in the stub were exposed?

I am pretty sure that this issue came up before in a different thread but with fewer cards exposed but is there an amount of cards exposed where the procedure would change? Or is having one card exposed treated the same way as having 20 cards exposed?

[Don't Miss Me While I'm On My Cruise]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

Since there are enough remaining hidden cards to run the board, would you consider leaving all exposed cards open for viewing through the rest of the hand so that the playing field is level for all players? Normally an exposed card (or cards) would be announced and put face down again but under the circumstances would you make an adjustment to that procedure? I'm just thinking the someone on a Flush draw could quickly scan for their suit or that players might look for how many Aces or Kings they could see if they were dealt AK.

And would the ruling be any different if *all* cards in the stub were exposed?

I am pretty sure that this issue came up before in a different thread but with fewer cards exposed but is there an amount of cards exposed where the procedure would change? Or is having one card exposed treated the same way as having 20 cards exposed?

I have to admit, I don't know the answer to this one.

Gobbs

[demon604]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

Since there are enough remaining hidden cards to run the board, would you consider leaving all exposed cards open for viewing through the rest of the hand so that the playing field is level for all players? Normally an exposed card (or cards) would be announced and put face down again but under the circumstances would you make an adjustment to that procedure? I'm just thinking the someone on a Flush draw could quickly scan for their suit or that players might look for how many Aces or Kings they could see if they were dealt AK.

And would the ruling be any different if *all* cards in the stub were exposed?

I am pretty sure that this issue came up before in a different thread but with fewer cards exposed but is there an amount of cards exposed where the procedure would change? Or is having one card exposed treated the same way as having 20 cards exposed?

My vote for just re-doing the hand comes from the fact that the deck was pretty much obliterated, if it was just a few cards, you would just treat it as 'exposed cards', but we're talking almost the entire deck.  Your pretty much just turning the hand into a lottery with the few remaining cards by running it. The odds are ruined.

[Shmegma]

I'd go with shuffling the deck and proceeding from there, but Martini raises a good point about people who could remember the exposed cards.

Gobbs

17. If the deck stub gets fouled for some reason, such as the dealer believing the deal is over and dropping the deck, the deal must still be played out, and the deck reconstituted in as fair a way as possible.

I wouldn't worry about people remembering exposed cards.  If you reconsitute the deck as fairly as possible then all those cards mingle in the deck and nobody is going to know what's coming up anyways.  I would suggest leaving the burn card on the table, collect all cards exposed from the 'drop', put them with the remaining stub in her hand, reshuffle and cut with all remaining cards and deal the flop again.  

Robert's Rules - Hold Em section #7

7. If the flop needs to be redealt for any reason, the boardcards are mixed with the remainder of the deck. The burncard remains on the table. After shuffling, the dealer cuts the deck and deals a new flop without burning a card.

I should include that it also said that a board card will only stay if action has already been taken on that card.  Since the stub was dropped after dealing just the first flop card then it too should be replaced into the deck and shuffled in with all the rest.  If this situation happened in my league it's exactly what I would do.

I think this would have been the fairest way to handle the situation seeing as players had some pretty monster hands preflop.

[Shmegma]

My vote for just re-doing the hand comes from the fact that the deck was pretty much obliterated, if it was just a few cards, you would just treat it as 'exposed cards', but we're talking almost the entire deck.  Your pretty much just turning the hand into a lottery with the few remaining cards by running it. The odds are ruined.

you're saying re-doing the hand from the flop on right?  I can't see re-dealing the whole hand to the players as well since the fairest way would be to let them keep the hands they were dealt and deal the board over after the deck has been re-shuffled.

[Ghaleon]

I think this would have been the fairest way to handle the situation seeing as players had some pretty monster hands preflop.

Why does the fact that there was alot of pre-flop action influence the decision?  Shouldn't this situation be handled the exact same way every time regardless of the number or quality of hands in play?

Looks the rule book is pretty vague on this one.  The "fairest" resolution isn't really defined.  But I think that the running the board with the remaining unexposed cards is grossly unfair.  15-20 exposed cards completely changes the game. 

Reshuffling the deck is an incredibly better option IMO.

Since this happened before the flop, I would consider chopping the pot between the remaining players and moving on to a new hand.  But I still think that reshuffling the deck is a better option.

[Martini]

I think this would have been the fairest way to handle the situation seeing as players had some pretty monster hands preflop.

Why does the fact that there was alot of pre-flop action influence the decision?  Shouldn't this situation be handled the exact same way every time regardless of the number or quality of hands in play?

Looks the rule book is pretty vague on this one.  The "fairest" resolution isn't really defined.  But I think that the running the board with the remaining unexposed cards is grossly unfair.  15-20 exposed cards completely changes the game. 

Reshuffling the deck is an incredibly better option IMO.

Since this happened before the flop, I would consider chopping the pot between the remaining players and moving on to a new hand.  But I still think that reshuffling the deck is a better option.

I would agree that so many exposed cards would change the game but I think shuffling that many cards back the stub changes the game even more.

As for where to start running the board from, the OP said that the dealer had dealt the first card of the Flop. Whether that was face up or face down I think it should stay as part of the Flop and that neither the burn card nor mucked cards should be shuffled back in.

[Addicted]

For what it's worth dealer placed the first card face down on the felt, but had not yet turned it over.

Thanks for all the suggestions.  From the comments posted, I guess the lesser evil is to reshuffle the stub and exposed cards and play it out.  I don't like this option because the exposed cards could certainly give a player an unfair advantage, especially because there is no guarantee that all of th players noticed all of the same exposed cards.  For instance, what if one player notices that the ace of clubs was exposed.  Now, he knows that his king of clubs could yield the nut flush, but there is no guarantee that the other players noticed that the ace of clubs was exposed.  Still, it seems to be the best of many bad options.

[72]

IMO, it would fall under the "too many cards for the flop" rule. leave the burn, reshuffle the stub, and put the flop out without burning a card.

[Ghaleon]

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward declaring the hand dead and distributing the pot equally amongst the remaining players.

Whether the exposed cards are reshuffled into the deck, or the are left as exposed cards and the remaining unexposed cards are used for the board, you still run the risk of one or more players having an unfair advantage.

The ace of clubs situation mentioned above is a good example.  Someone with a pocket pair would be able to see if there are one or two cards remaining to make a set.

Reshuffling all the cards still presents a problem since there is still a level of unfairness when players know which cards are not in the muck.  And leaving the exposed cards exposed changes the game way too much.

I know the rules say "as fair a way as possible" but plainly there is no "fair" way.  The observant and astute players have an IMMENSE advantage.  And the oblivious players are overwhelmingly under-informed about the hand.  There is absolutely no way that the hand can be completed in a fair and equitable manner.

The only other option that is even close to fair is to declare all the betting over, reshuffle the deck, deal the flop, turn, and river, then award the pot to the best hand.  However, I really don't like this option either, since all of the hole cards must be turned face up and exposed to the other players.  It also gives better odds to the drawing hands since all five cards will be seen.

It really dosn't matter that there was alot of betting pre-flop, it doesn't matter how many players were in the hand, and it doesn't matter how good their hands are.  There is absolutely no way to handle this that is fair and equitable to all players.  Just call the thing done and get on to the next hand.

[Hands_of_Fate]

Before I got to the bottom of this thread, I immediately considered a situation where I had the K to complete a flush, saw the Ace and immediately felt relieved.  I would play that hand differently.

Additionally, if the board had paired and I had trips, but my kicker was terrible, I would play it differently if I noticed the 4th card exposed in the deck.

I'll categorize these cards as 'critical cards'.

So, how is this different than a possible single 'critical card' being prematurely exposed, say on the turn before flop betting is complete?  What's good for one exposed card is good for 20?

That single prematurely exposed card is in plain view for everyone to see.  Everyone has had ample time to absorb the identity of that one card. This is absolutely not the case when that many cards are exposed.  Now my ability to see the cards depends on where I'm sitting at the table.  Remember, in the 'single card exposed situation', that card is placed in the center of the table, neatly. in either the Turn or River spot.   I believe this is the crucial difference, and the remedy for handling a single exposed card cannot be used.

The only place in RROP that I can find for too many card exposed is on the flop.

Because I can't find anything in writing to quote here, my vote is to declare the hand dead and return the bets. 

Either that or treat each of the exposed cards as an exposed card.  What happens when a card is exposed? It's flashed to the entire table and announced.  What an absurdity that would be for half the deck!

[Martini]

The RROP rule #17 as already posted in this thread clearly states that the hand is to be played out. With that being the case I could not rule that the bets be taken back.

[Hands_of_Fate]

The RROP rule #17 as already posted in this thread clearly states that the hand is to be played out. With that being the case I could not rule that the bets be taken back.

oops, missed that

[Ghaleon]

RROP #17 also says that the deck must be rebuilt in a "fair" manner.  IMO it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to play this hand out fairly.  Also rule #17 just talks about the deck stub getting fouled.  I think the intention of this rule is for situations where the dealer believes the hand is over either drops the deck onto the muck pile, or begins the wash/riffle/shuffle, or something like that.

I don't think that Rule #17 applies here.

As was stated earlier, it is possible, and overwhelmingly likely that each player saw different cards.  When a single card is exposed, it is clearly shown to all players and announced out loud by the dealer.  Then the hand continues when ALL players have the SAME information.

In this case, not all players would continue the hand with the same information.  The betting cannot continue in anything that even closely resembles fair poker.

IMO, the options are:

1) Distribute the pot equally among the remaining players and continue on to the next hand
2) Declare the betting over, reshuffle the deck, deal the board, and award the pot to the winning hand
3) Leave all 20+ exposed cards face up for everyone to see throughout the hand, and play out the hand (betting and all) with the remaining stub.  I think this option sucks, but at least all players would be betting with the same information.