Extra card dealt to SB

[Martini]

The game is Omaha/8. The dealer had mis-interpreted the position of the button on the last round of cards and the SB had inadvertently been dealt a fifth hole card which was not immediately apparent. Action had proceeded around the table and when the SB picked up his hole cards he noticed that there were five cards instead of four and announced the fact to the table.

Since there was too much action already to call a misdeal, I ruled that his hand is dead and that there would be no burn card to preserve the same Flop that would have happened. The rest of the hand proceeds as normal.

He forfeited his SB as well. There was no fuss made about it as it was a cash game and the blinds were not significant but I would have to rule the same way in a tourney with huge blinds. My ruling would be that he did not adequately protect his valid four card hand. If he had noticed the fifth card being dealt to him and immediately notified the dealer then he would not need to have had his hand killed.

Would anyone have treated this any differently?

[Dr. Neau]

The game is Omaha/8. The dealer had mis-interpreted the position of the button on the last round of cards and the SB had inadvertently been dealt a fifth hole card which was not immediately apparent. Action had proceeded around the table and when the SB picked up his hole cards he noticed that there were five cards instead of four and announced the fact to the table.

Since there was too much action already to call a misdeal, I ruled that his hand is dead and that there would be no burn card to preserve the same Flop that would have happened. The rest of the hand proceeds as normal.

He forfeited his SB as well. There was no fuss made about it as it was a cash game and the blinds were not significant but I would have to rule the same way in a tourney with huge blinds. My ruling would be that he did not adequately protect his valid four card hand. If he had noticed the fifth card being dealt to him and immediately notified the dealer then he would not need to have had his hand killed.

Would anyone have treated this any differently?

Perfect.

[Martini]

Follow up question: What if he immediately picks up his cards, looks at all them, notices there are five cards, and notifies the dealer before any action has occurred? RRoP says it is a misdeal if "(d) Two or more extra cards have been dealt in the starting hands of a game." but in this case it is only one extra card. Since the cards have been looked at the dealer can no longer take back the fifth card and use it as a burn card which it should have been. Clearly the SB cannot play his hand anymore but does the one extra card constitute a misdeal? Under the circumstances I think the fairest way to handle it would be to redeal the hand but I don't see where in RRoP that would be supported apart from the catchall "Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness..." rule.

[Dr. Neau]

Follow up question: What if he immediately picks up his cards, looks at all them, notices there are five cards, and notifies the dealer before any action has occurred? RRoP says it is a misdeal if "(d) Two or more extra cards have been dealt in the starting hands of a game." but in this case it is only one extra card. Since the cards have been looked at the dealer can no longer take back the fifth card and use it as a burn card which it should have been. Clearly the SB cannot play his hand anymore but does the one extra card constitute a misdeal? Under the circumstances I think the fairest way to handle it would be to redeal the hand but I don't see where in RRoP that would be supported apart from the catchall "Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness..." rule.

I'd redeal there.

[R-Ho]

The game is Omaha/8. The dealer had mis-interpreted the position of the button on the last round of cards and the SB had inadvertently been dealt a fifth hole card which was not immediately apparent. Action had proceeded around the table and when the SB picked up his hole cards he noticed that there were five cards instead of four and announced the fact to the table.

Since there was too much action already to call a misdeal, I ruled that his hand is dead and that there would be no burn card to preserve the same Flop that would have happened. The rest of the hand proceeds as normal.

He forfeited his SB as well. There was no fuss made about it as it was a cash game and the blinds were not significant but I would have to rule the same way in a tourney with huge blinds. My ruling would be that he did not adequately protect his valid four card hand. If he had noticed the fifth card being dealt to him and immediately notified the dealer then he would not need to have had his hand killed.

Would anyone have treated this any differently?

I think you ruled incorrectly.  I wouldn't change the structure of the deal for the reason that an invalid hand is discovered after the deal is complete and action's begun. Deal a burn as usual.

R-Ho

[Crimson]

If it was obvious which card was the fifth (the top card) then I would treat the fifth as an exposed card, show it to everyone and use it as the burn card. If it wasn't obvious then the hand is dead.

(Just to qualify, this is my opinion was what I would have done if it happened in one of my games)

[Ghaleon]

If it was obvious which card was the fifth (the top card) then I would treat the fifth as an exposed card, show it to everyone and use it as the burn card. If it wasn't obvious then the hand is dead.

(Just to qualify, this is my opinion was what I would have done if it happened in one of my games)

Unless someone else noticed it too and could identify the card, I think this is a very dangerous decision.

[Crimson]

That's why I said "obvious". If it's the SB, then the dealer could very well have been putting the cards one on top of each other. More times than not it wouldn't be obvious and the hand would be dead.

There's also option "Z" which involves putting all 5 cards out and having someone else (like the cutoff) pick a card at random to be the exposed/burn card. (yes, I'm kidding)

[Dr. Neau]

The game is Omaha/8. The dealer had mis-interpreted the position of the button on the last round of cards and the SB had inadvertently been dealt a fifth hole card which was not immediately apparent. Action had proceeded around the table and when the SB picked up his hole cards he noticed that there were five cards instead of four and announced the fact to the table.

Since there was too much action already to call a misdeal, I ruled that his hand is dead and that there would be no burn card to preserve the same Flop that would have happened. The rest of the hand proceeds as normal.

He forfeited his SB as well. There was no fuss made about it as it was a cash game and the blinds were not significant but I would have to rule the same way in a tourney with huge blinds. My ruling would be that he did not adequately protect his valid four card hand. If he had noticed the fifth card being dealt to him and immediately notified the dealer then he would not need to have had his hand killed.

Would anyone have treated this any differently?

I think you ruled incorrectly.  I wouldn't change the structure of the deal for the reason that an invalid hand is discovered after the deal is complete and action's begun. Deal a burn as usual.

R-Ho

Don't think I agree.  When you accidentally deal a single face-up card in hold'em, that becomes the burn card.  This wasn't much different.

[Blaster]

 I agree that generally the hand with an extra card should be declared dead after action has occured ... But the point about tournament blinds is interesting ... Should the blinds be forfeit?
   Theoretically, near the bubble, high blinds/antes, very short stacks,  A (self) dealer could, hypothetically,  deal an extra card to 1 of the blinds, in the very real hope of causing a forfeit of the blind & ante, knowing that UTG may well act before the blinds have a chance to realize ...  I haven't given it much thought, but are there any other dealer actions at all that would cause a blinds player to simply forfeit their bets & not be able to play the hand that continues on for the rest of the players ...??
 Dealing an exposed card to a player, for example, would not result in this ...

[Ghaleon]

I agree that generally the hand with an extra card should be declared dead after action has occured ... But the point about tournament blinds is interesting ... Should the blinds be forfeit?
   Theoretically, near the bubble, high blinds/antes, very short stacks,  A (self) dealer could, hypothetically,  deal an extra card to 1 of the blinds, in the very real hope of causing a forfeit of the blind & ante, knowing that UTG may well act before the blinds have a chance to realize ...  I haven't given it much thought, but are there any other dealer actions at all that would cause a blinds player to simply forfeit their bets & not be able to play the hand that continues on for the rest of the players ...??
 Dealing an exposed card to a player, for example, would not result in this ...

You're saying than an unscrupulous dealer may intentionally kill one of the blind's hands by dealing an extra card?  Sure, it's a risk, but it's an extraordinarily small one I think, especially in a home game.  And frankly, there is only one way of dealing with it.  You bounce that SOB out of your house and never invite hiim again.

Theoretically, any player could kill another players hand.  I could "accidently" fold my cards into another players hand and kill it.  The situation in the OP isn't much different.  Accidents happen and they shouldn't be ruled any differently just because the blinds are bigger or it's on the bubble.

If someone did it on purpose though, that would be the last hand that person plays at my table.  Period.  If someone is pathetic and petty enough to try pull that crap over a lousy card game, then they are absolutely finished in my book.

[Dr. Neau]

I agree that generally the hand with an extra card should be declared dead after action has occured ... But the point about tournament blinds is interesting ... Should the blinds be forfeit?
   Theoretically, near the bubble, high blinds/antes, very short stacks,  A (self) dealer could, hypothetically,  deal an extra card to 1 of the blinds, in the very real hope of causing a forfeit of the blind & ante, knowing that UTG may well act before the blinds have a chance to realize ...  I haven't given it much thought, but are there any other dealer actions at all that would cause a blinds player to simply forfeit their bets & not be able to play the hand that continues on for the rest of the players ...??
 Dealing an exposed card to a player, for example, would not result in this ...

Yes, the blinds are forfeit.

Theoretically, near the bubble, high blinds/antes, very short stacks, a player in the blinds could chuck a card from a crap hand, point it out after action got to them and expect to get their blind back.

[72]

The game is Omaha/8. The dealer had mis-interpreted the position of the button on the last round of cards and the SB had inadvertently been dealt a fifth hole card which was not immediately apparent. Action had proceeded around the table and when the SB picked up his hole cards he noticed that there were five cards instead of four and announced the fact to the table.

Since there was too much action already to call a misdeal, I ruled that his hand is dead and that there would be no burn card to preserve the same Flop that would have happened. The rest of the hand proceeds as normal.

He forfeited his SB as well. There was no fuss made about it as it was a cash game and the blinds were not significant but I would have to rule the same way in a tourney with huge blinds. My ruling would be that he did not adequately protect his valid four card hand. If he had noticed the fifth card being dealt to him and immediately notified the dealer then he would not need to have had his hand killed.

Would anyone have treated this any differently?

I think you ruled incorrectly.  I wouldn't change the structure of the deal for the reason that an invalid hand is discovered after the deal is complete and action's begun. Deal a burn as usual.

R-Ho

i agree. 

[R-Ho]

Guys and gals,

Seems a stretch to say it's 'obvious' that the dealer gave the SB an extra card at the end of the deal after action commenced around the entire table and returned to SB before anything was said about it.

I realize the dealer probably said, in response to SB's dismay..., 'yeah, I dealt to SB last...', and if dealer's a stand up guy, we want to take him at his word.  But he's fallible, and in RR's I can't find a recommendation to skip a burn card after action along these lines.

What if what actually happened was the dealer dealt two stuck cards to SB first time around, then one after that, and there was no 'overdeal' as stated?  Now everyone's got wrong cards.  Are you going to fix that by deciding to not burn pre-flop?  RR's make a clear distinctions about 'after action' and I want to respect it instead of tinkering.

If I tinker now, then I could find myself in a post-flop situation where SB got dealt to, everyone limps, SB blind calls without touching his hole cards and gets up to get a beer, then the flop comes ...SB immediately sits back down, say's 'woah' I've got three cards (oops, NLHE reference, not Omaha), it's obvious I haven't tampered with them...but we kill his hand anyway.  Now the other players are saying..."That's 'obviously' an  overdeal.  You omitted the pre-flop burn last time, so now you have to preserve the board as best you can here...by skipping the burn for fourth street...."

Maybe that's a longshot, but I do not intend to go down that path, and the pre-emptive measure is to not use the extra SB card here as a burn. I'll kill his hand as soon as I learn of it, and I'll have the deal proceed as would be done normally to complete the hand.  I'll listen to compelling reasons to do otherwise, but I've not heard one yet that complies with RR's, especially the recommendation that I expose a card that was dealt face down.

R-Ho

[Martini]

Having two cards stuck together is an interesting scenario. Assuming the dealer didn't notice the double weight card and that they didn't separate while being pitched, I would rule the same way if two players had already acted.

I would rule that the hand with the extra hole card is dead.
1. Your hand is declared dead if:...(d) The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game...

And I would not burn because I would choose to interpret the additional hole card as an extra card and apply the following rule:
2. If the dealer mistakenly deals the first player an extra card (after all players have received their starting hands), the card will be returned to the deck and used for the burncard...

I would play the hand out even though the hole cards might have been incorrect based on:
1. Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands.

Even if the SB had played their hand blind they still are responsible for their hand. The following rule does not mention extra card specifically but I feel the spirit applies here.
9. If you play a hand without looking at all of your cards, you assume the liability of having an irregular card or an improper joker.

I couldn't find a rule which directly addresses the exact scenario of playing through the Flop blind but I would rule that the burn card for the Turn would be skipped to get the Turn and River cards correct. By skipping the second burn card the board would still have 4 out of 5 cards the same as if no error were made. But burning the Turn and River card would mean only 2 of the 5 board cards would be the same as they would have been.
6. 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 by any player, 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. If there was no betting on a round because a player was all-in, the error should be corrected if discovered before the pot has been awarded.

[R-Ho]

I'm going into the tank...

[Martini]

I'm going into the tank...

This is the Degree All-in moment. Hey R-Ho, after reading through my last post I realize that it might come across sounding kinda lawyer-ish or something. That was not the intent. I was just thinking out loud when figuring out how I would rule in the case you outlined.

[R-Ho]

No worries; lawyerish OK. I do it.  My BIG issue I'm watching NASCAR right now and typing on commercial break.