When Action Becomes Established

In poker, as in bridge and other serious card games, there is a point at which an action becomes established, meaning an irregularity will be ignored (and/or penalized) because too much has happened since the irregularity occurred to go back and correct the problem. We see this situation in sports, as well, when, for example, a bad call by a referee or umpire is identified as such too late to be rectified. A result may have to stand even if an important rule or procedure is broken along the way.

In poker, a result becomes established when the dealer starts shuffling for the next hand. However, I have been involved in a situation in which the amount of money put into the pot was straightened out two hands later. Here’s how it happened:

I was playing three-handed at the final table of a tournament in Tunica, Mississippi, in 2004. The prizes were $40,000 for third (where I finished), $80,000 for second, and $160,000 for first. I played a big pot with Billy Shaduck, who was the low player in chip count at that time. I got drawn out on, and lost the pot. The next hand, I got a ground skinner [everyone folded] in the big blind. After that hand, before another hand was dealt, someone noticed that the big pot had been shorted by me for some large amount of chips. We counted Billy’s chips, and he appeared to have about 60,000 less than he should have had, whereas I had a lot more chips than I was supposed to have. I asked tournament director Jimmy Sommerfeld to check the camera and make sure that the amount transferred out of my stack was correct. I also was curious how a pot could be shorted 60 grand and not be noticed by the players, dealer, spectators, or tournament director. It turns out that I had put only about half the amount in when I said, “I call,” then stopped putting the rest in when told to turn up my hand.

Sommerfeld ruled that I should give Billy the amount that he was shorted. I pointed out that a hand had been played since the error. Jimmy said that an error of that size must be rectified, even though technically the statute of limitations had expired, to protect the integrity of the tournament. He said, “I am making this ruling for the good of the game, because it would be unfair to do anything else.” I did not argue, since he was obviously right. Frankly, the ruling increased my respect for Jimmy Sommerfeld.

Most problems involving a question of an action being accepted or replayed are of a procedural nature, often the result of a dealer error that was not immediately noticed. Here is a situation in which the dealer put an incorrect card on the board and it was not noticed at the time. The player who wrote the letter to me was very irate (and had poor writing skills), so I had to do a major editing job before using it in this column.

“I got all in against the other big stack, who had me covered, and apparently lost the hand. I was leaving the table when a railbird told me the dealer had not burned a card before the flop. The two remaining players were on a short break, so another hand had not been dealt. I went to the poker room manager. I got him to look at the camera (reluctantly), and sure enough, the dealer never burned a card preflop. I told him that it was an illegal hand, since another hand had not been dealt, and in all fairness, everything should be returned to the start of that hand. His only muttering was that I accepted the hand. I then went to the casino manager, another know-nothing person whose knowledge of poker is nonexistent. I immediately told him that I lost a pot in which the dealer did not burn a card preflop, and the hand should be illegal. He readily agreed until he found out that it was a tournament, and he conversed with the poker room manager. I again asked him to make the fair poker decision. His point then shifted; he said that if I was the one who benefited from the dealer mistake, I wouldn’t be in his office talking to him. I explained that had it happened to the other player, and he showed me the video proof of the dealer not burning a card, and since no other hand had been dealt yet, there wouldn’t be much that I would be able to say. I would like to know what the correct ruling would be in this case.”

In this situation, the letter writer was dead wrong and the cardroom people were right. When an incorrect card is put on the table and people start acting on it, a lot of information about the hands of the players can easily be revealed. There must be a point at which the incorrect card is condoned and the actions become valid. In my rulebook Robert’s Rules of Poker, I had always maintained that the point of no return is when a betting round is over; the card and the actions then stand. But I no longer believe this to be the optimum rule, and here is why:

I got a letter earlier this year that described the betting action on an improper card; there was a lot of raising on the betting round before the card was identified as being incorrectly dealt because there were two cards stuck together as the burn card. If the action had been backed up to the beginning of the betting round, some players would have been greatly helped and others greatly hurt, not just by a different card being used but by the information revealed from the invalidated betting.

I could see that the rule stating that the betting stood once the round ended was not the best rule. (I should mention that having the boardcard stand once action had been taken on it is too early, as a quick-witted player could act and validate the error before the dealer or other players could call attention to the mistake.) I have changed my rule to state that once everyone with a live hand has acted on a “wrong card,” the error is validated and stands.

There is also a question of which card should be dealt for the next boardcard — the one that would have appeared if the dealer had burned only one card, or the one that is going to appear if the dealer simply burns and turns now? I discussed this with David Lamb, one of our finest tournament directors. He suggested that the rule should be that when you validate the action, you also validate the method that was used to produce the card that led to that action. So here, the dealer would simply burn and turn as if all was well. I like his suggestion because it is simple and natural, and I have incorporated it into the latest version of my rulebook.

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered (autographed to you) from Bob by e-mail: [email protected]. Free U.S. shipping to Card Player readers. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons at a reasonable rate. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert’s Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called www.fairlawsonpoker.org.