Tournament Directors

Articles

You are the Tournament Director Series 2: Dead Button and the Blinds

This one was put forward by Simon Galloway

Big blind busts out in a hand, creating a dead button. However, rather than posting a single big blind, the player posts a small blind and the next player posts the big. First player to speak folds and the next player says “raise.” The player who folded then calls ‘time’ and points out the mistake with the blinds and suggests that the blinds are corrected and the player who posted the big blind in error should get his blind back and his chance to act first. The player who was originally planning to raise calls for a ruling on the basis that action has taken place (it subsequently turns out, no surprise, that he had a big hand and was scared that a misdeal was being called).

How would you rule? Would you continue the hand or put the blinds right?

This is what Simon went on to say:

The actual ruling came from a junior member of staff who ruled that the blinds should be corrected. (fine?) But he then took it upon himself to rule that the verbal raise was binding and should the new UTG player elect to raise, the player would be forced to at least minimum raise.

This seems a poor ruling to me – the original raiser was following what looked like legitimate action in turn. When the error was pointed out, I don’t believe the ruling should penalise him, he has done nothing wrong, and should have the right to fold if the new UTG suddenly decides to call or open-raise.

What do you think about this ruling?

Danny McDonagh Danny
Strictly speaking there is substantial action under our rules so the hand is played out (if all players on the table were happy to call it a misdeal I would oblige). At the end of this hand the button is reversed one spot to compensate for the blinds missed and then the next hand the button skips two spots and moves normally thereafter.

Thomas Kremser Thomas
The blinds were not correct and there were not more than 2 actions, so I would declare it a misdeal. If more than 2 actions have taken place I would play the hand and play the next hand with one big blind (the way it should have been played) and then move the button, so the 2 consecutive hands are played in reverse order and the blind rules are followed.

Matt Savage Matt
I am OK with correcting the blinds as it was not too late, it goes back to the rule that action out of turn is binding if action has not changed to him so if the new under the gun folds or just call than the raisers action stands. If the new UTG raises than the raiser can pull back his bet and fold.

Roy Houghton Roy
Once the raise is declared the hand must stand. I'd continue the hand. Three called bets and any raise and you can't call a misdeal.I think what actually happened was a bad ruling.

Luke Ivory Luke
I would agree with the ruling made on all points because players should be aware of what is going on at the table at all times. The onus here is therefore on the players to know their relative to the blinds and a similar situation to the ‘acting out of turn’ problem.

Mel Judah Mel
In America, once action is taken, the hand stays in progress. I have thought about this rule for a long time and I believe it does not matter what action has taken place before the flop, it should be a misdeal so it protects the players who have put in blinds, extra blinds or are dealt an incorrect number of cards. Once there is a flop, play continues.

Mob Verdict

There are a number of differing views here and a few different rulings that would work ok. It’s important to note that all players do in fact have the correct cards so a misdeal isn’t really favoured. As the blinds can be corrected in the next pots as Danny explains that would be a fair way to go. We don’t like his comment though if all players on the table were happy to call it a misdeal I would oblige. You can’t put players on the spot like that. It’s either a misdeal or it isn’t.

Matt says that you can correct the blinds and treat as action out of turn but if the new guy now just calls then that is new action. He knows that if he calls there is guaranteed a raise behind and that can’t be right.

If the blinds are corrected, as they were, and there is a new raise you can’t then force the next player to raise. Luke says he would but we don’t think that would be a good ruling.

Thomas’s ruling has the value of being clear and consistent.

There are really three possibilities:

A misdeal
Correct blinds now
Play pot and correct blinds later

As the players have the correct cards and action has taken place in two spots it is hard to argue that the third option isn’t fair. There is an argument of some kind that the other two aren’t 100% fair. So we go with Danny excepting his comment about allowing the players to affect the decision.

Click here to coment on this article

What's this?