Playing a live micro tournament at local casino last night , we are at the final table, folds to me in the cut off and I open A6, fold to the BB and he goes all in , after some consideration I fold my hand showing him the A.

Anyway he then flips over his hand and has 10,9 and 6 of hearts , is visibly shocked himself and had only seen 2 on the peel. Obviously nobody is quite sure what to do and the floor is called to make a ruling

What would you expect the ruling to be here?

Misdeal.

Hand is over after you folded, so I would rule he keeps pot and gets warning about purposefully playing with fouled hands.

It seems unlikely he realized it was fouled, or else he would have just turbomucked.

If it had been caught before you folded, his hand is dead and you win pot (and he is out of tourney if you cover him).

If floor ruled his hand dead because it was discovered "early enough", I would probably not complain too much (unless I were him and about to be felted, I guess).

ETA: definitely not a misdeal

Why are you showing you raise/fold an ace and why is he showing he 3betjams with T9(6)s?

I'm leaning towards misdeal but let the hand be as it is and move on would be fine as well.

Actually, if it was caught after he went AI but before you called, I would have killed his hand then refunded him the amount over your bet.

If it was caught after you called but before showdown ended, then you win whole pot.

I'm awarding the pot to the cut off (A6) who called the BB.

By rule, the BBs hand is dead.

"Your hand is declared dead if:
...
(d) The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game"

BB's blind will remain, and return to him his All-in bet.

Award the pot to the only caller, and last live hand.

But OP folded. I'm assuming his cards are dead as well. The only live hand has 3 cards..... what's the ruling? Arguably he has the last live hand remaining even if it contains 3 cards.

Declare the tournament to be 99% Holdem and one hand Pineapple.
Give BB the pot.

Given that he folded, my ruling is what I said in my first post.

I just added some hypotheticals after that, about how I would rule if it were caught before OP folded, and my second post (that you quoted above) is clarifying some of those.

But the CO didn't call the BB. Instead, BB folded and the hand was over before anyone noticed the BB having 3 cards.

FYP.

This would also be my ruling.

When he says CO "called the BB", he doesn't mean CO called the BB's all-in, he literally means that CO called the original big blind bet.

Uniden got some of the details wrong (CO opened, he didn't limp), but he is saying that the fact that BB had too many cards was discovered early enough, so you can wind the hand back to see who (outside of BB) was the last one with a live hand. That was CO, so he wins.

BB doesn't lose his whole stack, he gets a refund of any uncalled amount. Uniden said that he would get all but the BB, but that's not correct since CO opened for a raise. But BB should get everything above that amount back (in his ruling).

Or maybe he really does mean that BB gets back everything but his BB, perhaps.

So BB was awarded the pot as last remaining player with a hand
Am in today manager is in and he says should have been raiser ( myself ) wins the BB and he takes all the rest of his chips back as I have last live hand

Interesting though thanks for replies

bb wins... if u had called his hand is dead and u win the all in. he is responsible for protecting his hand and he received a 3rd card. If it was for sure a new card from someone elses folding he can tell the floor what his cards are before he looks at them again and retrieve them but it seems unclear in this situation and he could have just been dealt 3.

just because players hand is dead does not mean he can't produce an action. I've seen people go all in without cards as they got accidently mucked and the bet stands. otherwise this allows sick angles... if you kill the hand he just doesn't show anyone he has 3 cards if everyone folds so he can collect the pot and cries misdeal if you call.

If you or anyone bring it to everyones attention before everyone acts his hand is killed though and he only owes a bb or in the case of the wsop w/ bauman a min raise.

I think he meant that BB gets everything back except the amount of the BB and I agree with that. No one was left to act after him and we really don't believe that he knew he had 3 cards and was trying to pull one over on us so if we aren't letting him go all in we really should not be letting him call either. If there were more players in the hand it would be a different story.

Per TDA 34D & 35 there is no misdeal due to significant action.

Per TDA 60 the BB should have a 'fouled' hand. BB forfeits enough chips to call the raise and keeps the rest of his stack.

The next hand hadn't started yet so I think this would be the way to go even though CO's hand might already be in the muck.

In a round about way Matt Savage confirmed this on Twitter. GL

100% correct, however in this exact scenario I would still use discretion to rule it as I mentioned. I think either way is fine. Maybe I'm too nice, but I guess as long as we all agree that giving the BB the pot here is 100% incorrect then mission accomplished.

BB's hand is dead the second significant action occurs while he has 3 cards. Therefore, OP has the last live hand. BB gets his raise back, but the call of OP's original raise, along with the rest of the pot, go to OP

how do you know when the players hand was fouled?

And if BB's hand was dead a long time ago, why would you make him lose his "call" he made with a dead hand?

Because giving him everything but his BB back would encourage players with a fouled hand to take an aggressive line hoping to freeroll. If OP mucks, you win the pot and try to muck without revealing you had 3 cards. If OP calls, "Lolz, I have 3 cards. I get my money back!"

I misspoke. His hand is actually dead immediately upon receiving the 3rd card. He has until significant action occurs to speak up so it's a misdeal instead. His hand his dead immediately once he takes in a 3rd card. Unless he inexplicably took in the 3rd card between OP mucking and him showing his cards, he killed his own hand. It's a player responsibly to protect their hand, so I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Well this part is clearly not applicable, as this guy actually did reveal that he had 3 cards even after OP mucked. And if OP had called, no one has suggested guy with 3 cards should get a refund. So giving him the pot in this exact circumstance gave him no freeroll, and we know he was not trying to get one.

And if his hand is dead as soon as it happens, what if he raises with his dead hand and 2 people call. Does he get a refund on the raise amount then? What about the caller who is in third place, and loses an extra amount to the second place player? Does he get the raise amount back too?

Yes, he loses any called bet he has put in. It's a player's responsibility to protect their hand. This is not that complicated of a floor call. It's a very basic dead hand situation. It's just an usual way for a players hand to be considered dead.