This is a question coming from my home game, but I wonder what the cardroom policy would be.

We have a rule that if the dealer (we self deal, and it rotates) puts out a board card prior to action being complete the card is shuffled back in the deck and a new card dealt. Very standard and not controversial at our game.

Last night however, we had a slightly different situation. On the turn there was a check by UTG, a bet and a couple calls. The person who checked did not act - and was not even thinking about acting, because she essentially had "checked in her mind" and so was really out of the hand. The dealer put out the river, and the turn bettor then checked.

We then realized that UTG still had cards. She threw them away, because she knew she hadn't called the turn, and had forgot she was in the hand. The guy who had checked, then sort of went on a rant and said that we should replace the river card, much as we always do. We did - he got his nut flush and then bet and got two calls.

I believe this is a different situation, because 1) the other person hadn't been deciding what to do, she just was looking at her phone and didn't even think she was involved; and 2) the check on the original river card was action and therefore we should have just played on.

What should happen here? Should we maintain our standard rule and shuffle to get a new river card, or should we just proceed with the river and complete the hand?

If I understand it correctly, you were right to follow the standard rule and replace the river card.

However, your post really doesn't make complete sense, you might want to clarify. It is not a valid action to check after there has been a bet, so none of the "checked in her mind" sentence makes any sense. It's also ambiguous about which players took some actions.

Just forget that you know or assume you know anything about what she was thinking. You have a bold line that you are looking to blur. Don’t do that. You were right to stay with the standard rule.

Think about it: What happens when this situation arises again except you are only kind of sure that she was checked out? Or you are pretty sure she only checked out after seeing the river?

Also, a single check is not nearly enough action to not correct the hand.

That is my bad - I didn't mean she had "checked in her mind" I meant she had folded on the prior street in her mind. Her cards weren't clearly visible, and everyone thought she was out of the hand. So the action went to the turn bettor who checked. After doing that, he noticed that she still had cards, and hadn't called on the prior street.

This is really what I was looking for. What constitutes action that should not be altered. If he bet and got called, should that stand? What if he bets and gets folds - should those stand? What if he bets and it is noticed before anyone responds to the bet?

I appreciate the replies, just wish I hadn't screwed up the original post

Nothing, unless your rules address the situation. Now if you asked if your rules should have a caveat that says “except for when significant action has occurred” with a definition of what constitutes significant action, I would agree with that.

But based on your description of the rules, you would have to go back from an all-in bet on river all the way to preflop if a player was skipped there and still had cards and somebody objected now. Because that would be pretty ridiculous and also opens the door for some sick angleshots, you should add a significant action rule to your house rules.

This is not standard in all of the card rooms I have ever played in.

For premature turn cards, the standard is to put the turn card aside, complete the flop action and then deal the river card as the turn card. Then once turn action is complete the turn card is shuffled into the deck and the river is dealt.

The reason for this is that the exposed card is known to be in the stub and not the original players' hands. So that knowledge means that is about twice as likely to appear on the turn and river as all other unknown cards.

For premature river cards (which I have never actually seen in a card room) I would assume that the exposed card would be shuffled back in before the river is re-dealt.

I have also not ever seen a premature flop dealt in a card room, so I don't know what the standard procedure is, but I would assume it would be that the exposed flop cards are not re-shuffled into the stub before the flop is put out again. Personally I would put them back into the stub after the flop was dealt (and reshuffle the stub).

As to the hand that was described here, this is a clear angle shot by the guy who didn't like the river (as in would he have objected if the river gave him his flush?) But by rule he is correct. I would make sure that in the future he supports technically correct rulings that don't favor him and use this hand as a case in point.

In general 3 checks or 2 players acting with at least 1 bet constitute significant action. I think it should be assumed that significant action is always part of the house rules. Otherwise it allows angleshooters way too much info to call do-overs.

You did it right. The card should always be re-dealt barring significant action.

Careful with your definition of significant action (if this is in a casino). The dealer acted by pulling in the bets, the dealer acted by burning and turning, a player acted by checking. This is a home game so the considerations are different.

Whatever definition is used for significant action, here is the bright line rule; if the UTG player would be allowed to call the previous action, the card comes back, if UTG has a dead hand for not protecting her action, the card remains.

RR says it well. The key concept is there is really no choice, especially not a player choice. Once the rule interpretation is made if UTG live it not the rest is largely rote.

Note this is a situation where I would be quick to kill UTGs hand to reduce even the idea and of an angle. Especially for a repeat offender. For home game I may be lenient the first time but with a warning and explanation.

I agree with the generalities of the other answers. The key here is that the player who is in the hand shouldn't be able to make the call that the card was premature. It didn't make his hand, of course he wants it replaced. So you have to have a hard and fast rule on the UTG's cards based on how much action has happened in the time since she missed her action. I would probably be in favor of keeping the card in play, since the dealer acted (significantly) and there was a player action.

So would you then kill her hand? Even if she now says she wanted to call the turn?

Depending on the rules I don’t have major issues killing her hand. As you know paying attention is part of protecting your hand. Critically again, she doesn’t get to choose. Her hand is either alive and well the card comes back or her hand is dead. We he rules and specifics decide not ever the player.