Blackjack Misdeal - Can I void my hand?

Ok, dealer checks for BJ and says there is none. Then the deal goes on. After everyone is done, the dealer flips over the card and shows a BJ. So this is a misdeal. So my question is, is it ok to have the hand void and have my money returned? The dealer said either way we would've lost our hand. I think this is debatable as all misdeals void play. I didn't argue with the dealer at that time. Thinking about it, if it was a huge bet and I know I could void the game, I would've asked the pit boss. So what should be the right decision? This happened at a casino in CA many years ago. I just remembered now and wanted to ask. Thanks.

focd,
Actually, no, the dealer's Blacjkack always stands and wins, and the players lose, even if other players had hit. It is not debatable and not a misdeal.
This is because the dealer had the blackjack all along. This outcome is correct, even if annoying.
If other players had hit, it does not change the result of a dealer's blackjack. The dealer must reshuffle the deck if any player had hit.

Just curious as to how you know this as a fact. Also, then what about that statement that all misdeals void all pays and plays?

I'm a casino dealer and game designer.
A dealer's blackjack is not a misdeal, even if players had hit.
In some cases, the floorman might give it to the players, as a customer service action, but that is not mandatory.
It doesn't hurt to ask. ;)

I agree with you that it makes more sense to not pay the players, but how is this not a misdeal? The misdeal is the fact that no cards should've left the shoe if the dealer had announced his BJ early on. I guess my definition (personal definition) of a misdeal is when something out of the ordinary happens. Shouldn't this be a misdeal then? I guess I am asking the same question when you already gave an answer. So what I am really asking is what qualifies or what is a misdeal then if this isn't one.

I don't know what's correct, but that should definitely be a misdeal.
What if I had 8's and split, thus putting extra money on the table? By not revealing his blackjack, the dealer would cause me to lose an extra bet. I would definitely want it voided in that situation.

Misdeals involve situations where win/loss results are altered, or where deals occur where players don't get enough cards/too many cards, etc., and where the results are invalid or cannot be determined.

If the dealer has a blackjack, and where every player was originally and properly dealt their original two cards, the take and pay results may stand, unless over-ridden by a floorman. If you had split or doubled down, those bets would not be taken, only the bet that corresponds to the original two card hand dealt. So no, you would not lose any "extra" bet.

I know that dealer blackjacks are annoying, but they win for the house if a misdeal did not occur, - and a "late revealed" blackjack is not generally considered a misdeal.

Again, it does not hurt to ask the floorman to declare a misdeal simply as a customer service action, because players were annoyed. he may say yes.

If you had split or doubled down, then you would be entitled to your extra bet back. But I agree, as long as there was a dealer blackjack that was simply missed on the first check by the dealer, no, that's not a misdeal and you still lose your original bet.

I agree with what's been said.

It's not a misdeal. Checking for BlackJack is a relatively new procedure designed to speed up the gane and not waste cards. The fact that he was mistaken when he checked for BlackJack does not affect the cards you were dealt. It simply means that the hand reverts back to the old rules, meaning, you only lose your original bet. Additional chips wagered for splits and doubles are returned.

Also, any insurance bets that 'lost' because of the mistake, should be replaced, and paid.

Quote: focd

Also, then what about that statement that all misdeals void all pays and plays?

It just means that if they make a mistake in your favor, you have to return the money.

Failing to check for blackjack does not alter the outcome of the game, so it makes no sense to void the hand. If you had split or doubled, they would have returned your additional wager, but since you did not, it simply does not matter when the dealer's blackjack showed up, so no misdeal.

I've experienced this, too. The dealer called the pit manager who had the dealer scoop up all the bets and push back to the players their doubles (2 players doubled their 11).

Someone at the table was upset that the "order of the cards" were messed up, so the pit manager told the dealer to shuffle.

I think the situation was dealt with fairly. Scoop up the original bets and offer to reshuffle.

Actually this happened to me a second time, too. I was playing Spanish 21 alone against the dealer, and in Spanish 21 a 21 wins automatically (even if the dealer has 21). But of course, a non-bj 21 loses to a bj.

Well one time, the dealer didn't check her hole card and I hit to 21, receiving an immediate payout. She flipped the hole card and showed an ace for bj. She let me keep my winnings and didn't call over the pit boss. I think that was the fair thing to do and hopefully the pit would have agreed.

I have to take the casino's side too. As Dan said, I don't think it counts as a misdeal, because the outcome of the hand wasn't altered.

As an example of a misdeal, last night I was playing blackjack at the Monte Carlo with one other player. As I am known to do, I was questioning the dealer about rules in other games, in this case Pai Gow Poker, which involves counting spots counter clockwise for purposes of player banking. This confused the dealer and she dealt the first two cards in the wrong order. So she gave me a 2, and my friend a 10. My friend alerted the dealer about it, and the supervisor told the dealer to reverse the cards. Then the dealer dealt the other initial cards properly. Then, the supervisor gave each of us an opportunity to opt out of the hand. That is a good example of a misdeal, and was handled appropriately.

By the way, my blackjack appendix 5 is useful for the option of opting out of hand.

The fairest and most common treatment of this situation is to count the dealer's hand as a blackjack, and to void any splits or double downs that the players made.

I have seen, in addition to the above, that the dealer's hand be treated as a normal 21 rather than a blackjack, which gives the players the chance to push; in this case they still get to nullify double downs or splits. A mild penalty to the house for not revealing the blackjack at the start of the hand.

In any case, it is not a "misdeal" because no cards were misdealt.

Sometimes a hand gets played out only to find that the dealer has a blackjack. The dealer could have forgotten to check or the table could have an older reader with the green and red light, which were known for their malfunctions. Why would anyone think they should be compensated because the blackjack was turned up at the end of the hand instead of the beginning?

If the dealer has a blackjack and you don't then you lose. If the dealer pays your pushed blackjack, then you owe that money back. You don't always get called on it but you do owe it.

Most casinos will favor the player when a dealer makes a mistake such as hitting a hand after being waved off. Where I play the revealed card is the next card to be played. If it's a 2 and you're next to play you can double your hard 19. You're also allowed to opt out which works nicely when looking at 16 vs the dealer's 10. There are reasons to question a hand or a procedure but in this case it's really not a misdeal.

I would love to speak to the person who asked for a new shuffle because " the order of the cards" was messed up so that he or she could tell me exactly what the order is. I could use that information before placing my next bet.

I had never seen this happen until I encountered it twice in the same day on a trip to Tunica earlier this year. The dealer had an Ace up and checked for blackjack. Nothing there. My wife had a blackjack, declined insurance, and got paid. Dealer turns up the hole card and has a natural after all.

The first time, my wife was allowed to keep the payout. I can't remember what the PC did for the other players, but it was player friendly -- maybe nullifying the hand. In the second case, the PC took all original bets and made my wife return her blackjack payout (she got to keep her original bet).

The first instance was at Resorts; the second was at Bally's. Both casinos have the same owner, so there apparently isn't a company policy on how to handle the situation. But the ruling at Resorts was better for the players than the one at Resorts. It was a $5 table with nobody betting more than $15. Resorts paid a small price for lots of good will among those players.

I've seen different rules at different pits in a SINGLE casino.

Has anyone come across the opposite situation where a dealer misreads their hand thinking it was a BJ, then reveals their hole card?

Quote: Ayecarumba

Has anyone come across the opposite situation where a dealer misreads their hand thinking it was a BJ, then reveals their hole card?

I saw this once. The dealer had 20. The pit boss had the table play out the hand. This included 2 people hitting on hard 19s.


To me this is not a misdeal. Misdeal to me means the dealer actually dealt the cards differently than what the rules of the game say is required. All the cards were good, just that everyone got to peak at the hole card.

I assume there is no standard as to how to deal with this situation. I would imagine some pit bosses would just have the hand scrapped, no wins or losses.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Has anyone come across the opposite situation where a dealer misreads their hand thinking it was a BJ, then reveals their hole card?

I saw that too. The dealer had an ace up, thought the hole card was a 10 and flipped it up, and it was another ace. So the players played out their hands knowing the dealer had a soft 12, and we didn't have the option to opt out. The way it was handled was fine with me.

Quote: Wizard

I saw that too. The dealer had an ace up, thought the hole card was a 10 and flipped it up, and it was another ace. So the players played out their hands knowing the dealer had a soft 12, and we didn't have the option to opt out. The way it was handled was fine with me.

That actually relates to a court case against someone who was accused of "hole carding"--the house said the player was cheating, but the judge said that if the house was careless enough to expose the hole card, the player was entitled to take advantage of that information.

I've probably seen the hole card inadvertently exposed a dozen times, and the hand was always played out to a conclusion. One time I remember, the dealer inadvertently exposed her hard 19, and everybody in turn tried to beat or tie it, except one woman who had hard 18 and wouldn't hit it, even though her boyfriend was practically screaming at her that she was certain to lose if she stood. It was one of the many times in the casino when I wished I had a hidden video camera.