Player has two cards different from deck in play, big pot.

[glorfindel]

Horseshoe, Tunica MS., limit hold-em. Five people in for one bet before flop. Flop Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] . Flop capped between SB and MP and three people fold after putting in 2 bets each. Turn 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] SB bets, MP calls. River A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] SB looks at his cards and says, "These cards are a different color from the deck in play." (They were green, deck in play was burgundy). Dealer's mouth drops open, table erupts, floor is called.

Ruling?

[Annorax]

Hand is dead. SB moron should have noticed earlier, he's been staring down at the cards all hand.

[Dima2000123]

Refund everyone the money invested in a hand, of course. In addition, the floor should look for security camera footage, and if appropriate take SB to the back room and execute him a just a little.

[*TT*]

All - is the entire hand's action reversed and refunded, or do the two players left in the hand split the pot?

I'd say the latter has a strong argument this time.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
All - is the entire hand's action reversed and refunded, or do the two players left in the hand split the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody (blinds, etc) gets their money back if the hand is voided due to a foul deck.

Splitting the pot rewards someone who plays on when he knows the deck is foul.

[sirpupnyc]

I'm inclined to say SB is SOL. It appears I'd be wrong, though:

[ QUOTE ]
3. If a card with a different color back appears during a hand, all action is void and all chips in the pot are returned to the respective bettors. If a card with a different color back is discovered in the stub, all action stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I wouldn't object too strongly to some twisted argument that since the cards were accepted by all when they appeared, the action stands but SB's hand is dead. It'd be a stretch, but even if SB's mistake is an honest one it's a doozy, and "Oopsie, do-over!" just seems a little light to me.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All - is the entire hand's action reversed and refunded, or do the two players left in the hand split the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody (blinds, etc) gets their money back if the hand is voided due to a foul deck.

Splitting the pot rewards someone who plays on when he knows the deck is foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

EVERYONE could have known the deck was fouled....hence the convincing case for the second option. Normally I'd say all action has to be turned backwards but this is not a normal situation, its not like the villain has two A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in his hand from the same color deck. I wouldn't be shocked at either ruling, they both seem reasonable.

[jeffnc]

Come on, get real, how could no one at the table have noticed this? Doesn't it seem a little strange that SB got 2 cards of a different color? There just happened to be 2 cards of the wrong color in the deck, and those 2 cards just happened to be dealt to the same player? This whole thing sounds very weird.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, get real, how could no one at the table have noticed this? Doesn't it seem a little strange that SB got 2 cards of a different color? There just happened to be 2 cards of the wrong color in the deck, and those 2 cards just happened to be dealt to the same player? This whole thing sounds very weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a B&M game, a player could light himself on fire and some players might not notice.

I say refund all action if possible.

[whymelord]

Were his 2 cards the only ones out of sync with the deck? I'm with Jeff , very weird.

What was the ruling?