Tourney Ruling question for deck reshuffled mid hand (16 Viewers)

[HiveKueen]

35.E: ...Other fouled deck conditions may be defined by local gaming regulations and house policy. If a fouled deck is discovered, regardless of SA, play will stop and all bets will be returned. Once a hand concludes, the right to dispute based on a fouled deck ends according to Rule 22.

So, if there is a house rule in place before play starts saying that a wrongly shuffled stub (which the TDA rules doesn't consider to be a fouled deck) should cancel the hand, the hand should have been cancelled. absent such an explicit house rule, playing out the hand was the correct procedure.

Cancelling a hand after significant action is pretty unusual in poker.

 

[Machine]

So, if there is a house rule in place before play starts saying that a wrongly shuffled stub (which the TDA rules doesn't consider to be a fouled deck) should cancel the hand, the hand should have been cancelled. absent such an explicit house rule, playing out the hand was the correct procedure.

My reading comprehension skills failed me; I had read that the muck was shuffled into the stub. This would be considered a fouled deck, given that the stub was simply reordered I conceded, running the board was correct.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm not convinced that even a fouled deck would be adequate grounds for canceling a hand where substantial action has already occurred.

Even in cases where a deck stub contains invalid cards (jokers, etc.), the generally accepted solution is to play on.

 

[JustinInMN]

The hand stands there is no arguing about that. But if this was discovered before hand has ended it was a fouled deck and dead hand in my opinion.

My reading comprehension skills failed me; I had read that the muck was shuffled into the stub. This would be considered a fouled deck, given that the stub was simply reordered I conceded, running the board was correct.

No, a fouled deck is pretty specific to a deck found to have missing cards or duplicated cards.

A disordered stub does not rise to a fouled deck.

Cancelling a hand after significant action is pretty unusual in poker.

And this is the reason why. If the rules provided for too many avenues to reset a hand after it progresses past a point where one can identify a disadvantage, it becomes too easy for dealers or players to manipulate the situation.

Based on what was described. There is no set of circumstances in which the fouled deck rule should apply.

Dealing from constructed stub is the only reasonable resolution after significant action. Even if it happened to include the muck.

Thankfully in this case it didn't, so one unseen stub is as good as another.

 

[Gunnar]

No, a fouled deck is pretty specific to a deck found to have missing cards or duplicated cards.

A disordered stub does not rise to a fouled deck.



And this is the reason why. If the rules provided for too many avenues to reset a hand after it progresses past a point where one can identify a disadvantage, it becomes too easy for dealers or players to manipulate the situation.

Based on what was described. There is no set of circumstances in which the fouled deck rule should apply.

Dealing from constructed stub is the only reasonable resolution after significant action. Even if it happened to include the muck.

Thankfully in this case it didn't, so one unseen stub is as good as another.

But there is no significant action after the mistake ? The money was already in?

 

[JustinInMN]

But there is no significant action after the mistake ? The money was already in?

From TDA Rule 36

36: Substantial Action (SA)
Substantial Action is either A) any 2 actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds) or B) any combination of 3 actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, fold). Posted blinds do not count towards SA. See Rules 35-D and 53-B.

https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

The two all ins constitute substantial action. It does not matter if the mistake happened after, substantial action applies. The hand is played to conclusion unless a fouled deck is discovered.

And again, the definition of fouled deck is much more specific than purported in this thread.

 

[JustinInMN]

I'm not convinced that even a fouled deck would be adequate grounds for canceling a hand where substantial action has already occurred.

Even in cases where a deck stub contains invalid cards (jokers, etc.), the generally accepted solution is to play on.

There was a post on 2p2 several year back about a fouled deck in Vegas because both players held an ace of the same suit and both had made the nut flush.

That's clearly a fouled deck.

If a dealer counts the stub and finds it's short, that's clearly a fouled deck. (Something dealers don't even have to do anymore in the era of automatic shuffling.)

I suppose the appearance of a joker could in your example could be argued either way. I think if dealt in a starting hand, and pointed out right away, it's a misdeal.

If not pointed out right away, I could see where it would play out.

If a joker is dealt as a face up card where it doesn't belong. It probably safer to rule it a fouled deck because the deck should be inspected right away anyway. Maybe it's acceptable to count the stub and if it's right after removing the joker proceed?

But the standard is this high for a reason. To limit the avenues players at a disadvantage can argue for a reset.