This situation recently came up in a torunament I played at a Kinght of Columbus hall and was wondering whether the floorman's ruling was consistent with typical casino rulings.

There were two players left in the hand after the river. The board was 10 high, was not paired and had 4 diamonds on it. The player in the BB moved all-in and a player in late position who had the BB covered called. The BB flipped over pocket 10s for a set of 10s and the other player tabled his cards and declared two pair. The BB took in the pot and all of the cards were mucked, collected and were passed to the next dealer and were being shuffled. At this point, a player not in the hand announced that the late position player had a dimond in his hand and had a flush which beat the BB's set.

The floorman was called over and ruled that because the late position player tabled his hand, and at least one player confirmed that he had the wining hand, he was entitled to the pot and the BB was eliminated.

Is this the right ruling under typical casino tournament rules? I was just wondering at what point is it too late to determine that the pot was given to the inferior hand. I have seen this happen previously, but it usually occurs while the board is still intact and the players' cards are tabled and it can be confirmed.

This is the key. As soon as the next hand officially starts, the previous hand is done and gone, and it is too late for such discrepancies to be remediated. The rule may be different in this cardroom, but the typical rule is that the hand in question ends, and the next hand begins, as soon as the dealer makes the first riffle while shuffling the deck. While this is the typical start of the new hand, I have seen rooms where they use some other factor to indicate the start of the next hand. But I haven't yet seen a room where the rule is that the outcome of a hand can be changed after the next hand has begun.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

once the new hand starts the player has no recourse. way too many people can angle here.

take the case in the OP and 3 others at the table say it was a heart but because one person said it was a diamond he gets the pot???

no way should this ever be allowed.

Terrible ruling. "one guy said he had a flush, so it was a flush." Horrible horrible horrible.

A. I don't mind that the next shuffle had begun. If you can correct a mistake, you should correct it. Especially in a self-dealt tournament.

B. I hate the fact that just one guy (who conveniently waited until well after the cards were collected, etc) claimed he saw the flush. That should not be enough to award the pot. Too easy for cheating or just human error.

Usually it takes 3 people to verify something that is no longer visible.

Technically you shouldn't be able to reverse a ruling after the next hand has "started". However, I have seen it done to remedy an eggregious wrong.

In a FW tournament a dealer was supposed to chop a pot. However, the last bet by player A was never put into the pot by player B so the chop was not even. player A said something at the time about things not seeming to be right, but the dealer insisted it was correct and then we all moved on. About 5 hands later player A counted his chips and realized he had won 2 hands and had less than the starting chips for the tourney (which was impossible). The Floor came over and suggested a solution which seemed correct and offered it as an option for Player B - to make things right. players B obliged (but probably could have resisted paying anything if he insisted).

In this case if the Big Blind was not sure there was a flush, he should have resisted being eliminated from the tournament. But it sounds like everyone knew the guy had a flush and so justice was served.

In this case, the BB did not make much of an argument to keep the pot so I assumed he knew the guy had a flush and he was beat. So in a sense it seemed to be the right result. But it did seem like a bad ruling because I can see lots of room for problems and disputes. I think once the pot is pushed and the cards are collected and the hands cannot be confirmed or re-created, it should be too late to go back and fix the mistake. Otherwise, you can have situations where players have different recollections on what the actual cards were and those differences may not be able to be resolved. I guess an exception would be if the dealer (who is neutral and not a player in the game) can confirm from his memory that he pushed the pot to the wrong player, then I guess he/she should be able to correct the mistake.

Is this actually a rule somewhere, or just a normative feeling that there should be a clear statute of limitations? Then we can debate how egregious is egregious.

IMO the correct standard is consensus. If one guy saw it, and no one disputes it include the guy who'll be giving up the money, that's consensus. If 8 people saw one thing and 2 saw another, that's consensus. If 2 saw one thing and 1 thinks she saw another, maybe, that's consensus. If 2 saw one thing and 1 adamantly is sure she saw another, that's not consensus.

Is the word of a World Champion not enough???

But yes, there are a couple of rules to this effect. According to the latest version of the TDA:

That is the standard rule. I wish I could remember what the situation was; years ago Jimmy Sommerfeld decided to send a tournament on break to review a previous hand. I don't remember the situation, but I was talking to Bob Ciaffone about it and we were in agreement that Jimmy did the right thing. So like all rules, the management can do something else if they have a compelling reason.

Jimmy is always trying to do that right thing. One of the best

There was a televised WSOP hand from years ago where two players were all in the with A high I believe, and the guy with the higher kicker got the pot. Like 5mins later the other guy comes back to the table and is like "WAAAIIIITTT IT WAS A CHOPPED POT!!!!" and yes, they gave him his chips back, because it was a tabled hand and the dealer and other players confirmed it.

Not that the WSOP is the be all and end all of rulings, but it did happen. If you table the hand and other players see and confirm it, get the pot to the right person.

1 player can be way too much of an angle tho... if a player sees it they have an obligation to speak up and correct in a timely manner. If i was the player in the hand, I would say 1 player saw it 9 didnt and neither did the dealer... at least have a consensus or close to 1.

There's a big difference between "1 player says he saw the hand" and "dealer and some other players say they saw it".