Not the same scenario. In your scenario I would not void the hand because the card from a different deck was found in the stub.

Thanks for all the great replies. I'd like to give some more details, in case they make any difference.

1) This is a home game, but well organized and everyone is told beforehand that Robert's Rules (and TDA Rules) are used.

2) Players deal, alternating with 2 decks, which are shuffled behind.

3) In this game, the host had a gold-backed & a black-backed (Kem) deck.

4) In this hand, the dealer had correctly used the gold-backed deck throughout, but accidentally picked up the black-backed deck that the player to his right had just finished shuffling to burn and deal the river card.

5) Hand details (as best as we can recollect):

NLHE, 8 players, 25¢/50¢, most buy in for $100 (no max). 4 limps to the button, who raises to $6. SB, BB, EP, MP, & LP call. $36 in pot. Flop: Ad, Kc, 4s. Checks all around. Turn: Th. BB bets $30, LP calls. (Effective Stacks: $400) River: As. BB bets $40. LP calls. BB shows Ah, As. LP shows T2.

Cards are being flipped face down when dealer notices the river As was from the 2nd deck. He burns & turns the correct deck, revealing Kd for river.

After much discussion about options, it is decided that LP gets his last $40 call back, but the rest of the hand stands. LP and table think this is fair. BB/Organizer isn't sure what should have happened, so posts this to 2+2 .

TYVM! All of these years and I didn't know that!

This is important information that should have been included in the OP. With this information, I like the ruling that was made.

(Also, this should have just gone in Home Games)

No one noticed the black backed turn card among the gold backed burn cards?

When I deal in a self dealt game I don't put the deck down.
I can look at my cards and do my betting with my right hand.

If you do have to put the deck down, cap it with a chip from the pot.

I wanted to know what should be the ruling in a cardroom / Roberts Rules, and use the same rule.

I'm not sure it matters that the wrong card was dealt from a 2nd deck (which I did include in OP, but it was ambiguous), or that the wrong card was in the deck from the beginning.

I think the only additional rule needed for a home game played with alternating decks is to define when the next hand starts. Since the decks are shuffled behind, I'd say the hand starts when the first card is dealt.

I think it does matter. IMO the rule that has been cited ITT regarding a card with a different color back appearing in a deck is referring to one card of color A appearing in a deck of color B. I don't believe it's referring to an entirely different deck being used to deal the river card.

So in one philosophical sense, you have maintained random card selection by using a second deck. However, the second deck introduces several complications.
First and foremost, the rules are centered around single deck play and there are "fouled deck" rules in place when less than 52 or more than 52 cards are in the deck, or if the faces do not have the expected ranks and suits. Imagine the most obvious scenario where you flip the river and its exactly the same card as the turn both rank and suit. I believe most rules on fouled decks are a complete hand void and move immediately to a new setup.
Secondly, players in the game may (or may not) be making their bet/call/raise/fold decision based in part or entirely on math and statistics of a single 52 normalized deck. When you introduce a second deck you skew the statistics of the player's outs or fades and villains outs or fades significantly without notice. In poker we are always operating and making decisions with incomplete information, but there are base assumptions we rely on, like the single deck. When that item changes, it messes with a Math Player's choices and certainly starts to enter the arena of 'cheating' although given your circumstances I don't think anyone at the table would go that far with an accusation. But imagine a scenario in which it was done with nefarious intent rather than clear incidental occurrence. You said the decks were shuffled behind - what if the person shuffling was a mechanic and was working with the guy who was dealing this hand? It changes how you might view the scenario.

I was previously involved in a home game tournament group very much like what you described so I certainly understand how that would happen. And it happened at least once while I was playing. They caught it after the river was flipped, but before action had taken place and they simply picked the river from the wrong deck up, and burned/turned from the correct deck. Not sure what would have been the ruling had action occurred, but it seems like they made a reasonable ruling -- giving back river action and dealing the correct river and proceeding.

The same rule of voiding the hand also applies to two cards of the same rank and suit. The thing that matters is the integrity of the game -- specifically, the probabilities involved, and the unknown information. Whether an extra card was in the deck from the beginning of the hand, or added during the hand doesn't matter. If the extra card messed up the valid cards that should have come out, then it has to be fixed for the hand to play out. If it didn't mess up the integrity of the game, then it doesn't need to be fixed (for the hand to be valid). If the extra card messed up the game play (like it did in my OP example, by having the players reveal their hands prematurely) then the hand is void. That can't be fixed in a fair way.

I believe this was what Greg Raymer was getting at when he wrote:

I think I agree with everything else you said, except the bolded part above. Roberts Rules state:

My view is that the card from the other deck voids the hand if it caused a problem with the core integrity of the game (probabilities and hidden information) that cannot be resolved.

I agree that this is correctable by removing that card, and using the correct deck for the burn and river card. This does seem to be different than what Roberts Rules say, but I think no harm is done in your scenario by replacing the invalid cards with valid ones, whereas much harm would be done by voiding the hand. The principle of least harm would say replace the card, even though Roberts Rules seems to say otherwise.

I think he just means if the rules state its enough to void a hand, some sets may not have such a rule, maybe allowing for a fix. Not sure.


A. dont use two different sets, especially two that will have as much conflicting information as the two you have chosen will (and why people want TDA rules for a cash game Ill never understand - unless TDA just used for a tourney that runs there)

B. as rawls said, very important info

C. this makes it tricky if you are saying no ones hands were revealed ever, because a case can be made to back up the action and play it out....however I would tend to side with voiding everything because the river action may have been too revealing to back it up and have it make a difference, or too much of a difference - and since this is speculative you can never judge it on a case by case basis.

next hand did not start (I think all agree with this) so fix can be done, and best is void and return

Thanks for the correction of understanding. I was not aware that a situation in which <52 cards were part of the deal would not be a cause for issue.

I was possibly in this hand (Seat #3 in fact) and maybe even started a thread over it already. Suit hasn't changed his take on this one bit ... They even took the chips off the table to review the video before making a final ruling.

1) Next hand must not be started ... riffle or button pushed on shuffler. Room rule applies. If started, then hand is over as stands regardless of where the 'bad' card was found to be. Pushed pot doesn't apply unless room rule.

2) 'Bad' card must be 'involved' in the hand ... hole card, burn, board ... fouled deck and refund all chips

2A) 'Bad' card in stub ... hand stands and move on.

On a minor side note, the felted player in the hand was given his chips back, but had re-bought and won a couple of hands so the chips technically couldn't be put into his stack due to table limits ... they were anyway! And one player had left so they had an extra $5 they didn't know what to do with ... I think it went to the 'winner' of the hand but he tipped the (now different) dealer with it. Fun stuff ... GL

Doesn't matter. It is the same thing and the hand should be void and all money returned. A card from a different deck ended up in play of the hand. It must be voided.

If the players didn't notice two ace of spades on the table at showdown it's not surprising they failed to notice the different card backs.
A hand with duplicate cards at showdown cannot possibly stand surely?

Heh good catch. Regardless, a duplicate card and a card with a different colored back are treated exactly the same in terms of voiding a hand if caught in time (and not in the stub). Either you think it was caught in time so it voids the hand, or you think the hand is over and the results stand.

How much beer would I need to donate to get an invite to this game?

Right?? It's sick.

The Twin River room uses light brown and light purple cards on some tables. The shade of brown can easily be misconstrued as purple if you don't see it for more than a second.