how does the guy holding 555 not tip the table..

horrific ruling. the TD should be stood down.

plot twist, actual river would have been a

Wow this ruling is horrific.

I was formerly a TD in the UK and i would say that the stub is reshuffled and another river card is dealt.

Do get strange rules in different countries because of legislation i guess.

Agreed. Even if the policy there is that touching the muck = death for the card, you can still shuffle the stub and finish the hand.

Playing or watching David?

Playing..........Dan?

What's the point of "shuffling the stub"? Minimize the chance of dealer chicanery?

Because if the dealer's dishonest the shuffle will just give him another chance to rig things.

I still say just deal the next ****ing card and be done with it.

LOL at Effel saying to bring the muck back into play. If OP wants to do something constructive for once, he should get the rules committee to expressly forbid that kind of decision.

If that's true, then if a dealer ever did a premature burn and turn with the river card, then that hand would also be considered void and all money returned, since the "proper" river card couldn't be dealt, as you can't let someone complete action on the turn knowing in advance what the river card is going to be.

I find it hard to believe that they declare premature burn and turns voided hands. If they do, that's one weird rule. But if they don't, then their logic for declaring this hand voided is pure BS.

Premature burn and turns do not void hands at Star. At least in the rulings I have seen there.

That's correct. They always shuffle it back in though they obviously haven't in this instance because of the 'sacred' muck.

Needs to be more common sense in poker. If it's clear to all which card it is just flip it over FFS.

Sounds like #2 is the relevant one.

So forget the mucked river card, shuffle the stub and deal a new river.

What an awful ruling. Why would any TD think voiding a hand is ever the right answer (besides a fouled deck)?

#2 sounds like the relevant one to people who can reconstruct the reasoning why that is the right decision in the first place.

Based on a literal reading of the rules this situation falls into a hole between 2 and 3. The entire stub cannot be reconstructed because a card is missing, nor has the entire stub been dropped into the muck.

Instead of the definite article in "using only the stub cards" it would be better if it said "using only identifiable stub cards".

Maybe that's pedantic, but I teach English in a country whose language lacks a definite article, so I spend my working day looking with students at things like how the meaning of "using only the stub cards" differs from "using only stub cards" and "the" implies all of them.

They made some iffy rulings all week. All of the casinos in Australia other than Crown have laughably bad floors.

This ruling is obviously both disgraceful and unacceptable

It's a very clear case of 'just shuffle the remaining deck and deal a new river if card is irretrievable in the muck'

If it was me I would have demanded to speak to the NSW gaming commission on the spot