JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Carry on with 4 cards only.
It’s a home game. Let’s not Re deal and waste time. Someone is stuck already
We play Holdem and pass a button for 1 hand of PLO/orbit. At least once a night someone deals 2 cards when they should deal 4, and no one catches it until action has passed. We play the hand out as Holdem and play PLO the next hand.
So for this, i say play it out and move to the correct game next hand.
I think this is the right answer and I could see this ruling being made in a live room should it happen. The question is does substantial action supercede an error in count of hands regarding when games switch. I don't think there's a ruleset that covers this. But all rulesets do have some version of the following concepts:
* The time to point out an error is when it happens (and this implies a delay may definitely influence a ruling away from technical wording of the rules.)
* Once substantial action applies, the hand is played to completion. (The only provision to stop a hand once substantial action applies would be the extremely rare fouled deck, which I have never seen first hand, but basically discovering missing or duplicate cards during the hand is the only way to foul a deck. I know there are stories of this happening in cardrooms where multiple hole cards made identical flushes for players and so forth. Card rooms that only replace single cards instead of full setups are prone to this error.)
The issue with using the provisions regarding the number of cards as in @BGinGA 's post above is that we are at a point following substantial action. And the importance of substantial action as a protection against angling and reinforcing the concept that delaying the pointing out of an error, probably should in fact supersede rules regarding when to change forms in a mix game. For sure, I would say no one would reasonably call a misdeal after a flop, for example. Otherwise you are opening up an angle where and individual would be incentivized to call a misdeal if he flops poorly, but also incentivized to stay quiet and hope it goes unnoticed if he flops well. To take this further, no one would be suggesting money change hands if this is pointed out after a showdown. So what is the point of no return. I think it's "substantial action" and I could see casino floors ruling as such.
That said, a floor can probably take a more liberal approach as well and go along with @BGinGA 's logic as far as the first round of action in a stretch. But this slope gets slippery to overuse a cliche.