Chips in play at 1/2

[KS1971]

Today I was playing 1/2 at CAZ and a situation came up that I would like clarification on.  Player A made a bet and player B was thinking about calling.  Player B had what I could call "a wall of white".  While he was thinking he pulled a $25 green chip from behind the wall of white and set it on top.  Then he pulled some red out and threw it in to call.  The green nor the red chip were visible to anyone bet the players directly to his right and left. 

After then hand played out I quietly asked the dealer to asking him to put his big chips out front.  The other player clearly took offense to my request and said the green didn't play anyway.  I said I thought they did because have seen others playing green chips on the 1/2 game as recent as last week.  The dealer said she wasn't sure because they keep changing things and she thought it did play but she needed to exchange it for red. 

A few minutes later she asked the floor when he walked by what chips play in this game and he said "white and red".  My question is, if someone inadvertently has a green on the table shouldn't it play? It should be up to the dealer to change the chip out but if it's on the table it seems like it should play.  It might effect another players decision if a player is shuffling some green like it's some sort of power chip.  If the rule truly is white and red only it seems like it could unintentionally open the game up for an angle shooting situation.

[gregski]

If the chip is in his stack of chips, I can't see a reason why it shouldn't have to play.  Why else did he put the chip on the table?  I think it is a huge angle shoot if he placed the chip in his stack and he knows that if he complains to the floor it wouldn't play, but if no one else knew the rules he can play it if he wants to.  He basically is getting a $25.00 free roll (if that was the only $25.00 chip in his stack).

Side Note: I always thought that large denomination chips from the same casino (if they don't play on the table) couldn't be used as card protectors for this very reason.  So the chip should not be on the table at all if he "Knew" it wouldn't play.

[Argus]

Today I was playing 1/2 at CAZ and a situation came up that I would like clarification on.  Player A made a bet and player B was thinking about calling.  Player B had what I could call "a wall of white".  While he was thinking he pulled a $25 green chip from behind the wall of white and set it on top.  Then he pulled some red out and threw it in to call.  The green nor the red chip were visible to anyone bet the players directly to his right and left.

After then hand played out I quietly asked the dealer to asking him to put his big chips out front.  The other player clearly took offense to my request and said the green didn't play anyway.  I said I thought they did because have seen others playing green chips on the 1/2 game as recent as last week.  The dealer said she wasn't sure because they keep changing things and she thought it did play but she needed to exchange it for red.

A few minutes later she asked the floor when he walked by what chips play in this game and he said "white and red".  My question is, if someone inadvertently has a green on the table shouldn't it play? It should be up to the dealer to change the chip out but if it's on the table it seems like it should play.  It might effect another players decision if a player is shuffling some green like it's some sort of power chip.  If the rule truly is white and red only it seems like it could unintentionally open the game up for an angle shooting situation.

You were correct in asking the dealer to make sure large denomination chips were visible to all players, the offender has no right to be upset.
My experience leads me to say that green chips should not be on the table ( this does not mean "do not play")in the 1/2 games.  
The dealer was correct in getting the green chip colored down and apparently did so as soon as they became aware of the fact that they were present.
The green chip is part of the players stack, table stakes.

The question then becomes, must the green( or red) play in this particular hand IF the betting should come to a point where they COULD play.

It depends, in the situation as described, lets change the action:  player B exposes the green/red chips then raises, A re-raises enough to put B all-in...since B exposed the larger chips prior to raising, A is now aware of the chips prior to making any other commitment, the hidden green and red would be in play.

Same scenario; A bets THINKING that all B has is the white chips, B states ALL-IN and does not expose the color, A responds "i call".
At showdown, B reveals the green and red chip(s).  "A" can rightfully make the argument that he is only going to payoff the amount of the white, as that was all he was aware of and made his decision to call based on that amount.

In either case the green cannot be taken out of play, it should be colored down.  You cannot generally "cap" cards with a large denomination "power chip" from the casino in which you are playing, it is deceptive at best.

[KS1971]

I don't think it should matter in the situation.  Having the chip in his stack COULD effect the way the hand is played out.  Example: It could cause a player to fold because a player could THINK he has $25 more than actually plays.

I think if it's on the table, it should be colored down.  But in the instance that it gets past the dealer, it should play. 

The guy probably thought I would be intimidated by him because I am female.  Wrong!  I know the rules of poker and I know how to recognize an angle shoot in the game.  If CAZ has a rule that only red and white play, they need to revisit that rule. 

I should have asked for further clarification when the floor came over but I didn't want to start a fight at the table.  The guy was really pissed that I even asked to see his chips. 

[Argus]

To clarify, i don't think the rule at CAZ is a hard line "only red and white" play...which COULD be interpreted as Green chips dont play if they are on the table.
It is only red and white SHOULD be on the table, meaning that IF a higher chip gets on the game, it should be colored down If/When( should be ) noticed. BUT it will be counted as table stakes and must remain on the table.

The only reason it MIGHT not play in THAT particular hand is, as explained in my previous post, the green ( or red) chips were hidden, and an opposing player was inaware of the chips when making a decision or "tricked" so to speak.

Its a pretty standard rule in NL that a player is not obligated to a decision based on false information( the CAZ games are not NL obviously. but it applies), which includes not having full view of a players stack.
Standard:
Players are obligated to keep the higher denomination chips either in front of or on top of the lower denomination chips.
Players are entitled to  a clear view of other players entire chip stacks.

From your OP..the kid with the green( and red) chips obviously does not understand that rule.
Many of these kids think that trickery in this sense is acceptable.

The only was for them to learn is to insist, have the dealer call the floor person to clarify.

[KS1971]

It was actually a gentleman who I would guess was in his 50's. He was a regular which is why I felt he is probably pushing the envelope.

[Argus]

Now, knowing the age of the instigator/offender  in the OP , i would now suggest that this player probably knows the rule(s) and was perhaps trying to take advantage, when cornered, the reaction was simply defensive. He probably assumed (incorrectly) the players at this game might not be aware of such a rule.

In other words, probably a "grinder"  who tried to take a shot, and got caught.