POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for New TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre 2017 Summit

Rule #22 - New Hand & Rule #40 - Action Out Of Turn (OOT)

(1/3) > >>

BillM16:
Rule #22 says a new hand begins on the first riffle.
Rule #40 says any action OOT is subject to penalty and is binding if the action doesn't change to the OOT player.

Scenario #1:  NLHE, blinds 100 & 200. The dealer riffles. UTG raises to 600. Is this considered OOT?  Is it binding?  Is it subject to penalty?

Scenario #2:  NLHE, blinds 100 & 200.  The dealer riffles. UTG+1 raises to 600.  UTG+2 raises to 1000.  After the cards are dealt, UTG raises to 400.  Action changed to UTG+1, he takes his 600 back and folds.  Is the raise by UTG+2 binding?  If so, what is the bet (800 or 1000)?

Regards,
B~

Dave Miller:
1: Binding, no penalty.

2: Not binding. He can fold, call or reraise any amount, min 600.

Nick C:
Hi Bill,

 First I'd like to say that TDA #22 is primarily used for "disputed pots" from the prior hand.
Scenario #1:  NLHE, blinds 100 & 200. The dealer riffles. UTG raises to 600. Is this considered OOT? I'd say NO. I'd call it a blind raise but it was his turn to act so I don't know how it would be ruled out of turn. Is it binding?  I'd say YES. Is it subject to penalty? I'd say NO so I would not consider rule #40 as applicable here either.

Scenario #2:  NLHE, blinds 100 & 200.  The dealer riffles. UTG+1 raises to 600.  UTG+2 raises to 1000.  After the cards are dealt, UTG raises to 400.  Action changed to UTG+1, he takes his 600 back and folds.  Is the raise by UTG+2 binding?  If so, what is the bet (800 or 1000)? I think this one is much more complicated than Scenario #1. UTG+1 was OOT but once the action proceeded to UTG+2 substantial action has occurred. I'm not sure the OOT can be retracted. I would say that the action must proceed around the table and the skipped player can only call or fold. The bet would be 1000.

I'm curios how Mike B would rule on this scenario. I'd also like to know if the "blind action" has any bearing on a decision. Interesting situation.

Nick C:
Come on guys...surely someone has an answer.  Gregg...Bill...Dave...Mike...Ralph...anybody? Do you back up the action to the proper bettor, or do you allow the action to proceed because of substantial action? I'm sure this is a more common occurrence than many others that we discuss on a regular basis.

Happy 4TH too all !!! :D

MikeB:
If I understand the question, these sound like bets in the dark. If not, my apologies.

I think this is an important enough issue to get into the TDA Rules, however many feel that dark bets are so infrequent that they don't need to be mentioned...

Regardless, of the persons I polled here at the 2017 Summit a clear majority felt that dark bets would not be included in substantial action. If you had a dark bet and a dark call, for example, and they were considered part of SA then anything short of a proven fouled deck would have to stand on the deal... Seat 6 is dealt 1 card, too bad, SA has occurred. So it makes no sense to include them in substantial action.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page