Is it a premature river?

[karlovic]

We have recently encountered a scenario in a tournament that raises some interesting questions regarding rule interpretation.
Case for analysis:

Hand Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSzzmGoGYeg

Final Table Texas Hold'em NL Tournament / 4 players remaining

Blinds 40k/80K/BB Ante 80k

KAWACHY UTG: CALL 80K
ALDO BTN: CALL 80K
KEVIN SB: CALL 80K
JESUS BB: CHECK

FLOP: Kd8h2s

KEVIN SB: CHECK
JESUS BB: CHECK
KAWACHY UTG: CHECK
ALDO BTN: CHECK

TURN: 2d

KEVIN SB: CHECK
JESUS BB: BET 110K
KAWACHY UTG: CALL 110K
ALDO BTN: FOLD
KEVIN SB: PUTS 210K (The Dealer doesn't notice and proceeds to open the River)

RIVER: As

KEVIN SB: CHECK
JESUS BB: CHECK
KAWACHY UTG: He's counting chips to bet

15 seconds after noticing the error...

JESUS BB: Asks, so what did you want to do? Referring to the small, he tells him and tells the dealer, you put two 100k chips.

At that moment the hand is stopped, it is confirmed that SB had put $210k and the Floor is called.

The Floor decides to take the River as a Premature River and returns the actions to the turn, putting the Ace back into the deck and reshuffling before finishing the actions.

KEVIN SB: PUTS 220K
JESUS BB: CALL 210K
KAWACHY UTG: FOLD

RIVER: 7c

KEVIN SB: CHECK
JESUS BB: CHECK

How would you define this case?

Considering that the SB, who inadvertently "made the raise," did not realize the error, could this indicate that the SB had no intention of raising and simply made a mistake in placing the chips?

Is possible that the BB was attempting to gain an advantage by waiting 15 seconds before pointing out the SB's error, Would this be a sufficient argument to keep the river card and not interpret it as a premature river?

[BROOKS]

There are always going to be crazy situations that there isn't a clear cut rule for, and we just have to make the best decision we can, with the information that we have.

I wouldn't have ruled that as a premature river.

The fact that the SB didn't say anything once the river came out, AND he acted (checked) on this supposed premature card???
Absolutely not.

Not only did he act, but another player also acted on this card, and a 3rd player was about to.

In Rule 2 - Players Responsibilities, it says Players must defend their right to act. I feel as though this falls under that same way of thinking, you need to defend your action. If he had raised, he needed to speak up. He wasn't even the one that brought it up, it was the BB that said something. What was he going to do, wait for everyone to have acted on the river, and then say something?

[karlovic]

What was he going to do, wait for everyone to have acted on the river, and then say something?

In that case, the solution is simple: if another player acts, there's substantial action, making it easier to resolve the issue since the rules state that if there's substantial action, the river stands, and actions proceed as normal.

However, the difficulty here lies in the fact that with UTG not having acted and the two previous actions not involving chips, there's no substantial action, and the river could be considered a premature river.

Although I don't agree with treating it as a premature river, as I feel it gives BB an opportunity to gain an advantage, since they can decide whether to announce the error or not at their convenience.

[BROOKS]

Substantial Action isn't the "end all, be all" to making rulings.

Take a missing burn card for example:

If dealer forgets to burn before the flop, and there has been ANY action, the flop stays.
If a player checks, on a flop of A49, we can't say, well there wasn't substantial action - let's flip em over, scramble and select a random card to be the burn. Now what if the flop becomes 249 and the player that already checked now bets?

So since the rule in this case would be that the flop stays, even with 1 check, I believe in your situation, the river card should've stayed.