POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for New TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre 2017 Summit
How do blind bets affect substantial action?
Nick C:
If what Dave has written is what happened I agree with him...it's a misdeal.
Motobaka72:
--- Quote from: Nick C on April 17, 2017, 01:47:24 PM ---If what Dave has written is what happened I agree with him...it's a misdeal.
--- End quote ---
He got it. Misdeal it is then.
Thanks!
BillM16:
This topic has morphed into two separate issues:
* Should blinds be included in the definition of substantial action?
* Should substantial action (traditional definition) be binding if a misdeal occurs before the initial deal is complete?
TDA Rule #34, Part D:
Once substantial action occurs a misdeal cannot be declared; the hand must proceed (See Rule 35).
IMO: This rule part prohibits the ability to call a misdeal after substantial action occurred following the completion of the initial deal. For example, if a seat entitled to hand was dealt out or the button was in the wrong position and the first card was dealt to the wrong seat. In these cases, a misdeal could not be declared if there were substantial action. The premature action of players, before the initial deal is complete, cannot be considered either binding or substantial, until the initial deal is complete. In other words, premature actions are binding and may be substantial if a misdeal does not occur.
As to the first issue: Blinds and antes are forced wagers that are not consider substantial action for obvious reasons.
Regards,
B~
Nick C:
Bill,
In order for substantial action to occur at least two players must act following the blinds (UTG and UTG+1). If a player were dealt out and two players act after the BB...that's substantial action and the hand should continue.
Your first issue:
1. Should blinds be included in the definition of substantial action? NO
2. Should substantial action (traditional definition) be binding if a misdeal occurs before the initial deal is complete? NO
You also wrote: " In other words, premature actions are binding and may be substantial if a misdeal does not occur."
I assume you are referring to multiple premature actions...or are you holding a single premature action to his bet, also?
As to the first issue: Blinds and antes are forced wagers that are not consider substantial action for obvious reasons.
An ante is never considered a wager
Brian Vickers:
This might be a good place to breach the suggestion that "significant action may not take place prior to completion of the deal." Maybe with the addition of "actions that take place in advance of the completion of the deal are binding actions; however, they do not count towards significant action for purposes of a misdeal."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version