Alright, this scenario came in one of our tournaments Saturday night, and all three of us couldn't really decided what to do. We looked up the Illustration Addendum but that didn't help us either. Here is the addendum:
Example 1:
NLHE,
blinds 100-200. UTG (Seat 3) makes it 600. Seat 4 is skipped when Seat 5 calls 600 OOT. Seat 6 thinks for a moment then folds. There are now two players acting with chips involved to the left of Seat 4. Two players with chips qualifies as substantial action (Rule 35 ). Also, Seat 4 has had reasonable time to speak up and bring it to the dealer’s attention that he has been skipped. The OOT call by Seat 5 is now binding due to substantial action OOT, and the OOT fold by Seat 6 is binding (Rule 50 ). The floor is called to make a decision on the fate of Seat 4’s hand.
SO, what do you floors do with the fate of seat 4?
First of all Mike you have presented this case very well, and identified the applicable rules perfectly IMO.
This subject was discussed at length at the 2013 Summit and can be found on one of 4 videos of the event, first one is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfO6pdhsVYMTo summarize, there is not super-majority agreement within the Association as to how to deal with Seat 4 at this point, and I'm not sure there will be anytime soon. There are basically two remedies:
I: Seat 4's hand is dead... providing of course, as you note that he had reasonable time to act, there was nothing obscuring his ability to follow the action, etc. etc. as set forth in the rule and as you note in your case.
2: Back the action up to seat 4 and allow him only to call or fold, not to raise, AND (optionally) "2-B": allow him only to call on any subsequent raise on this betting street, which is classic RROP from
General Poker Rules, Section 3 Betting and Raising, Para: 12. "To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act." Regarding "2-B", I ran this question by Bob Ciaffone several years back... probably 2009-ish.... to clarify what he meant by "
lose your right to act"; specifically I asked whether that meant a dead hand or merely losing the right to act aggressively (initiate a bet or raise). His answer was that he hadn't thought about it for awhile, but definitely intended it to mean the latter.
So, hope that answers your question, but it also leaves the question open as to what exactly to do with the hand and as Rule 38 says "
...the floor will be called to render a decision on how to treat the skipped hand". Personally in the situation you outline, I'd opt for 2-B, but completely understand that many TDs, perhaps a majority, would kill the hand. Again, this is player beware and you've clearly outlined that the player wasn't attentive.
How did you rule?