PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Stoneii on October 24, 2012, 06:00:39 AM

Title: Action out of turn
Post by: Stoneii on October 24, 2012, 06:00:39 AM
Hi

6 handed game.  Seat 1 and 2 are blinds.  Seat 3 is to act and sees seat 4 reaching for chips so says nothing.  Seat 4 open raises and seat 5 insta mucks.

Is there a stage where seat 3's hand is dead? 
Can he now call back the action and make a bet?
Is he limited to a call?

What are the options at this stage or if there was another action after seat 5's?

Thanks in advance
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 24, 2012, 06:42:24 AM
Stoneii,

 Welcome to the forum!

Substantial action has taken place.  It is too late to back-up the action. When the betting returns to the skipped player, he can fold or call...he can not raise.

 IMO, the hand will be ruled dead if the next round of betting begins and the skipped player was not in for all bets.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Stoneii on October 24, 2012, 06:57:01 AM
Thanks Nick - that was going to be my ruling - since i knew seat 3 deliberately waited for the out of turn action i then waited to see if there was significant action afterward.  I told him that it was his responsibility to stop action if he genuinely wanted to act before action after him - or his hand was dead if there had been another fold/call/raise.  I said otherwise he's basically awarding himself the button by waiting.

Others at the table weren't sure on this. So would u not call his hand dead until end of the round? Do u mean if the board is dealt or before?

So if its flagged by 2nd action he can fold or call - but surely if we wait until end of round and say seat 6 raises then he gets to fold out withoout losing a call?

It was a home game so we didn't get too fussed but we do like to play by rules . i think his hand should be dead if he lets significant action happen afterwards?
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: K-Lo on October 24, 2012, 09:48:18 AM
Quote
i think his hand should be dead if he lets significant action happen afterwards?

I think this is correct as the overriding fundamental principle... did the player "let" significant action happen before stopping the action.  To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling "time" (or an equivalent word).  Failure to stop the action [in a timely manner] may cause you to lose the right to act.

Personally, I see a couple of issues here.  First, I would refer to the definition of "substantial action" in the TDA rules as a starting point.  If substantial action has occurred, then by default I would rule against the missed player.  However, I think there can be exceptions to this.

There will be times when technically, significant action has occurred, but I would feel comfortable ruling that the action be backed-up.  For example, if it is clear that the player did not deliberately delay calling attention to the first out-of-turn action once it has occurred, and attempted to stop the action right away once it had occurred (e.g. despite subsequent insta-calls or insta-folds), then I think it is fair to back the action up.  Conversely, there will be times when technically, significant action has not yet occurred, but I would not back up the action.  For example, if only one player acted, and the dealer then tapped & burned & dealt out board cards and yet the player did not attempt to stop the dealer's action, then I would rule that he has lost the right the act.  I know that some people will disagree with me here, and strictly apply the "substantial action" standard, but I do think some common sense is warranted.  The question, in my mind, is did the player let play continue after the out-of-turn action or not?

Second, what does it mean by "losing the right to act"?  If the missed player was contemplating calling a bet, I would rule the hand dead.  If, however, all action was checked around on that particular betting round, I would not kill the hand but deem that he has checked and he loses the right to bet, but his hand is still live.  I really don't like killing hands as a matter of course, so I think this is a fair compromise.

In the original example, I think it really depends on when seat 3 brought attention to the out-of-turn actiom of seat 4, and whether he delayed in doing so.  I don't think seat 3 has any obligation to say anything while seat 4 is merely "reaching for chips", but once seat 4 actually acts out of turn by announcing raise or by placing chips forward, then seat 3 has to attempt to stop the action right then and there.   If he did, but seat 5 acted so quickly that he couldn't be stopped in time, then fine, I would still back up the action.  However, if there was any delay after seat 4 had raised, because e.g. seat 3 wants to see what would happen next, then seat 3's hand would be dead as soon as seat 5 mucks.  
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 24, 2012, 10:25:08 AM
Stoneii,

 I'm sorry but I can't agree with K-Lo on this one. The situation you described is clearly covered by substantial action, furthermore if a player is skipped his hand can never be declared dead unless the player is not in for all bets. Let's look at your original situation.

6 handed game.  Seat 1 and 2 are blinds.  Seat 3 is to act and sees seat 4 reaching for chips so says nothing.  Seat 4 open raises and seat 5 insta mucks.

In a normal hand, the dealer would have told the out of turn bettor that it was not his turn to act. "Hold it Joe", the bet is on Tommy." That would require a quick response from the dealer to stop seat 5 from folding. Your example indicates that the proper bettor in seat 3 (Tommy) intentionally let the action pass him by, therefore the action can not be backed up and when the clockwise action returns to him, he can only fold or call. His hand will not be dead unless he folds.

 If the skipped player remains silent and tries to see a free card, or tries to participate in the showdown without calling the last bet...then his hand is dead.

 There are a great number of different scenarios when substantial action could be handled different from what I've stated but in your case, that's the only way I would rule.
 
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: K-Lo on October 24, 2012, 11:37:49 AM
Nick: I think we are roughly on the same page.  I am fine with not killing the hand if Tommy is not facing any bets, instead deeming him to have checked.   I don't think though that Tommy has an obligation to say something just because he sees Joe "reaching" for chips.  Tommy hasn't done anything wrong, and neither has Joe unless he actually bets.  If, however, Tommy did intentionally let action continue once Joe makes his bet, then this is a different story. I am unsure what actually happened in the original example.

RROP suggests that the player who is skipped "may" lose his turn to act.  To me, "may" implies "may or may not", and therefore there is an element of TD discretion involved. It is obviously relevant if substantial action has occurred, but I think you have to always consider what is fair. 

Suppose Chet and I are sitting to your left at a table.   There is a big pot in the centre, and the short stack has already gone all-in for one small chip.  You are contemplating at least calling, and you look like you want to raise... But since you have been a pain in our arse  ;) we decide to both call out of turn for one chip quickly, giving you no chance to object.  Should the TD apply substantial action strictly here and kill your hand?  It would be very easy for players to target someone and to kill a person's hand!  That is why I think we need to go back to first principles, and ask: did the player intentionally let action continue once someone has acted out of turn.  Relying only on substantial action, IMO, can lead to some undesirable results.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Stoneii on October 24, 2012, 01:48:40 PM
Many thanks both
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 24, 2012, 03:16:59 PM
K-Lo,

 I'm sorry about the Tommy and Joe routine, I think you got them mixed up. My fault.

 Back to the situation at hand. The original post: 6 handed game.  Seat 1 and 2 are blinds.  Seat 3 is to act and sees seat 4 reaching for chips so says nothing.  Seat 4 open raises and seat 5 insta mucks.
 Don't you think that the 3 seat player, (along with the dealer) should stop the improper out of turn from the seat 4 player? Doesn't every player have an ethical obligation to correct an error that's about to be made? The out of turn was the first responsible for violating the rules, however in the original question, the 3 seat player said nothing, and the dealer said nothing. Moving in a clockwise rotation the 3 seat player would have an ethical obligation to let the dealer know that he was skipped. The floor would be called and the skipped player would be allowed to call or fold. That's it.

 If the player in seat 3 attempted to remain in contention without calling all bets, or not calling the bets from the final betting round, then his hand should be killed.

 The bigger problem that exists in so many rules is the unclear wording; "may lose his turn to act"....What does that mean? To me, he can't raise. nowhere does it say the hand is dead!

 K-Lo, I'm with you when you refer to the use of the word "may" as applied to so many rules. If you go back through the last couple years on the forum, you will see that I've voiced my opinion on this subject. The rules need to be more firm, or exact, or strict or some other word that I'm missing at the moment.


 
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on October 28, 2012, 02:19:27 PM
100% behind what K-Lo said.

If a player fails to stop the action, substantial action has occurred, and the player was deemed to have enough time to act; the hand is dead if he/she was faced with a bet, or they have lost their right to act if they weren't face with a bet.

It sounds like, in this situation, seat 1 and 2 were the blinds...so that means seat 3 was faced with a bet.  If they are deemed to have had enough time to act and they did not try to stop the action, their hand is dead with no recourse.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 28, 2012, 06:05:24 PM
Tristan,

 I'm not following you. What hands are dead?
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on October 28, 2012, 09:37:15 PM
Seat 3 was UTG.  1 and 2 were the blinds.  Seat 3 did not call the blind and did not stop the action...substantial action had occurred as seats 4 and 5 had acted, one of which included putting money into the pot.

If seat 3 had enough time to try to stop the action, yet failed to do so...his hand is dead.

If the action went too fast, and seat 3 did not have a chance to stop the action, I would back it up to him. 

Seat 3 cannot remain in a bet pot without calling the bets...nor can we allow seat 3 to angle shoot by purposely not speaking up in order to see what the players after him are going to do.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 29, 2012, 11:39:35 AM
Tristan,
 I've waited for others to respond, but that hasn't happened...so I have to tell you that I disagree with killing player 3's hand. Player 3 would have to wait for the action to return to him (clockwise) at which point he would have the option to fold or call. There is no rule that dictates killing the skipped players hand.

 If the dealer continued dealing the next board card before it was noticed that Player 3 was not in for all bets, his hand is dead.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: K-Lo on October 29, 2012, 12:16:47 PM
Nick, that does not make sense in Tristan's example.  Seat 3 is facing the Big Blind and has to call the Big Blind or fold.  If it is determined that he let action go by without saying anything, you can't give him the option to wait to see all the action complete at the entire table before you allow him to fold.  Why should he get the benefit of knowing how everyone at the table has acted before determining whether or not to call?

I think your proposed solution would make more sense if it was post-flop, for example, and the action went check-check.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on October 29, 2012, 01:19:56 PM
Yep, I agree.

Think about it this way.  If you allowed what you propose in this situation...why wouldn't seat 3 purposely try to hide cards?  If I was seat 3 I would always try to hope people didn't notice that I hadn't acted in order to see what they all were going to do before I made my decision. It is just too open to attempts to angle shoot. 

Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 29, 2012, 03:58:09 PM
K-Lo and Tristan,

 Player's that hide their cards will be reprimanded. The existing rules do not allow us to kill a player's hand until the next round begins, or the showdown has commenced and the skipped player was not in for all bets. I've always contended that the rules do not apply if a devious player is allowing the action to pass them intentionally.

 In Tristan's situation, we need to look at why the UTG was skipped. Who is at fault? I am addressing a normal scenario where a player was skipped unintentionally. The intent of the player's involved must be considered.  

 The way I see it, there has to be a serious breakdown of procedures for something like this to occur.

 Here's the way I rule: As soon as the UTG is skipped the dealer stops the action, corrects the OOT and backs up the bet to the proper bettor. If the skipped player goes unnoticed and the next player responds the action proceeds clockwise and goes back to the skipped player and he can only fold or call. If the skipped player is not noticed by the dealer, or the OOT, or any other player at the table, and he says nothing, his hand is still live until the dealer burns and turns the next card.

 If other rule-sets were more specific, we would have clarity on this issue. However, like so many of the existing rules for poker, the confusion continues. The skipped player loses the right to act...what the hell does that mean? It should read: The skipped player (followed by substantial action) has a dead hand...or; The skipped player loses the right to raise. I sometimes question the intent of the rule makers :D I think they do it on purpose, just so they can sit back and follow our debates ;D
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on October 29, 2012, 04:09:08 PM
I would point out this:

http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director2/is_his_hand_dead

Matt Savage says that the hand is dead.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 29, 2012, 05:31:41 PM
Tristan,

 I respect your opinion but I don't always agree with other TD's. I like the idea mentioned where the lapse of time has something to do with the call by the floor, or the answer about each occurrence being situational.

 I believe every hand is live until it hits the muck. There are other's that agree with me. I can see player's refusing to release their cards when you tell them their hand is dead because an OOT bettor induced another player to act, thus killing their hand  ::)  Lot's of luck with that one.

 Bottom line, (IMO) the rules need clarification. Why should so many rules lead to controversy? If what you say is true, why doesn't the rule read as follows: When a proper bettor is skipped and allows significant action to proceed, he may no longer compete for the pot and his hand is dead! Or; When a proper bettor is skipped the action will be backed-up and corrected, unless two or more players have acted after him, in which case the skipped player can not raise when action returns to him.

 I would not oppose either ruling. The current rule does not offer a definitive solution.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on October 30, 2012, 03:23:58 PM
I hear ya Nick.

Here are a few of our card room rules regarding this matter:

Substantial Action (losing your right to initiate action on this round)
If you are not facing a bet and it is your turn to act but for whatever reason you do not act on your hand and two or more players act behind you, you will lose your right to initiate action on this round and your action will be considered a "check".  This action that took place behind you will become binding. Exception:  If the dealer feels that the other players acted too quickly and didn't give you a legitimate chance to act on your hand, then the supervisor can redirect the action back to you, nullifying this "substantial" action.

When may you lose your right to action and have to forfeit this hand?
If you are faced with a bet and have not acted on your hand and allow two or more players to act on their hands behind you, you have lost your right to action and must forfeit the hand and all monies in the pot.

Can't lose your right to action
a.  If any active player or dealer calls "time" or attempts to stop the action before two players act behind the rightful player.
b. (Heads-Up) if you attempt to stop the action before one player and before the dealer acts behind you. (Supervisor's discretion)
c.  If you are waiting for a player to act in front of you, you cannot lose your right to action.  All action out of turn becomes null and void and the supervisor will redirect the action back to the player who had not had the opportunity to act on his hand.
d.  In the dealer's opinion substantial action took place too fast, thus not allowing you sufficient time to act on your hand or enough time to be able to stop the action.
e.  If the dealer is directing the action to you and other players "jump the gun" by acting out of turn, this action will become null and void and the supervisor will redirect the action back to you at this time.


As you can see, our card room rules have a slightly different definition of substantial action, but we use TDA substantial action in tournaments. 
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 31, 2012, 09:47:22 AM
Tristan,

 I like the way your house rules give example's that cover specific situations. I still believe there are common occurrences that are still not covered. For example:
               a. The player that is skipped by the dealer when directing action.
               b. The player in the last position, that is skipped by the dealer.
I will say that the house dealer must always be counted, as one of the persons, when considering substantial action.

Your Rules:
Substantial Action (losing your right to initiate action on this round)
If you are not facing a bet and it is your turn to act but for whatever reason you do not act on your hand and two or more players act behind you, you will lose your right to initiate to act on this round and your action will be considered a "check".  This action that took place behind you will become binding. Exception:  If the dealer feels that the other players acted too quickly and didn't give you a legitimate chance to act on your hand, then the supervisor can redirect the action back to you, nullifying this "substantial" action.

 The first sentence: If you are facing a bet.... I would translate as follows: When you are under the gun and not facing a bet, or facing a check, you will lose your right to act if substantial action follows.

Your next rule:
When may you lose your right to action and have to forfeit this hand?
If you are faced with a bet and have not acted on your hand and allow two or more players to act on their hands behind you, you have lost your right to action and must forfeit the hand and all monies in the pot.

What is your definition of substantial action? Two or more players? Is the dealer one of those persons?

 

Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on October 31, 2012, 12:13:50 PM
Yep, you got it right.

Our house rule on substantial action is 2 or more players acting on their hand.  The dealer tapping the table twice before burning a card constitutes an action.  But we follow the TDA definition of substantial action for tournaments, which is:

 "Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must
involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any
combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold)."

Just to clarify though, I did not put the whole of our rules in the last one, only the parts I thought were relevant.  We do have things to cover those situations. 
a.  If the dealer misdirects the action, the player is still responsible to protect their own right to act by calling "time" before substantial action occurs.
b.  On a checked round, last position does not act and does not stop the action before the card is flipped...it will be considered a checked round (if the dealer followed procedure).  When faced with a bet, the action backs up and a premature burn and turn process ensues.


Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 31, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
Tristan,

 Interesting last statement. Are we saying that pre-mature dealing takes over when the last player to act is skipped by the dealer? Substantial action (as we know it) can not be considered, correct?
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on October 31, 2012, 01:23:30 PM
Yeah, on a round where betting took place, if the last player to act was skipped and the dealer pats the table twice and then burns and turns...that is only counted as 1 action behind at our establishment.  So the action is backed up.  Is that what you are asking?
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 31, 2012, 02:00:57 PM
Tristan,

 I am all for backing up the action when it is caught in time. If the dealer has already turned the next board card, it has to be treated like a premature deal and the board card can not play. We had similar discussions at last years summit, and I thought, (at the time), that we were drifting into a few different categories for discussion.

 Premature dealing, and out of turn bettors both skipping a player or even multiple players, intentional or otherwise.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: JasperToo on October 31, 2012, 03:23:31 PM
Nick, I agree with K-lo in his first post.  And generally, I would call the hand dead.  And the reason is simple, if the player allows himself to be skipped then he gets to see if the pot is raised before he commits any chips to the pot.  If the pot is raised to him then he gets to fold without losing anything.  Quite simply, the hand is dead.  However, if it is a post flop thing then he can be considered to have checked and allowed to call any bets when the action gets back to him.  The reason for that is that it would be nearly impossible to prove that is intention wasn't to just check in the first place even though he pointed out that he was skipped.  He certainly would not be allowed to intitiate any action once substantial action occurred.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on October 31, 2012, 08:40:24 PM
Jasper,

 I understand why you feel the way you do about a player allowing the action to pass them by. I would prefer looking at how the proper bettor was skipped by the out of turn player, and the dealer, and the other players? Let's look at TDA #35 Action Out of Turn: Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed.

 The rule implies that the action had to be backed up. I'm trying to combine TDA rules #'s 32 (Substantial Action) and 35 (Out of Turn). Either you back up the action after the out of turn with all options open to all players, or if substantial action has followed, the action proceeds around to the skipped player at which time he can fold or call.

 You are looking at the blame being on the skipped player. I am blaming the out of turn player, possibly betting OOT knowing that there is a chance that his bet may be retracted. Who is at fault? A skipped player who intentionally lets action pass him by? Or even worse; the skipped player who intentionally hides his cards from view. They are both guilty and in violation of proper etiquette at the very least. What about the player that is skipped through no fault of his own?

 This is when the skill of the floor person comes into play. How well do you know the player's involved? Is this their first offence? If the player's are unknown, this is when the call is made that is fair and in the best interest of the game.

 Rambling on again. Getting back to the original situation. I'm sorry, but based on the information given I could not justify killing the skipped player's hand. ;)

 
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: K-Lo on November 01, 2012, 06:10:24 AM
Sorry, Nick.  I cannot agree.  When you combine the two rules, I think what you should get is that you back up the action if the missed player did not let "too much" happen, but if he does, he loses his chance to call (and if there was an outstanding bet to be called, then he has not 'paid to play' and his hand must be void). 

There must be an incentive for players to bring attention to irregularities as soon as possible after they occur.  If you allow a player who is facing an outstanding bet to be skipped and then to act last after everyone at the table has acted, he will essentially have "earned" the button every time this occurs and there would be absolutely no incentive for a player to point out the fact that there has been an out of turn action.

Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Nick C on November 01, 2012, 07:24:23 AM
Ken,

 You're blaming the missed player, every time. How does the dealer skip the player, too? If you're playing and the player behind you acts first, who is the guilty party? If the skipped player allowed the action, with intent, the blame would be redirected to him as the guilty party.
On that I agree, however,  I still can't kill the hand.

 What about the player who intentionally bets out of turn, knowing that his bet can be retracted if action changes to him?

 We are getting farther apart on this one.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: K-Lo on November 01, 2012, 09:06:10 AM
The skipped player knows that he is facing a bet, so he is in the best position to know that it is his turn, and he must speak up when he is missed.  Yes, both the skipped player and the out-of-turn actor are at fault.  But if the skipped player does not speak up immediately once hie is skipped, in my view, he becomes 'more' at fault. 

I do sympathize with your position, however, because I really do not like killing hands that are in play.  If there is some doubt as to whether the skipped player allowed the action continue, I would be willing in the interest of fairness to allow the skipped player to call the outstanding bet rather than killing his hand, despite there having been substantial action.  But I would never wait to give him that option to call or fold after he has the opportunity to see whether every single player left to act in the hand will raise or not before deciding.  That is too big of a reward for not speaking up immediately.

With respect to the player that intentionally bets out of turn, knowing that his bet can be retracted, he will get a warning and then penalties for repeated infractions, and that is clearly provided for in the final rule.  As you know, there is a still a debate as to whether the rule that allows him to retract his bet at all is a good one, but in my mind that is a separate issue and surely not reason enough to justify giving the button to a skipped player every time he is missed.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Tristan on November 01, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Agreed.  I see your point as well Nick.

I would point out that the skipped player is only considered at fault once the action has went two or more players AND the player having adequate time to call 'time'.  Up until that point the oot player is more at fault.

If 'time' is called it is the oot player that gets the penalty of the skipped player knowing in advance what the oot player wants to do.

If 'time' is not called...the skipped player is taking advantage of the fact they were skipped in order to glean information they should not be privy to, and that is why they get the penalty.

It is similar to accidentally mucked hands in that it is the players responsibility to protect their own interests.
Title: Re: Action out of turn
Post by: Stuart Murray on November 06, 2012, 05:49:42 PM
Nobody's hand is dead - that is not in the best interests of tournament poker nowadays.  As nick said player 3 can call or fold the raise made by player 4, once that is sorted and if players 6, 1 or 2 decide to 3-bet then player 3 is released from his bind.  Could give player 3 a penalty for allowing the action out of turn but why? Player 4 is the one in the wrong!

Only if the dealer raps and taps out the flop would player 3's hand be dead for me.

Regards
Stuart