About prematurely dealt cards

[Ash]

Hi all
Back for another problem 😊

It is not a question about the procedure which is perfectly understandable.
For instance if the turn card is premature because the last player didn't say anything, no problem to apply the procedure.
But if it is the second last player or another one before, would you rule it the same way? Or because of substantial action, you maintain the turn card on the board and the cards of the player are burnt?

[Nick C]

Ash,

Another good question. My quick response is: the skipped players hand should be dead if the next board card is turned and he has not paid to see it. I addressed this very subject long ago. I'll see if I can locate it.

[MikeB]

Hi all
Back for another problem 😊

It is not a question about the procedure which is perfectly understandable.
For instance if the turn card is premature because the last player didn't say anything, no problem to apply the procedure.
But if it is the second last player or another one before, would you rule it the same way? Or because of substantial action, you maintain the turn card on the board and the cards of the player are burnt?

I'd estimate a very high majority of TDA members would kill the player's hand if substantial action occurred to his left AND the next board card was dealt; for example A bets, B is skipped and doesn't speak up, C folds D calls (C and D act with chips involved) then the river card is dealt.

The grey area is what would happen if there's less than substantial action after the player is skipped and the river card is dealt... some want to consider "the dealer as action", others don't.

[Ash]

ok I agree with you two for killing the hand if there was a bet.
But what about if it was a collective check? could you impose a check to the skipped player and maintain the dealt card?

[Nick C]

Ash,

If I understand your question correctly, there would have to be some language added to the rule that would count the dealer as one of the persons when considering "substantial action."

In your example: "the second last player is skipped" leaving only one remaining player (not enough for "substantial action"), the current rule would create a situation where it is necessary to "replace" the proper board card...in fact, if the round were checked, it would require more than two actions so "substantial action" would be impossible.

This example is one of the reasons why I lobby for different rules for head to head. How is substantial action even in the vocabulary? Impossible!

Here's the way I would rule: In the event of a skipped player followed by one calling player and a "burn and turn" from the dealer...the skipped player's hand is dead. The skipped player should have enough time to realize that the player to his left acted out of turn, and the time it takes for the dealer to "tap and burn" should have given enough time for the skipped player to stop the action and draw attention to the error before the board card is prematurely turned.

The only time the "proper" board card should be replaced is if the last player were skipped and the dealer burns and turns before he acts.