POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2015 Summit

Verbal declaration Out of Turn

<< < (2/2)

MikeB:

--- Quote from: Nick C on June 09, 2015, 06:44:59 AM ---I finally understand what "action changing means !"  :D So...when a player is skipped, if there were a bet that preceded him (the skipped player), when the OOT acts, he (the OOT) is locked in as long as the skipped player bets the amount he was facing. In the event there is no bet, (in front of the skipped player), when action is backed up to him, he must check to make the OOT amount binding. That's clear, thanks. I still don't like that the OOT can retract his bet.
--- End quote ---
There are arguments for it and against it as there are for all out-of-turn schemes. There are also arguments that the out of turn action "limits" the actor, etc. But at this point, that is Rule 38.


--- Quote from: Nick C on June 09, 2015, 06:44:59 AM ---Now as far as 50 & 51, what you wrote only confirms what I said. Both rules are vague (in my opinion) and are governed by Rule #1.
--- End quote ---
Well they would be even more vague if you just say "See Rule 1 if a conditional statement is made" or "See rule 1 if a player folds out of turn". Rule 50 makes it clear those folds are binding (nothing vague there) and Rule 51 makes it clear conditional statements are strongly discouraged and subject to penalty. It's impossible to write a conditional statement rule that covers every possible conditional declaration, that's why it has to be at TDs discretion.


--- Quote from: Nick C on June 09, 2015, 06:44:59 AM ---One other important topic: Backing up the action is rarely talked about. In the situations when a player is skipped, is it true that action can only be backed up, as long as substantial action has not occurred? i.e. Skipped player followed by 3 actions or 2 at least one with chips.

--- End quote ---
Definitely true, that's what Rule 38-B covers: Substantial Action out of Turn.

Spence:
Mike summed this up really nicely in his first response.  Conditional statements are unlikely to go away anytime soon and having a specific rule for them - even if it does closely relate to Rule #1 - I feel is a necessity.  It's these kinds of things that people are looking for when they read our rules.  While we don't want to be overly verbose and we definitely can't write a rule for absolutely everything conditional statements happen often enough to garner the need for a specific rule.

BillM16:
Please see proposed change to TDA #38A http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1155.0

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page