check out of turn, same player tries to raise...then it gets complicated!

[trackman]

Hi all, I've followed this wonderful site for a while now and wanted to make my first post with an interesting one...

Action is on the turn, two-way pot, Player B checks out of turn (Player A isn't aware that he has).

Dealer takes the action back to A who bets 2000, B now decides to raise and goes all in...Player A insta-calls and flips his cards over - they both have trip 10s but player A has the better kicker.

At this point the dealer goes "whoa, you can't raise" and calls me over (i'm TD for my casino's room) as under our rules a check/bet out of turn is penalised from aggressive action for that betting round.

I rule that as the all in cannot go it must be treated as a call of 2000 and as A's cards are now face up he is also reduced to passive action for the remainder of the hand (not that it'd make a difference as if A was allowed to bet, B would just pass anyway as the river gave no further help). Naturally B with the weaker hand is ok with this as he saves the rest of his stack that A had otherwise covered.

So...A wins the pot, but not all B's chips. He's a little unhappy as he said he had no idea B had checked out of turn and why can't he raise, it's a ridiculous rule etc etc. It is also worth pointing out here that dealer had not passed the action A after B tried to make his all in; A simply heard the "all in" and snap-called.

Now the sting in the tale is that B was left with but a few thousand but naturally goes on to become the table big stack and ultimately take out player A...at which point I start to get the ear bashing once more!

Would any of you have ruled different?  Anyone think the ruling was unfair?

[mooredog]

You made the right call. Sometimes unfortunate things occur that seem unfair, but had A been paying close attenetion he may have seen the out of turn check, but still may not have known the no aggression rule. That's the way it goes sometimes.

[MikeB]

Hi Track: It sounds like your ruling is consistent with your house rules. As long as those rules are well-known to all the players, it seems like you were very consistent.

As for TDA Standards, I would refer you to TDA Rule 29 governing out-of-turn action. The following is a convenient "pocket size" PDF of the Rules (2009 Edition, Version 2)
http://appservicesonline.com/PokerTDABlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Poker_TDARules_2009-Version2_Final_Handout_pdf.pdf

Based on Rule 29, I would probably have ruled as follows in the scenario you present:
1) At the time Player B acted out of turn and checked, there was no action to him, i.e. the "bet" was zero.
2) Player B acts out of turn and checks...
RIGHT HERE I would advise Player A of the following: a) If you check, then Player B must check, because your check (Player A) will not change the action to Player B; b) If you bet, then you have changed the action to Player B, and player B can take any action he wants (fold, call, or raise)...
3) Player A bets 2000
4) At this point, Player A has changed the action to Player B, and Player B is no longer bound by his out-of-turn declaration... Player B can call the 2000, fold, or raise as allowable for the structure of your game.

As you can see from the threads over the past year or so, out-of-turn action is a topic of great interest to alot of TDs. Perhaps it's a subject that should be reviewed at length at the next Summit to see if any modifications/ additions/ clarifications, etc. are favored by the membership. Thanks for your contribution to the board, we look forward to many more!

[trackman]

Thanks for the responses, I was curious if I missed anything in my ruling. Yes it's definitely a continuing area of interest for the OOT bets/checks. I feel our house rules are perhaps a little harsh and not in line with the rest of the poker world on this issue. Though I will say that penalising a OOT action from positive action that betting round is like a sharp slap on the wrist and players will think twice and perhaps pay more attention to avoid a repeat.

Although in this situation the ruling actually benefitted the wrong party, in general it does not. Looking to protect the other players, it can stop a missed player from being reduced to passive action that round if he OOT player causes the next two players to act before the dealer can stop the action.

I can see the virtue in both TDA rule 29 and our house rule on the matter, and given the option i'm actually torn about which approach is best...

[Stuart Murray]

Your ruling sounds consistent with your own house rules which you must follow.

If it was under my rules I think it's gone passed the point of no return, I would allow the all-in and call to stand.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

I have to agree with Stuart on this one. I don't like the way the TDA Rule #29 is interpreted by so many. IMO, what is to stop any player from betting out of turn, with intent. I am not in agreement when the rule says that the out of turn bettor can retract his bet if the action has changed to him. I will list reasons that fall under the category of ETHICS; Action out of turn can seriously disrupt the normal course of betting. When action is "head to head," substantial action can not be considered, therefore, consideration should be given to protect the non-offending player and reduce the harm caused by the out of turn violation. A floorperson should consider using his authority to require that a player, intentionally acting out of turn, be held to his action (without retraction), in turn. This, of course will exclude a player that was misled by the dealer, or by some irregular action or gesture from a player.

[trackman]

I like what you say at the end there Nick. - "consideration should be given to protect the non-offending player and reduce the harm caused by the out of turn violation ."
This is what I didn't do in giving a straight-forward ruling on the situation and perhaps that is what was warrented then.

However, further thought on is leads me to wonder if it is right to bend the rules slightly in situations like this. If the non-offending player had not turned his cards over I wouldn't have known he had the better hand and making a judgement to allow the OOT action to stand could have led to him being knocked out.
Playing devil's advocate though, equally I knew that if I let the all in stand then the offender could be sent packing...so is it right to to bend the rules in favour of the innocent knowing it could spell the end for an equally innocent player who simply checked OOT unwittingly? (often the case when it gets head-to-head)
Also it should be known that the dealer never passed the action on, the 'innocent' player snapped-called. So he too was to blame for creating the situation
We all know that sometimes the rules don't always benefit the innocent parties but I get worried that taking creative stances can lead to precedents being set and coming back to haunt at a later ruling.....

But I do agree with what you say about ppl intentionally betting/acting OOT. The troubling part for this situation was that both parties were inncoent in a way and it lead to a  freakish circumstance where the player that would have been kocked out took his short stack to the big stack and knocked the player who would have taken him out!

[acetofive]

Your ruling sounds consistent with your own house rules which you must follow.

If it was under my rules I think it's gone passed the point of no return, I would allow the all-in and call to stand.

Regards
Stuart

[acetofive]

Your ruling sounds consistent with your own house rules which you must follow.

If it was under my rules I think it's gone passed the point of no return, I would allow the all-in and call to stand.

Regards
Stuart

I am not sure where you mean passed the point of no return.  If you mean after it was backed up, bet, raised and called with nothing from the dealer, then I agree with you.  At this point we have "bet and accepted".  The dealer should have seen this coming and controled his game better to protect his players.
Thanks,   David Rogers, Phoenix

[Nick C]

David Rogers,
 I want you to know that Stuarts games do not allow "house dealers." Their laws don't allow it. They pass the deal and, I believe they deal themselves in. I will agree with you and feel that the dealer should have controlled the game better. I might be bending the rules a bit but, when the action is down to two players, I have even allowed string raises if the opposing player does not object. If I understand trackman's question correctly, I would have allowed the raise. That's how I see it.