Missed players...different scenarios

[trackman]

This one has come up a few times at my club of late as was wondering ppl's thoughts on these similar situations:

1) flop comes, A bets 10, B is missed somehow, C & D call and turn dealt. B then alerts dealer he has been missed. Do you allow A to call and shuffle the turn back in, or kill his hand?

2) flop comes, A checks, B bets 10, C calls and turn dealt. B bets 10 on the turn. A then alerts dealer he has been missed. Do you retract B's bet and allow A full options or only to call or do you kill his hand?

3) same situation except on the turn where B bets and then C calls. Do you kill A's hand now as too much action has occurred?

4) flop comes, A checks, B is missed somehow, C & D check. Turn is dealt. B the alerts dealer he has been missed. Do you shuffle in the turn and allow him full options, leave the turn and say your hand is live but you are bound to a check in that previous round or do you kill his hand as 3 actions have occurred (two checks and dealer burning a card).

All these are based around what qualifies as significant action. In my casino we generally use 3 checks/passes as significant action or 2 with bets/calls/chip actions. I'm curious how others would handle these familiar situations.....

[Nick C]

trackman,
 First, I will say that you were refering to Player B and not A in question #1. Robert's Rules Version 11,
                                 BETTING AND RAISING
#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.....There is more, but this covers your question. I thought that two players would be enough, but RR says otherwise.
 Question's 2 and 3, I would rule Player A having a dead hand. The fact that a player bet on the next would indicate that the skipped player took far too long to stop the action.
 Question #4. I guess that (based on RR's) his hand would still be live. However, IMO, I would not allow him any options other than check, or fold. I think the player picked-up too much information to allow him to bet. I also want to comment on the procedure that you described for reshuffling the turn. I will replace the "premature turn" with the proper river card, and then, if necessary, reshuffle the turn card into the stub, and place the "new river card" on the table.
 Interesting topic.

[Stuart Murray]

Hi Trackman,

I would also quote RROP rule 12 that Nick has graciously already done, in answer to each question:

1) under RROP the turn has to be re-dealt - I don't like that option though as per my response to issue 4
2) Substantial action has occurred and player A has failed to call time, so for me his hand is dead (which is a rarity nowadays)
3) as 2
4) I'm same here as Nick - RROP says his hand is live because only 2 people have acted, but under my rules it's only 2 people so his hand is dead

Luckily although I use RROP to form a TDA compliant rule base we do not need to stick rigidly to them so our rules are 2 people acting Pre-flop or during betting and raising rounds and you loose the right to action.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Stuart,

 I'm with you on this one. I don't know why RROP allows three players instead of two. There is a set of rules that I always go to when I have a situation that is a little more complex than most. Like the initial post by trackman. The old Las Vegas Hilton Rule Book is still one of the best that I've ever seen. Under Section 13. ACTION OUT OF TURN. Substantial action means either three players acting, or two players acting by putting money in the pot. This is the interesting part......The dealer counts as a person if he has condoned the action, and is considered having acted if he has dealt the burncard off the deck, or pushed the action past the proper player. The part about the dealer counting as a person is why I think that two players constitutes substantial action. You might even get an argument that one player (after the skipped player), might be enough if the dealer burns and turns, because the dealer could be considered.
 IMO, three players acting after the skipped player is too many. There should be plenty of time for the skipped player to let the dealer and other players know, that the action passed them by.

[trackman]

Great replies there guys many thanks. I agree and think that two ppl acting is more than enough, but as mentioned in our chain we consider it to be 2 bets/raises as substantial but 3 for checks. This is because we follow the rational that checking can occur swiftly so it's not uncommon to see a very fast check round. But when someone bets, the next player tends to think a lot longer and it significantly slows the action down.
So whereas a player having had 2 ppl check past him may have a case for saying that he didnt have time to warn the dealer, certainly 2 ppl betting/calling would give him that extra time and his stance would be weaker.

I was curious as to why you feel substantial action has occured in ex. 2? If A initially checks and then a bet and call from B & C, the action would now be on A. But the dealer having missed him deals the turn, then only 1 player acts before A calls attention to the issue. So if only 1 player has acted out of turn (as A should've been next to call not B) would it not be the same case as ex. 1 and the turn card shuffled back in? 

I'm not trying to question your knowledge or authority in any regard here btw guys! I'm just trying to clear up a couple of perhaps confusing areas for myself. In my head I can only see one person acting out of turn and so in ex. 2 I feel the turn should be shuffled back in. 

My answers would be:
1 - hand is dead, two players have acted and the dealer tapped the table and burned a card (I like Nick's ref to the old vegas rules here counting the dealer action as a player too)
2 - it seems wrong but I would bring in the turn and allow full options as really I can see that only one person has acted OOT here.
3 - def dead. no questions.
4 - Same answer as you. only a check or fold and the turn stays.


As you say Nick...interesting topic!

[Nick C]

Trackman,

 The more I look over question #2, I recognize why others may not rule to kill Player A's hand. However, I question why Player A would not speak-up and stop the dealer from; #1 burning a card (our dealers even "tap and burn") #2 place the turn card on the board, #3 Player B bets...and then Player A draws attention to the fact that he was skipped? Players have an obligation to others at the table to speak-up when any player is skipped, themselves included. The combination of, the dealer's actions and Player B betting constitutes substantial action. Remember the part about the dealer counting as a person because he burned and turned. That's how I see it.