Out of turn passive

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

One point about the rule #36 please:

I used to apply it this way but with a detail: if the action out of turn didn't change the situation hitself (without folding so check or call) and the original player finaly CHANGE the situation: the out of turn player would have his action returned BUT only have 2 options: call or fold!

Example:

A check
B is skiped
C check out of turn

B finaly decide to bet
C can't change is check into a raise (but only into a call or a fold)!

This only because C didn't changed the situation when playing out of turn.
If C would have bet out of turn and B change the situation: C would have the 3 options.
This to provide some angling.

...

I didn't invented that and finded it in some texts somewhere but never mind: I don't find it back here!
So am I wrong? Is that allways simply the 3 options?

GG

[mooredog]

I believe the rule to be written incompletely. I believe the action only reopens to the out of turn player with all 3 options (meaning the raise option as the 3rd option) if his out of turn action was aggressive action. If his out of turn play was a check or a call and the action changes then calling or folding is all the player can do. Otherwise a player with a monster hand could intentionally check or call out of turn knowing the inbetween players would feel safe and then pop them with a raise if the action changed.

[Stuart Murray]

H Guillaume,

36.   Action Out of Turn. Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed.  A check, call or fold does not change action. If action changes, the out of turn bet is not binding & is returned to the out of turn player who has all options: calling, raising, or folding. An out-of-turn fold is binding.

I personally have a different angle on this rule which I rewrote to the following, as I do not permit the 'retract and re-consider' option the TDA follows:

46 Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn - Verbal declarations in turn are binding.  Players are required to act in turn.  Action out of turn examples :
Calling out of turn – If player 4 calls, before player 3 has acted, then player 4 is committed to the call. However if player 3 then raises, player 4 must either call the raise or fold and lose the chips of their initial call.
Raising out of turn – If Player 4 raises before player 3 acts, player 4 is committed to the amount of raise declared, or a minimum raise if no amount is stated. However if player 3 then raises, player 4 can only call the raise of player 3 or  fold and lose the chips of their initial raise.

By the book TDA rules suggest player C can retract his check and now raise as action has changed. I don't think that's how the rule should be interpreted though, and player C becasue of his check should always be bound to passive action (call or fold) until the next street or until for example player D changes the action again.

There is Substantial Action to consider also, namely the missed player making sure he brings attention and stops action, before he looses the right to act on his hand.

Regards
Stuart

[Guillaume Gleize]

Thanks!

 

[Nick C]

The above action does not warrant any reference to substantial acton, only one player acted out of turn. The dealer should stop the out of turn player and go back to Player B. According to TDA rules, if player B checks then Player C must also check. If Player B decides to bet (changing the action) Player C will have every option call, fold or raise. I might consider what Stuart suggests if I detect a pattern from certain players. I think using the TDA rule for a first offense is okay. If any player acts out of turn a second time, then I would be in favor of the way Stuart handles the situation by forcing the out of turn to at least be committed to leaving his bet in the pot even if he decides not to call a raise.

[MikeB]

GG: Rule 36 applies regardless of what the OOT bettors action was (check, call or raise)... if the action changes to him he has all options open. Also, the line "the out of turn bet is returned" was also added to make crystal clear the bet isn't binding if the action changes.  There is similar language in the WSOP Rules, btw.... Various qualifying language such as you mention in the OP (restrict action to no more aggressive than the OOT action, etc.) was considered early in the Summit but there was no widespread support for it.

[JasperToo]

As Mike points out the rule is clear in it's intention.  Trying to add stuff or take away because you don't like it is up to you I suppose but consider this:

What is the rule really trying to do?  It sounds like most of you are suggesting that every time someone acts out of turn they are working an angle.  That simply isn't true.  So this rule protects the players that accidentally jump the gun or somehow miss a player.  then all you have to do as TD's is penalize the repeat offenders reminding them that poker is a game of alert, constant observation.

I think that makes things fair and we still have power to fix it and make people responsible, especially if we think they are shooting angles.   

[mooredog]

Mooredog said: The wording does say " If the action changes the out of turn bet is not binding" and then goes on to explain all 3 options reopen. The key word is bet. Bet is not a check. A call is, but a check is not.

Nice catch, Moore. The intent of the Rule is that ANY action OOT is non-binding if the action changes to that player. That includes an OOT check. Example:  There's no bet as yet and action is on Player C... meanwhile Player D declares "check" out of turn. Action backs up to Player C who bets 1000. The action has changed so Player D has all options open (call, raise, or fold). But the rule says "the out of turn bet is not binding", when it should read "the out of turn action is not binding... and if the player bet out of turn the bet is returned...."   I presume that most TDs will recognize this but just in case perhaps an amendment is in order to clarify that 100%.  Thanks again for catching this.

[chet]

FWIW:  I believe that JasperTwo has it exactly right.  The rule basically protects the ACCIDENTAL, NON-INTENTIONAL out of turn bettor.  It is NOT intended to protect someone who is shooting an angle, there are sufficient other rules that can be applied to that type situation.

Chet

[Nick C]

mooredog,
 We have had similar discusions on the forum before about a check being the same as a bet. Why do you say it is not? If Player A checks and you skip Player B and check, it is the same as a bet out of turn.

[MikeB]

Mooredog said: The wording does say " If the action changes the out of turn bet is not binding" and then goes on to explain all 3 options reopen. The key word is bet. Bet is not a check. A call is, but a check is not.

Nice catch, Moore. The intent of the Rule is that ANY action OOT is non-binding if the action changes to that player. That includes an OOT check. Example:  There's no bet as yet and action is on Player C... meanwhile Player D declares "check" out of turn. Action backs up to Player C who bets 1000. The action has changed so Player D has all options open (call, raise, or fold). But the rule says "the out of turn bet is not binding", when it should read "the out of turn action is not binding... and if the player bet out of turn the bet is returned...."   I presume that most TDs will recognize this but just in case perhaps an amendment is in order to clarify that 100%.  Thanks again for catching this.

  Whoops... I hit the "modify" key on Mooredog's post when I meant to hit the "quote" key, so the essence of his post was lost: he opposes the current rules language, and prefers to limit players who act out of turn to no action stronger than what they declared out of turn... I'm paraphrasing and hope that's accurate. Sorry, Moore!