Author Topic: Out of turn action  (Read 6926 times)


  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Out of turn action
« on: December 04, 2011, 05:09:56 PM »
This one made me rub my brain a bit. First our rule:
35: 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 and is returned to the out of turn player who has all options including: calling, raising, or folding. An out of turn fold is binding.
So here's the gag.
NLHE, late in the tournament, 4-handed
SB is in seat 10, BB in seat 1, UTG seat 2, BUTTON seat 9.
Preflop SB BB and UTG all call. BUTTON folds
On the flop the dealer motions to the BB to start the action
BB puts in a large bet
SB shouts to stop the action.
Here's where it gets fun. The dealer says sorry I thought you folded but it was in fact the button. The SB says I am going to check anyway. Normally this would bind the BB's bet. The BB says "The dealer motioned to me first and I thought the SB had folded"(remember where they are seated) "I don't want to bet now". The dealer says that the bet must stand if action has not changed to that bet. BB does not like it and calls for a TD. Ruling?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 05:22:58 PM by Spence »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
Re: Out of turn action
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2011, 08:16:38 PM »

 I would like to break down TDA rule #35: Action Out of Turn... If a check, call or fold does not change the action, what does?
               #1. a bet or #2 a raise.
                 If it is a bet, then it had to follow a check, or the skipped player was UTG and wanted to bet in front of the out of turn.
                 The raise is self explanitory
 I've always had a problem with this rule when it is applied as an automatic violation to the out of turn rule. Many don't agree with me but, the intent of the offending player needs to be considered. Attention was brought to the mistake before substantial action took place, so why not just back up the betting and continue.

 How many times have you played and acted prematurely, only to realize that the only player you did not want to play against enters the hand after it was discovered that he was skipped. The jerk on your right bet out of turn and you followed his action.

 I also have a problem with your dealer telling the player that his out of turn bet must stay in the pot. It's not up to the dealer to make that call. Especially when you consider that the dealer created the problem by losing track of who was in and who wasn't. He should have called the floor immediately.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 04:13:02 AM by Nick C »


  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Out of turn action
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2011, 09:36:20 PM »
I'm not sure where I read that the dealer told the player that his out of turn bet must stay in the pot.  If the SB chose to bet instead of check, I would let the BB take his bet back, as he did not put those chips in the pot in turn.  I agree in this situation that the TD should be called, as there is an element of dealer error mixed in and it is not a simple misdeal. 

I would have absolutely no problem ruling here that the out-of-turn bet is binding after the SB checks.  It is too bad that the dealer contributed to the error, but the players also need to take responsibility for their own actions as well.  This is not much different from the effect of the new rule regarding the dealer giving the player a wrong count of chips.  All the players could and should have made a reasonable effort to figure out who is left in the hand when the Dealer announced "three players" to the flop, if they were still active in the hand.  Due to the seating positions, it may be a bit inconvenient, but certainly easy enough for the BB to check which specific players had called - all he had to do was look over at the other side before the flop was dealt to see who had cards.  I can sympathize with the BB for having relied on misinformation, but not enough to consider that application of the rule would be unfair in this case.