Substantial action: Dealer Specifically

[Spence]

I know some TD's are ruling one way and some another so I thought I'd bring this up again. Does the dealer count as an action when dealing with Substantial action? As it is defined right now it looks like no the dealer is not considered part of the rule. Our TDA rule # 32 states:
32: Substantial Action.
Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
The problem I'm having is that some of us are stubborn and are ruling it how we would like it to be written. I looked up some more info to see if we had made any progress on the forum and came up with a previous thread that brought more questions than answers.
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.0
So where does this leave us? Is the board going to add the part about the dealer counting as action in the next summit? I know it is quite far away and I am bothered when I make reference to the rule and get different answers on enforcement. Anyone care to chime in? Those who went to the summit may be able to answer best as to what the wishes of the majority would like to see.

[MikeB]

Spence: please clarify what you mean by "dealer counting as action".... perhaps give a quick example too to help better understand the question.

[Nick C]

 I don't know why Spence has not responded to the question but, I have mentioned this on other posts and I'd like to comment. I'll give my interpretation of the dealer possibly being considered as one of the "persons" counted for substantial action. Let's take seven card stud; the wrong player initiates a bet on fourth street (high hand skipped), the dealer does not recognize, or correct the improper bettor and proceeds to the next player and repeats the bet. At this point, because the action was condoned by the dealer, once the next player responds in any way-call, fold, or raise-that is substantial action...even if it were two checks. In this scenario when the action returns to the proper high hand, he can only fold, or call.

 I have also mentioned the exclusion of any possibility for substantial action to be possibe when play is down to head to head...unless the dealer were added to the equation.
 
 

[K-Lo]

Most recently, I thought that the "dealer counting as action" issue arose because some TDs were trying to interpret the dealer's "rap and tap" as an 'action' in respect of prematurely dealt board cards.  I believe the relevant Rule (e.g. RROp Holdem #6) says that once "action" has been taken on a board card, it must stand.   But is this the same as the "substantial action" definition of Rule 32?  I don't think so, but some TDs apparently do.

In my view, I think TDA Rule 32 was meant to define "substantial action" for the purposes of misdeals only (as that specific term is used in the immediately preceding Rule 31).  I'm not sure whether it is right to expand its scope to things such as prematurely dealt board cards.  Similarly, RROP talks about requiring a player to call time before 3 or more players have acted after a player who is about to be missed, so that is somewhat close to TDA's "substantial action" definition, but there is still a discrepancy. 

I would not mind seeing the definition of Rule 32 actually limited to determining if there is a misdeal at the beginning of a hand.  With respect to other situations, such as a player that is missed that leads to prematurely dealt board card(s), or other players acting out of turn following a missed player, I feel that the missed player in these situations should bear more responsibility than they currently do in order to protect other players on the tournament, and to draw attention to potential irregularities as soon as possible and without delay.  If the TD feels that the missed player had an adequate chance to speak up but didn't, then that player should lose any option to bet (and his hand may even be dead) regardless of the specific number of players that may have or have not yet acted afterwards (i.e. regardless of whether the definition of "substantial action" is met or not).  If "substantial action" has occurred, then this would strongly suggest that the missed player's appeal is not timely;  however, in some cases, merely the dealer rapping and tapping should give enough notice to a player that he is about to be missed. 

[Spence]

Sorry I haven't gotten back, my wife is almost due to deliver. We've been on alert for the last few days getting everything ready.
For the purposes of the dealer counting as action it is meant for premature board cards as well as out of turn bets and the like. Anytime that action is condoned by the dealer rather than followed properly. A player who may be missed should speak up. The question is about when is to long. I asked something similair to this before but with having a ruile that is closely related with a specific number of actions assocoiated with it is what I was always trying to hammer down.
6 handed game, 2 players check out of turn. The dealer burns and puts the turn card. Has there been 2 or 3 actions? Does the player in turn still have the right to back the action up?
Dealer motions to start the action to an out of turn player. He checks as well as the next player. Is this 3 actions? Has the UTG player lost his right to act?
I'm not sure how I feel one way or another. I like quantifiying things for simplicity sake but have always felt that an amount of time is better. It may be tough to quantify that as well.

[Nick C]

Spence,
 IMO, the example you gave of the six handed game with 2 players checking and the dealer burning and turning is pre-mature dealing, not substantial action. I can see where you are going with this and it makes sense.
 I would think that a dealer that accepts the action of an out of turn bettor, by prompting the next player to act (instead of backing-up the play to the proper bettor), is a perfect example for counting the dealer as one of the persons in the equation for substantial action, if this occurs, when the action returns to the skipped player he can only call.
 I wanted to address this issue at the Summit but it seemed too complicated at that time. My thoughts were centered on one particular scenario only. Here it is:
The only time a re-shuffle with a new board card can occur is if the dealer burns and turns before the last player acts. A skipped player that allows substantial action to occur after his turn to act will have a dead hand once the dealer turns the next board card.
Example #1. Five players, after the flop; Player 1 bets, player 2 is skipped, Player's 3 & 4 call (substantial action), Player 5 says "I'm out, but you skipped Player 2!" Player 2 can call or fold.
 Same situation but the skipped Player 2 goes unnoticed. The dealer burns and turns and then Player 2 says "I didn't call!" It's too late, his hand is dead and there is no re-shuffle.
 

[K-Lo]

Sorry I haven't gotten back, my wife is almost due to deliver. We've been on alert for the last few days getting everything ready.

Good luck and best wishes!

[Spence]

Spence,
 IMO, the example you gave of the six handed game with 2 players checking and the dealer burning and turning is pre-mature dealing, not substantial action. I can see where you are going with this and it makes sense.
 I would think that a dealer that accepts the action of an out of turn bettor, by prompting the next player to act (instead of backing-up the play to the proper bettor), is a perfect example for counting the dealer as one of the persons in the equation for substantial action, if this occurs, when the action returns to the skipped player he can only call.
 I wanted to address this issue at the Summit but it seemed too complicated at that time. My thoughts were centered on one particular scenario only. Here it is:
The only time a re-shuffle with a new board card can occur is if the dealer burns and turns before the last player acts. A skipped player that allows substantial action to occur after his turn to act will have a dead hand once the dealer turns the next board card.
Example #1. Five players, after the flop; Player 1 bets, player 2 is skipped, Player's 3 & 4 call (substantial action), Player 5 says "I'm out, but you skipped Player 2!" Player 2 can call or fold.
 Same situation but the skipped Player 2 goes unnoticed. The dealer burns and turns and then Player 2 says "I didn't call!" It's too late, his hand is dead and there is no re-shuffle.
 

Nick, Your situation is nearly the same as mine except that you had substantial action occur before the dealer put the new board card out. In my scenario if the dealer counted as the third action(non-chip) would that make it substantial action as well? Would it be enough to kill a hand that hasn't called all bets? Is this clear? If it's not post back and I'll try to clarify it as best I can.

[WSOPMcGee]

IMO, the dealer is part of the action. They are the final person to act on every street. The purpose of "rapping" "tapping" the table is to acknowledge to all players, with cards and without, that the action of each betting round is complete. For reasons unbeknownst to me, I'm unaware of why in the development of dealing procedures that it became proper for the dealer to "rap" and "tap" vs a simple announcement that the betting round is complete, like dealers do in pit games (ie roulette, craps, black jack). For whatever peculiarity, poker players don't want to hear the dealer say anything. The less the better. Tournament poker is sort of leaning the opposite way however, as more and more, the dealers are being trained to announce the bets. Which, I do and do not like. I like it when dealers announce a bet that is of mixed colors and hard to identify from across the table and they are just splashed in. I do not like it, when dealers take it upon themselves to break down a stack of chips that has been pushed in.

Anyway I'm getting off topic.

As a card purest, I favor keeping the board true whenever possible. I only want to shuffle the deck as a last resort. The less opportunity for a dealer to make a mistake the better.

I recently had this situation in a live action game: Full ring game, limits do not matter in this scenario. The flop is out with a random board, 7 way action. Player 1-4 check, Player 5 skipped, Player 6-7 check, Dealer raps and taps, then burns and turns.  Player 5 pipes up and says he was skipped. Action is stopped and YOU rule what?

Now according to some in here, they would rule that the dealer not being part of the action that since there has only been 2 checks behind Player 5 the dealer had burned and turned prematurely and would rule in favor of Player 5 and bring back the turn card.

According to others, they would rule that the dealer is indeed part of the action, in fact completes the action, and would rule that the card stand.

What if the dealer burned and turned and Player 1 acted on that card (Check or Bet) and that's when Player 5 spoke up. Would you make a different ruling?

Personally I'm standing behind my dealer and letting the action and the turn card stand. What is the purpose of "rapping" "tapping" if we as floor personnel are going to say to our customers that the procedure of "rapping" "tapping" is invalid anytime you're skipped? Where do you draw the line? You have to draw it somewhere so you might as well stand behind a tried and true procedure. Your customers may not like it, but they'll respect you more when you ask them, "Did my dealer "tap" the table?" and when they answer yes, you have a leg to stand on and keep the TRUE card on the board. JMO.

[K-Lo]

As a card purest, I favor keeping the board true whenever possible. I only want to shuffle the deck as a last resort. The less opportunity for a dealer to make a mistake the better.
...

Personally I'm standing behind my dealer and letting the action and the turn card stand. What is the purpose of "rapping" "tapping" if we as floor personnel are going to say to our customers that the procedure of "rapping" "tapping" is invalid anytime you're skipped? Where do you draw the line? You have to draw it somewhere so you might as well stand behind a tried and true procedure. Your customers may not like it, but they'll respect you more when you ask them, "Did my dealer "tap" the table?" and when they answer yes, you have a leg to stand on and keep the TRUE card on the board. JMO.

Amen!  I agree with PokerMcGee 100%.

To consider whether the dealer is technically considered part of "action" or not is, I think, a red herring in all of this.  The question that I would like to ask Player 5 is "why did you not bring up the fact that you were skipped as soon as Player 6 acted"? (let alone before Player 7 acted or the dealer rapped and tapped)" If he can't answer that question satisfactorily, why should he be entitled to any relief?  I am in favor of a stricter rule that puts more onus on the skipped player to speak up in a timely fashion, and reshuffling the deck only as a last resort.

[Nick C]

 quote from Spence,
Dealer motions to start the action to an out of turn player. He checks as well as the next player. Is this 3 actions? Has the UTG player lost his right to act?
I'm not sure how I feel one way or another. I like quantifiying things for simplicity sake but have always felt that an amount of time is better. It may be tough to quantify that as well.

I would say the player has lost his right to raise but his hand is live. We are talking about a few different scenarios and they are all valid arguments that need clarification.
A lot of confusion stems from "the players right to act."

[Spence]

To consider whether the dealer is technically considered part of "action" or not is, I think, a red herring in all of this.  The question that I would like to ask Player 5 is "why did you not bring up the fact that you were skipped as soon as Player 6 acted"? (let alone before Player 7 acted or the dealer rapped and tapped)" If he can't answer that question satisfactorily, why should he be entitled to any relief?  I am in favor of a stricter rule that puts more onus on the skipped player to speak up in a timely fashion, and reshuffling the deck only as a last resort.

This is exactly the point we argued the last time. The question still begs, as a community do we favour the dealer being part of the action or not? This would be a simple addition to our rules.
32: Substantial Action.
Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold). Any action condoned by the dealer will count as an action for either previous scenario.
That would make it clear for all of us in rulings and arguments. The majority seem to be ruling this way just through logics sake rather than even needing a solid rule to back it up. This would clear up anything further for our players' sake much more than for any of us.

[Nick C]

Thomas,
 After reading your recent post I'd like to comment on the action of the dealers "tap and burn." There are times when dealers will verbalize something like "here we go" or "cards coming" or something to that affect. It's no different than player's that rap the table when action is checked to them, or they don't want to bet. I'd like the players to announce their bets with confirmation from the dealer. Dealers should not break down any stack unless the bet is unclear or the amount is requested by the next player contemplating whether he is calling or not. We could all make life a little easier at the tables, but we don't.

 Your scenario with the skipped player: I recently had this situation in a live action game: Full ring game, limits do not matter in this scenario. The flop is out with a random board, 7 way action. Player 1-4 check, Player 5 skipped, Player 6-7 check, Dealer raps and taps, then burns and turns.  Player 5 pipes up and says he was skipped. Action is stopped and YOU rule what?

 I rule player 5 has a dead hand!

Your next scenario with the first player betting on the next round is even worse. Player 5 speaks up that he was skipped on the last round? Where was this joker when the action was taking place? His hand is dead, period!

If you go back and listen to the Summit, you will see that many were confused and I personally felt that we started talking about skipped players, substantial action and pre-mature dealing all at the same time.

I'd also like to hear from K-Lo because I am trying to understand why you think substantial action only was used for misdeals?

[K-Lo]

I'd also like to hear from K-Lo because I am trying to understand why you think substantial action only was used for misdeals?

Hi Nick: 

I am reading the current version of the TDA Rules, starting with Rule 31 (Misdeals) under the heading Dealing Rules.  The very last sentence of Rule 31 states "If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed."  Then, immediately following this, Rule 32 defines "substantial action":  "Substantial Action is defined as...".   

In my view, Rule 32 is merely defining the term that was first introduced in Rule 31 (Misdeals).  Note that if you read Rule 32 (Substantial Action) on its own without any context, it doesn't mean anything because it is simply a definition of a term.  It doesn't talk about its application.  The ONLY place in the entire set of rules where the specific term "Substantial Action" is actually used is in the preceding Rule 31.  And I don't think RROP uses the term "Substantial Action" either.

Now, can the definition of Substantial Action in Rule 32 be applied to contexts other than misdeals, such as premature dealing of board cards?  Perhaps.  But perhaps it should not be.  My point was that we should not simply assume that the "substantial action" rule applies to these other contexts.

For example, RROP Hold'em Rule #6 states:

6.   If the dealer fails to burn a card or burns more than one card, the error should be corrected if discovered before betting action has started for that round. Once action has been taken on a boardcard by any player, the card must stand.

This is the premature dealing situation, and there is no analogous rule in the TDA Rules.  Note that RROP doesn't use the term "substantial action", it simply uses the term "action".  Reading in "substantial" into this rule would make the rule more difficult to satisfy, and I don't see the justification.  In my view, RROP requires that once the first player in the new round does anything (e.g. check, bet), "action" has occurred and the card must stand -- it's not about whether the two/three people as would be required for Substantial Action have acted.

If you go back and listen to the Summit, you will see that many were confused and I personally felt that we started talking about skipped players, substantial action and pre-mature dealing all at the same time.

My point exactly.  If you can agree that the definition of substantial action does not and should not automatically apply to skipped players and pre-mature dealing issues, then you can easily get to the next step - which is - we should define separately how to deal with issues involving skipped players and pre-mature dealing.  Currently, RROP deals with issues involving skipped players (RROP Irregularities #12) and pre-mature dealing (RROP Holdem #6) separately from misdeals (RROP Misdeals #1).  If TDA adopted separate rules for skipped player and pre-mature dealing as well, this would go a long way to resolving the ambiguity and confusion involving the extent to which Rule 32 (Substantial Action) applies.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
 I couldn't agree more. I was always looking at substantial action where it applied to skipped players. What you mentioned regarding the misdeal would apply when the dealer failed to move the button after the last hand and substantial action takes place on the new deal with the incorrect blinds, thus the hand must play-out because two or more players have acted before it was corrected.

 When reading other rule books you might come across "significant" instead of "substantial" preceeding the word action, they are one and the same.

 Having been a dealer for so many years, I have almost always experienced the "skipped player" version for substantial action. I always thought that it was the perfect fix because; if an out of turn bettor acted I would stop him and back his OOT to the correct bettor, no problem. On the other hand, if I allowed the action to continue, it was too late to back-up to the proper bettor because "significant action" had already taken place, and if I condoned it by prompting the next player to follow the OOT, I contributed to the error.

 K-Lo, I like the research and thought that you put into your suggestions. I also think you are correct when you say we should not simply "assume" that this rule applies to all of the different scenarios mentioned. Like I said, I always considered "substantial action" primarily for skipped players.

 The TDA wants the rules to be short but I think it is time to consider adding (as K-Lo mentioned) the proper application based on specific situations when the rule would apply. I will add a line from the first page of RROP: A rule should do more than produce the right ruling. It should be stated so the decision-maker can refer to specific language in the rulebook, to have the ruling is accepted as correct.

 I still want to know about the player that was skipped followed by substantial action and the dealer burning and turning the next card? I say the hand is dead. That has not been addressed.