As the skipped player I'm the aggrieved party... the OOT player just put extra stress on my betting process...It's not fair to ask me to take on betting in this situation with no knowledge of the ramifications... This player took betting action on me, I have a right to make an informed bet back at him, rather than betting in the dark with these additional complications...
I agree that the skipped player has been disadvantaged. But there are many situations covered in the rules where a player at the table has been potentially disadvantaged, possibly the whole table of players other than the offender, but where we will wait until the end of the hand, assess the damage, and penalize the offending player accordingly. We spent a whole summit debating the nuances of "rights" vs "privileges"; I would like to be a lot more careful how we use the word "right". I just don't see players having an "inalienable right" (as Mike would say) to make an "informed" bet, let alone the level of information that must be provided. Sure, it would be great to give the skipped player that info, and I'm sure the player would love to have that information at his fingertips in real-time, but our rules don't always give players what they want. The other approach is to allow the action to continue with the skipped player potentially at a disadvantage, and penalize the offending player at the end of the hand because of the unfairness or damage that he may have caused, as may be assessed by the TD. I just feel that such an approach would be more consistent with established rules.
I also really don't like the fact that
a TD might be expected to go through each and every scenario with the player; "if you bet this, your opponent can do this, but if you bet that, your opponent can do that, and beyond that, your opponent can do that", and so on. First of all, that is a lot to expect the TD to work through on the spot. Not all TDs are going to be so forthcoming or so articulate. Providing this level of detail goes way beyond simply reciting a rule, or applying a rule by ruling that the offending player's bet is binding or not after the skipped player has completed his action. If some TDs are permitted to go through these options, then everyone has to do it; however, if others TDs don't or cannot give such a detailed explanation, I think
that would be unfair; any given skipped player is now at the mercy of the intelligence of the particular TD (although I guess there's always that risk for any ruling
) and how well that TD can envision and then articulate all the options.
More importantly, at least in my mind.. what if the TD tries to go through all the options, with ranges of numbers, etc., and
gets it wrong? It would be very easy to get the detailed explanation wrong. Getting the explanation right is not easy, probably as challenging as a judge trying not to screw up an address to a jury. If a detailed explanation that was given turns out to be inaccurate, does the skipped player have any recourse? Likely not. And not only could the misinformation lead to greater unfairness, you've now potentially done more damage and changed the course of the hand than had you simply allowed the skipped player to complete his action.
Experienced players, having been through a normal OOT scenario, will inherently know what will happen depending on how they act. New players may not. By stating 'if the action doesn't change, the OOT action will stand, if the action changes the OOT will get to pull it back and have all options" when dealing with this situation, we put all players on the same ground.
I am fine with this type of explanation. You are essentially reciting the rule, and I think that is a fair compromise than simply saying "complete your action". However, the issue that I have is whether you should go into further detail if the player says "OK, but if I do X, is that considered action-changing? What about if I do Y instead? What about Z?" before he completes the action?
I agree that new players don't always know the rules, and certainly, there are occasions when TDs will rule differently for situations that players may think are quite similar. But with respect to these other rules, we don't usually give new players special treatment; perhaps we may be lenient in penalties, etc., but not as far as providing explanations of the rules go. In particular, I think giving them a detailed breakdown of options such as
"If you min raise, this is what happens.... if you raise up to 70k, here's what happens, if you raise in excess of 70k total, here's what happens....", which essentially requires the TD to make advanced rulings for each of a number of different situations, including
completely hypothetical situations, in fact anything beyond Tristan's explanation above, is what I see as being problematic.
If we are to strive for consistency in applications of tournament poker rules across venues, I think it is important that procedural approaches where the rules must be applied, like the one that we are discussing, also be made consistently. As Neil Johnson would say "Keep it simple, stupid"; expecting TDs across the board to recite much more than what the OOT rule actually says, is asking a lot of them, and I would bet that many will be bound to get such a detailed explanation wrong. At least if a TD waits until the end of the hand, and then gets a ruling wrong, you don't have an intervening, misleading explanation by the TD affecting the outcome of the hand.
If we allow players to quiz us each time a player makes a bone-head play...the tournaments will never end.
Funny! There's truth to this.
