lots of action passed player then dealer puts out turn card

[mooredog]

After the flop player A bets, player B with his cards hidden under his hands does nothing, players C,D,&E all call. Player B still says nothing. The dealer taps, burns, and puts out the turn card and now player B says "Whoa! I haven't acted yet." Neither the dealer or the other players said they thought he had cards. The TD ruled he would have been able to fold or call only (not raise) if he'd said something before the dealer put out the next card but since 3 or more players had acted before he said something and the dealer put the turn card out player B's hand was dead. Right ruling? I agreed with it.

[Nick C]

The hand is absolutely DEAD.

[Dave Lamb]

The TD has it right! As Nick said, "Absolutely dead."

[JasperToo]

RIP

[W0lfster]

Why is it dead exactly?

[chet]

Several reasons:

1.  His hand was concealed and not readily visible to other players.  They could not tell he had cards.
2.  He only objected after the dealer burned and then displayed the Turn card, and finally the most pertinent,
3.  He allowed "substantial action" to occur behind him without objection.

Those are my reasons.

[JasperToo]

Chets answers are right on.  But if you are looking for a specific rule that explains why the hand is dead I am not sure you will find an explicit one.  RROP Betting & Raising #12 talks about a player retaining the right to act and that if he let's action past him without objection he loses that right.  Since he loses the right to act the implication is that the hand is dead.  And TDA rules don't address it at all.

I have seen this sort of thing called for a decision in a cash game and the floor has allowed the player to call and then gone through the procedure for a premature turn card.  But I believe that was a bad call (and probably a new player ) and the hand should have been declared dead.  If you allowed a player to let action go by and then yell he got skipped at the turn (or river) and somehow allowed him to continue in the hand you are just inviting angle shooting and a lot of wasted time. 

As Chet mentioned the player is not paying attention to the action, keeping his cards hidden and not stopping the action at the appropriate time to retain his right to act.  Therefore dead hand, move on to the next, and pay attention.

[W0lfster]

So basically if the player DID have his cards in full view and it was skipped without him even being aware with  the turn card produced, wouldnt that be more to do with OOT betting? I know Im wrong in this but I just need more justification. So the fact theres a new betting round and its been skipped, is that the main reason for this dead hand or if it was that alone would it be classed as OOT rather than dead? My only instincts tell me its dead because the cards were not in full view.

[chet]

Andy: 

Substantial Action alone is enough, in my opinion, to rule his hand dead.  As far as I am concerned, he could have flags waving and bands playing, but if he doesn't take TIMELY ISSUE, with the fact he has not yet acted, he loses the right to do so.

Chet

[Brian Vickers]

If the same thing happened in the original example, but the turn card was not out yet, should it still be dead? 

I have had this happen twice in the last week where a player let substantial acction take place after him without speaking up, but the dealer had not put the next card out.  Both times I warned the player but gave him the option to call, but not raise since all the action was otherwise complete.  (And in actuality, both cases were pre-flop with the flop not dealt yet, but I believe that shouldn't make a difference.)

To be clear on my stance, I 100% agree with it being a dead hand if the next card had been dealt afterwards though.

[chet]

Brian:

My definition of "Substantial Action" means that more than one player has acted.  In reality, I am applying part of the definition of a misdeal from RRoP to this situation.  RRoP says in part:  "In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands."

Others may disagree and that is perfectly fine, but in my opinion, it makes no difference whether the next card is displayed or not. 

I don't think this individual, who isn't paying attention, should benefit from knowing what action players that follow were going to take. 

Chet

[Stuart Murray]

I'm on substantial action occuring for this one to rule the hand dead, during betting streets, 3 people (which includes the dealers rap and tap as 1 action) looses a player the right to action, so in your scenario 4 people (including the dealer) have acted, well and truly dead, bye now.

Players must protect their right to action in a hand by calling 'time' or another similar phrase - I can't remember where I have quoted that from - think it's in RROP.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

I like Chet's definition of substantial action, and I think Brian is right on with his comments. Stuart's mention of substantial action makes me think of a little twist to a similar situation. How do you rule if; Player A bets, Player B is skipped, Player C calls and the dealer taps, burns and turns before Player B responds?

[chet]

Nick:

I guess I need to clarify my adaption of the RRoP definition.  I am of the opinion that Substantial Action occurs if more than one person (Note:  I did not say Player) acts after the player in question.  If I remember correctly, action by the dealer is, under RRoP, included when determining if the action is "Substantial".  Therefore, in your example, Substantial Action would have taken place by the actions of 1) Player C and 2) the Dealer.

The purpose of the Dealer Tap (as you well know), is to notify the players that activity in the hand is progressing and to give them an opportunity to object if something is out of place. 

I see no reason Player B should have the advantage of knowing what Player C is going to do as well as knowing the Turn Card.

Anyhow that is how I see it.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,
I agree with you 100%, but I know others will not.