Looking at Rule #29

[Nick C]

I will add Rule #29 to my list of TDA rules that could use some work. This is NOT the TDA rule, only my suggestions for improvement

RULE # 29    VERBAL DECLARATIONS / ACTING IN TURN

29.1   Players must act in turn. Verbal declarations in turn will have precedence over actions or gestures. Therefore; a player stating a wager, but pushing a different amount into the pot, will be corrected to the spoken amount.

29.2    Players acting out of turn because they were misled by another player, or the dealer, will have the right to retract their wager and change their action provided another player has not acted after them. If another player acts, (substantial action) the skipped player, or players, may only fold or call when action returns to them, they can not raise.

29.3    Deliberate action out of turn, including words and gestures, WILL BE AS BINDING AS A BET IN TURN. The deliberate action out of turn will remain in the pot even if the intervening player raises in front of them. The out of turn player can call, or surrender their bet and fold. The option to raise will be taken away.

29.4    Any out of turn action may seriously disrupt the flow of the game. Deliberate action out of turn is highly unethical in any form of poker. Therefore, repeat offenders will be penalized up to, and including, being eliminated from tournament play, at the discretion of the floor.

This is from a prior post.

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=169.0

[JasperToo]

I can appreciate what your looking to do with the suggestions for #29 but it's way to verbose.  I know your looking to make things clearer and easier for dealers and TD's and all but at the same time I believe the idea behind TDA rules is to bring a standardization to tournaments but it presumes all the foundational rules of poker (primarily RROP, but maybe that is  a topic for another thread )  An example of what I mean is rule #36 String Bets and Raises: Dealers will be responsible for calling string bets and raises.  This rule doesn't explain what a string bet is, we are supposed to know.  It just reminds us that the dealers better be watching for them.

So in rule #29 the very first phrase "Verbal declarations in turn are binding" tells us what a player says is what he does.....or should tell us.  The rest of your suggestion in 29.1 is about a foundation in RROP about verbal declarations.  It the interest of making that clearer in the TDA rule, which is what you're looking for you could do something like: "Verbal declarations in turn are binding and determine the action"  "Verbal declarations in turn are binding and presides over action"....whatever

And the "Players must act in turn" part seems to work on it's on for you too.

I think the issues that were mentioned in the other thread and are evidently what you are trying to clear up in 29.2 and 29.3 is, in my mind, a real change in rules.  The rule as it stands - action in turn is binding unless action changes - has always seemed to work.  If someone is either deliberately sandbagging his action to see what someone else does or deliberately acting out of turn, then as TD you need to invoke rule #44 and make them sit out a round.

I don't know that making a rule change to make a player leave a bet in the pot if action DID change to him would be all bad though and might be worth debate but it is a change to TDA and RROP traditional rules.....

your 29.4 is taken care of in Rule #44 as mentioned above.

Well, there are my two cents

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
Thanks for taking the time to look this over. I guess I'm trying to separate deliberate violations from a player that honestly did not see an intervening player, or accidentally skipping a player or two. IMO, my rules do leave the final decision up to the floor, but it is more clearly defined for players to understand, that there are consiquences to their actions.

There is another issue that bothers me about acting in turn and skipping a player. There were many times when I was playing poker that I made a call, or acted, not knowing that I skipped a player. I know what the rule states about the action not changing, and I agree with it. However, there have been many times that if I knew that a "certain player" was skipped in front of me, I would not have called or acted. I don't know if I'm making myself clear on this, but there were times that I called because I thought that I was the only other player. Only to discover that I was not. In those instances, I felt that I should have the right to change my mind even if the betting action did not change..the players did. This retraction of my action would be allowed as long as another player did not act after me.

[JasperToo]

Jasper Too,
Thanks for taking the time to look this over. I guess I'm trying to separate deliberate violations from a player that honestly did not see an intervening player, or accidentally skipping a player or two. IMO, my rules do leave the final decision up to the floor, but it is more clearly defined for players to understand, that there are consiquences to their actions.

I would still maintain that #44 handles the consequences part.  But if we try to add something to the rule to emphasize that than I still believe we need to keep it short so something like "Players must act in turn....or lose certain betting privileges (that really sounds silly but you get the point)

You made yourself very clear regarding the innocent out of turn call.  The thing with that is: wouldn't the angle shooter find a way to abuse a rule like that easier than a rule where EVERYBODY is responsible to act in turn or "suffer the consequences"?  You really increase the number of times a TD has to make a decision with something like that. Rather than everybody needs to pay attention to the flow of the game (including the dealers).

I've been in that place, having missed a player, made the call and then had to cross my fingers that the loose fool chose not to enter the pot or hope that he raised so I could pull it back.  If you make a rule that tries to differentiate between the innocent guy and the guilty guy.   the guilty guy is going to get away with it way more often.

[Skylight]

Hello JasperToo and Nick

I agree with Nick's suggestion to bringing clearer rules.

now rules sound like : 
- where are the limits ?
- hoo ! from here to here.
- where is the first here ?
- on the left.
- and the second here ?
- to the right approximatively...
- and between these two point of view ?
- a lot of possibilities.

IMO that is and etiquette if it dosen't explain who are the limits ? and that situation desserve the poker.
poker need clearly rules and easy application, rules and penalties have to changes to be right in time. Did you find a sport wiht unclearly rules ?
How many players for 10 or 20 years, and today ? and tomorrow ?

its maybe hard to define a situation in one big phrase. it's mabye better in three short sentances. ?

i hope for clearer rules at this summit 2011

best regards