Verbal "all in" bet out of turn

[officer_obe]

This gets a little confusing and I will try my best to explain everything that went down at our weekly game. We were down to two players in this particular hand with betting pre–flop and after the flop.  Immediately after the turn card Player 2 calls "all in" out of turn.  Player 2 apologizes and Player 1 says "that's okay I call". The hand is played out and Player 2 wins the hand.

Now the discussion started...
A group of people stated that by Player 2 calling "all in" out of turn there is technically no bet. By Player 1 saying that's okay I call, Player 1 is calling a non bet because there was no bet. Because of this Player 2 should only receive the winnings up to and including the flop betting as there was "no action" after the flop.

Another group states that Player's 2 "all in" is a verbal bet whether in turn or not and Player 2 wins the entire hand.

The discussion went round and round and basically sat upon the "all in" bet. Is the bet, out of turn, a binding bet? If the bet is non-binding than the statement from Player 1 "That's okay I'll call" is a non-binding call.

If the "all in" bet out of turn is binding, what stops a player from using this as a strategic tactic to use all the time?

We all agree the intention of Player 1 was to call an "all in" bet, that is not in question here. What is in question are the technical "rules" and what needs to be done in future games if this issue repeats itself.

Thank you
Officer_obe

[chet]

Officer _obe:  Welcome first of all.  Now to your question. 

In my opinion, the TDA Rule we are talking about is Rule 35, "Action out of Turn", which reads as follows, "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.

Based on my interpretation, I believe that one could construe Player 1's statement of "that's okay I call" to be a bet equal to the size of Player 2's chip stack.  Based on the above TDA Rule, the action now proceeds to Player 2 who can fold or call.  Obviously, Player 2 chose to call.

Granted in most cases verbal statements are binding.  However, under TDA Rule 34, a verbal statement is binding ONLY IF MADE IN TURN.  Therefore, in this case it is NOT binding.

Now in a more perfect world, it would have been better if Player 1's statement of "that's okay, I call" had been clarified by the dealer to ensure he was in fact making a bet of sufficient size to put Player 2 "all-in".  But as it is, I see nothing wrong with the way this ended up.

Chet

[officer_obe]

Chet,
Thank you for your quick response though I'm more confused now than before...
Your 1st paragraph states the action out of turn is binding unless the action changes and Player one takes the hand.

Your 2nd Paragraph says Players 1  statement "that's okay I call" to be a bet (action) and the action goes back to player 2. If this is the case we have a problem as Player 2 didn't say anything. The action was player 2 went "all in" out of turn and when player 1 said "okay I call" cards were laid down face up and the hands were played out with player 2 winning the hand. There was no response from player 2 when player 1 said "that's okay I call"

Your 3rd paragraph talks about TDA rule 34, a verbal statement is binding ONLY IF MADE IN TURN. Therefor, in this case it is NOT binding.

I apologize for taking more time than is probably warranted and our club is a little confused.
Thank you for your help.

Officer_obe

[chet]

Officer _obe:  Now you are providing more information upon which to base a decision.  Your original post did not say what Player 2 did (if anything) following the statement by Player 1.  In my opinion, the lack of action by Player 2 following the Player 1 statement can be interpreted to be call of the in-turn action by Player 1.  It does not appear that Player 2 took ANY action to reverse the hand playing out.  He/She did not object to the hand being played out (or action continuing), so I can make the case that there was an implied call.

There are a number of things here that should have been clarified by the dealer, first, the meaning of the statement by Player 1 and second, the lack of any statement by Player 2.  It is the dealers responsibility to ensure that players act in order and that their action/intentions are clear and unambiguous, obviously that did not happen in this case. 

This is a good case for making someone the TD in your weekly game.  This can rotate around, if you choose, and I don't have any real objection to the "TD for the night" being allowed to play (but that brings up another whole set if potential issues).

I don't think there are any particular "rules" that can be applied to this situation.  If there was a clear and concise set of rules that covered each and every situation, we wouldn't need TD's and the rule book would be hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long. 

Chet

[officer_obe]

Chet,
Thank you for taking the time to explain the rules and implications concerning our situation. I can't tell you how gratifying it is to ask a question and get such a quick reply. Really, THANK YOU !
Officer_obe

[DCJ001]

The dealer and/or floor should have advised player 1 that player 2's out of turn action does not stand unless player 1 checks. He cannot call the out of turn bet because the out of turn action is not valid unless player 1 were to check. Player 1 should also have been advised that, if player 1 were to bet, player 2 would have the option of calling, raising or folding.

Out of turn actions, like this, are sometimes done intentionally as angle shots in attempts to discourage players whose turns it is from betting. Dealers, floor people, and TDs should advise the in turn players as to their options, in situations like this.

[Nick C]

Officer_obe,
We had several discussions in the past regarding similar situations. I had the following suggestion that I posted about a year ago. Let me know what you think.


I will add Rule #29 (now # 36) 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 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.

[K-Lo]

The dealer and/or floor should have advised player 1 that player 2's out of turn action does not stand unless player 1 checks. He cannot call the out of turn bet because the out of turn action is not valid unless player 1 were to check. Player 1 should also have been advised that, if player 1 were to bet, player 2 would have the option of calling, raising or folding.

Out of turn actions, like this, are sometimes done intentionally as angle shots in attempts to discourage players whose turns it is from betting. Dealers, floor people, and TDs should advise the in turn players as to their options, in situations like this.

I can't remember where I read it or "learned it" from, but my recollection of the recommended approach in a case like this is that the dealer/TD should NOT discuss the options that player 2 would have when player 1 is deciding check or bet.  As I recall, the reason given was that it was not up to the dealer/TD to coach Player 1 on what the Rules were during the middle of a hand, and it is not the TD's fault if the player does not know the Rules.  Of course, Player 1 can ask what HIS options are on his turn, but if he asks questions about other player's actions like "If I checked/bet, does Player 2 still have to go all-in?", the dealer/TD should not get into it then, but wait until the hand is over. 

Since then, I've also seen it enforced this way at a number of tournaments (I believe it was the WSOP), where the floor was called, and (rightly or wrongly) the TD would tell "Player 1" simply -- "it's your turn to act, you may check or bet.  The action of 'Player 2' may or may not be binding" - but he didn't spell out the various scenarios. 

Is this no longer the recommended approach (or was this wrong to begin with)?

I completely agree that this is sometimes done intentionally as an angle shoot, but that can be dealt with as an etiquette violation.  It would be especially telling if the player went all-in out of turn, and when the in-turn player then bet minimum, the all-in player changed his mind and just called (or folded).

[Spence]

There is a couple of things going on here. I think the issue lies with player 1 condoning the out of turn action by player 2. That in itself may cause the ruling binding. Rule 35 is somewhat accurate here but perhaps without the proper verbage. "That's okay I call" could be construed as a check, call to the out of turn action by player 2 which again would bind it under rule 35 even though the action was verbal and chips were not physically moved. Rules 36: Methods of Raising and 44: Non-Standard Betting & Unclear Betting may also have some light to shed but again nothing is perfect.
I can't remember where I heard this interpretation of an action out of turn rule but it stated that if another player acts upon out of turn action it may cause the out of turn action to be binding. Nicks post seems to somewhat lean towards that answer and it could be that I plagiarized it right from him but I don't recall. Sorry Nick. Credit due if it was you.
In any case that is what I would rule from these circumstances. Player 2 WAS out of turn but Player 1 DID condone the action and it caused him to be out of the tournament.
I think it much more fun if player 1 had won the hand and player 2 refused to pay up because he technically made not bet... How d'ya like them apples!

[Nick C]

Gentlemen;

If the action were head to head, you can call it any way you want but the out of turn bet stays in the pot, no matter what. If the proper bettor says "okay, I call" there is no way he (the out of turn) can retract his bet.

[K-Lo]

Just to clarify... I agree with the result of the scenario posed. 

I was just wondering what other people thought of DCJ's comment on the TDs advising Player 1 that if he checks, the opponent can do X, but if he bets, the opponent can do Y.  My impression was that we should only tell Player 1 that he can bet or fold, and not what the opponent's options resultant options were for each choice. 

[Nick C]

K-lo,
I agree with you. DCJ001 is giving too much information to the offending player. The other player did nothing wrong so why should he be put in an awkward situation. I've experienced similar situations in the past. I was dealing a cash game, $10 and $20 7-card stud. two players remained. On the river, the player that was first to act, said "I check and call" and tossed $20 into the pot! There was no floor. I stopped the action and told the out of turn player that he could not do that. He said "why not"? I told him that it was against poker etiquette and was unethical. I knew it was wrong but I could not think of a specific rule to better cover the situation. That is when I began thinking of a way to better protect players from an oponents intentional out of turn action. Thus my suggested changes to the existing rule:

    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 option to raise will be taken away.

     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.

I told the out of turn that his $20 could not be withdrawn, and if he tried that again he could be subjected to a raise.