1) retrieving cards from the muck and 2) Skipped player rulings

[K-Lo]

I am with Tristan on this one.  I don't like killing a player's hand.  However, if the circumstances suggest that the villain intentionally allowed substantial action to occur, or the next street to be dealt, or a pot to be awarded at showdown without drawing attention to the fact that he was missed, certainly there must be some repercussions other than merely a waiver of the right to act aggressively, especially in those situations where that isn't practically an option.

[chet]

Not gonna get any argument from me.  I agree with Tristan and K-Lo. 

I can pretty much guarantee you that it will not happen more than once to a given player.  May be a hard lesson, but it is a lesson that won't be forgotten.

Chet

BTW:

Tristan:  I gotta get up to your shop one of these days.  Been to St. Croix several times recently, but never made it any further West. 

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

I think we are all in agreement when a player "intentionally" allows action to pass them by. I believe we need a rule that will also protect the skipped player from rapid action that follows the out of turn player. Once again, the "intent" of the out of turn player must be addressed first. Why did the player act prematurely? Did the dealer prompt the next player to act, instead of stopping the action and backing it up? Finally...did the skipped player allow multiple players to act behind him, in order to gain information, or avoid calling a wager?

Bottom line; I support a more severe repercussion (as Ken and Tristan suggest), if the skipped player were hiding his cards or not speaking up in a reasonable amount of time after being bypassed. However, the initial blame falls on the out of turn bettor, and so far the only punishment to him is the option to retract his out of turn bet, if the intervening (proper bettor) decides to...bet a different amount, or raise, or I'm not quite sure

I've always been a little confused on how we should rule if the first proper bettor on a round is skipped? On the turn; Player A is skipped and Player B bets 2000 OOT. If the mistake is caught before Player C reacts, does Player A have to bet 2000 to keep the OOT from retracting his bet? I'm sure we've rehashed this over and over on similar posts but I don't feel like going to the archives for this one.

Chet, What did I say that you don't agree with?

[Tristan]

Nick, I felt the bolded part gave the leeway needed to not punish those that innocently get bypassed too quickly.

"It is a player's responsibility to protect their own right to act.  If substantial action has occurred behind a player and the player had enough time to stop the action but did not do so, the player will lose their right to act.  If they were not faced with a bet, they will be considered to have checked.  If they were faced with a bet, they will now have a dead hand.  This will not apply if the dealer is correctly directing action to the proper player."

Basically if you get called to the table and the dealer tells you it went check, check, check very quickly and the player did not have a chance to stop the action...then you back up the action. 

Tristan:  I gotta get up to your shop one of these days.  Been to St. Croix several times recently, but never made it any further West. 

For sure you need to!  I actually worked at St. Croix for a few years before this place opened.

I've always been a little confused on how we should rule if the first proper bettor on a round is skipped? On the turn; Player A is skipped and Player B bets 2000 OOT. If the mistake is caught before Player C reacts, does Player A have to bet 2000 to keep the OUT from retracting his bet? I'm sure we've rehashed this over and over on similar posts but I don't feel like going to the archives for this one.

Back up the action to Player A.  If Player A checks, the 2000 OOT stands.  If Player A bets, Player B gets to retract their 2000 OOT bet and has all options.

[Nick C]

Hi Tristan,

What you clarified, and I'll quote; " If Player A bets, Player B gets to retract their 2000 OOT bet and has all options." is what I don't like. It's like dictating what the bet should be. Now, if the OOT were forced to call (if a larger bet were made by the proper bettor), or surrender his out of turn...I'd be in favor.

[MikeB]

However, if the circumstances suggest that [1)] the villain intentionally allowed substantial action to occur, or [2] the next street to be dealt, or [3] a pot to be awarded at showdown without drawing attention to the fact that he was missed, certainly there must be some repercussions other than merely a waiver of the right to act aggressively,

It's important to note that these are 3 very different scenarios (hence the added brackets) Situation 1 is within the same betting round, Situation 2 adds the next dealt card and Situation 3 deals with situations at showdown....  also, consistently the TDA has tried to avoid adopting rules that require assessment of "intention". Whenever possible it's just better to have a cut-and-dry rule... if this occurs then that... if other occurs then something else.... and avoid having to determine whether the action was intentional or not... Rule 1 allows a TDA total latitude to adjust a ruling if he thinks intention should be considered.

Back to K-Lo's 3 situations, the 2011 Summit had it's hands full with situation 1 in the same betting round. I'm very confident that this will be reviewed by the membership at the next Summit, and that progress will be made on codifying situations 2 and 3 to the extent possible. All of the ideas in this thread will be very useful in that process...

[Tristan]

Hi Tristan,

What you clarified, and I'll quote; " If Player A bets, Player B gets to retract their 2000 OOT bet and has all options." is what I don't like. It's like dictating what the bet should be. Now, if the OOT were forced to call (if a larger bet were made by the proper bettor), or surrender his out of turn...I'd be in favor.

I'm not sure I understand.  I thought you were asking what should be done in this situation.  This is an established TDA rule.  Were you instead pointing out what you do not like about the rule?

35:   Action Out of Turn
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.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

I was trying to point out the confusion that I have interpreting the rule. You can look back on prior posts, if you want to know how I feel about the TDA rule on Out of Turn, this is what I suggested almost 2 years ago:

I will add Rule #29 (now #'s 34 & 35 combined) 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.

So...to answer one of your questions, the answer is; YES. I am still trying to point out what I don't like about the rule. That's one of the reasons for this Discussion Forum.

[K-Lo]

Although it does not appear there will be appetite for extensive changes, I do think there is a lot of merit in the reasoning behind the items that you propose.  I don't mind working through your ideas a bit.

I am wondering whether you would consider a slight amendment to your 29.2 - you say that the skipped player can only fold or call (or check I assume) when the action returns to them - but wouldn't it be better in general to have him act as soon as the error is discovered rather than allowing the skipped player to be last to act?  I don't think that the skipped player should have the benefit of acting last automatically.

[Tristan]

That's one of the reasons for this Discussion Forum.

For sure Nick!  I never meant to imply otherwise, I just did not know what you were getting at when you asked the original question.

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.

I don't mind 29.1 and I am fine with the first sentence in 29.2.  But I am still not a fan of allowing a player to call after substantial action happens behind them.  We would then be encouraging them to not speak up.  In that situation, as a player, I would then never speak up and gain all of the free information that I could before having to make my decision.  We would, in effect, be giving the button position (minus the option to raise) to the person who was skipped.  They need to be held accountable as well.

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.

I'm not a fan of this one either.  When a player acts out of turn, with the current TDA rule, the player who was skipped gets some influence they would not have had before.  They should!  It wasn't their fault that another player jumped the gun!  With that being said though, the skipped player has enough of an advantage at this point.  They can control if the OOT bet/raise stands by not changing the action.  They can also change the action by betting or raising themselves.  But they should not be able to make a bet and know the other player will be locked into a call.  That is just too much of a benefit for what is usually an honest mistake.  And because there is no way to really 'prove' whether an action was deliberate or not, this is an almost impossible one to police consistently (Every time the player will claim it was an accident).  Another thing to think about is that this clause could inadvertently disadvantage the skipped player.  As it is now, OOT can push all in and the floor gets called.  Skipped player considers their options and decides to push all in knowing that this allows OOT to retract their bet.  As we all know, some hands are better betting hands than calling hands and many times the OOT player will fold instead. This option would effectively be taken away from the skipped player if 29.3 was adopted.

I like 29.4, I just feel that it is already covered in TDA #50 and #54.

50:   Penalties and Disqualification
A penalty may be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, throws a card
off the table, violates the one-player-to-a-hand rule, or similar incidents occur. Penalties will
be invoked in cases of soft play, abuse, disruptive behavior, or cheating. Penalties available
to the tournament director include verbal warnings, “missed hand” penalties, and
disqualification. Except for a one-hand penalty, missed hand penalties will be assessed as
follows: The offender will miss one hand for every player, including the offender, who is at
the table when the penalty is given multiplied by the number of rounds specified in the
penalty.  For the period of the penalty, the offender shall remain away from the table but will
continue to be dealt in.
Tournament staff can assess a 1-hand penalty, 1-, 2-, 3-, or 4-round penalties or
disqualification. A player who is disqualified shall have his or her chips removed from play.
Repeat infractions are subject to escalating penalties.

54:   Etiquette Violations
Repeated etiquette violations will result in penalties. Examples include, but are not limited
to, unnecessarily touching other players’ cards or chips, delay of the game, repeatedly
acting out of turn or excessive chatter.

[Nick C]

I don't know how we got this far from the original post-retrieving cards from the muck- but I'm glad that a few of the main participants on the Forum are responding.

Ken and Tristan,

Thanks for all of your feedback. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to digest everything that both of you have said. I promise, I will look over your replies and take everything suggested into consideration. I really appreciate, both of you taking a closer look at what I've suggested.

Thanks 

[Nick C]

K-Lo and Tristan,

I will try to explain why I wrote the (suggested) rules the way I did. Ken, I like your suggestion for a possible change to 29.2. What I am trying to avoid is allowing the out of turn player's (multiple), the opportunity to withdraw their bets. The way my suggested rule reads, it allows the action to continue around the table, back to the skipped player. I believe it is virtually impossible to cover all of the tactics used by angle shooters. The skipped player that intentionally allows action to pass him by, or hides his cards, or allows excessive time to lapse before they draw attention to the error, can not be allowed to "take advantage" of the situation they created. I also feel that the out of turn player that acts should not be allowed to deliberately act out of turn and be allowed to retract anything. I guess the key here is deliberate or intentional action out of turn.

Tristan: I don't know how dealer's would ever allow you; to let action pass you by, so you could take advantage of my suggested rule 29.2. Contrary to what some believe, rules are all about procedures, whether dealer procedures or procedures that must be followed by player's.

As far as 29.3, I can't understand how so many are looking to protect the out of turn bettor 29.3 is to protect all player's from the guy that wants to raise in the blind from any position, knowing he can retract his bet if there is any change by an intervening player. In my opinion, that's ridiculous!
Take a closer look and pay special attention to the word DELIBERATE.

Tristan: TDA #50 has no mention of out of turn or skipped players. #54 only refers to repeat offenders.

I like the fact that we are at least looking at this. I feel it is one of the more important rules that needs attention. I am certainly open to any change that will improve what  currently exists.

[Tristan]

Nick,

I personally feel that the skipped player gets adequate and fair treatment they way the rule is currently written (TDA #25).  The skipped player gets the benefit of information that they normally would not have been privy to at the time and they have slight power over what choices the OOT player will/won't have.

You are proposing two things that could actually improve the situation for the skipped player:
1.  The OOT better/raiser would have their chips locked into the pot.  Example 100/200 blinds, OOT calls 200, action brought back to skipped player who then shoves all-in for 5,000.  According to your proposed change, the OOT's 200 is locked into the pot.  The OOT caller and everyone else folds.  The skipped player has just gained 200 over the way the current rule works.
2.  Player (faced with a bet) skipped by 2 or more players would have the option to call when/if the skipped action is discovered. 

I feel those changes would just encourage players not to speak up when/if they get skipped and/or encourage them to partially or fully hide their cards hoping to gain from it.  They would also have the peace of mind of knowing that the only drawback to acting in this way is if the TD decided that they did it deliberately.  Also, in all of your proposals, there is still nothing that would address this potential problem. 

I understand your stance regarding people who act OOT and I agree with most of what your thoughts are on them.  Like I said though, I feel the tools are already in place to police them and I don't feel that anything really needs to be added.

Tristan: TDA #50 has no mention of out of turn or skipped players. #54 only refers to repeat offenders.

Penalties will be invoked in cases of soft play, abuse, disruptive behavior, or cheating.

I feel that deliberate OOT action is covered under the bolded part above.  If deliberate, it IS abuse and it IS disruptive for sure!

Tristan: I don't know how dealer's would ever allow you; to let action pass you by, so you could take advantage of my suggested rule 29.2. Contrary to what some believe, rules are all about procedures, whether dealer procedures or procedures that must be followed by player's.

If dealers never allowed action to skip a player, I would never get called over for any premature burn and turn floor calls... but that only happens, well, pretty regularly.