Rules question... Acting out of turn

[Percula]

Acting out of turn...

Situation...Live MTT, I am on the button, I raise and the SB folds and the BB calls leaving me HU with the BB. I hit the flop, look to my left and think I see the BB pat the rail for a "physical check", I say check, he bets all-in and I am happy if a little confused and call and bust the player out on his bluff.

He calls the floor over to protest saying I acted out of turn by checking before he acted. The floor asked me what happened, I told him I thought I seen him pat the rail and announced "check" and he annouces "all-in" and I called. The floor gave dealer instructions to better manage his players and each player to wait for the dealer to indicate it is their action.

So where does this lay in terms of the rules. What do you do with a player that acts out of turn? Declair their hand dead? Enforce a penelty of some kind? Just keep playing with the extra information good or bad?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

There is certainly no reason for anyone's hand to be declared DEAD here, that is absurd.

The BB's "physical check" seems to be somewhat ambiguous in the first place, as was his bet after you "seemed" to check out of turn. This is the thing nowadays, players making everything as vague and ambiguous as possible, often quite on purpose. Try being a dealer sometime. You'll see more and more players bend and sketch every friggin' rule in the book to every possible shade of gray there is. Sometimes it's just because you're dealing to a table full of complete newbies (who are clueless as to both strategy AND etiquette). Sometimes it's the internet morons (die in hell all of you please, or at least stay the hell out of live cardrooms) who know how to play, but haven't the slightest clue that acting like an A-hole (standard for online play) is not appropriate in a live cardroom. And sometimes it's the plain and simpleton angle-shooters who are doing it on purpose.

At any rate, this massive trend towards bending and stretching every little rule in the book is part of the reason why live poker dealers are not as good as before the poker boom. Not only is the demand for dealers SO high that cardrooms can't keep them in stock, but the players are making their jobs MUCH harder at the same time. It's hard enough to deal to a table full of shades of gray if you KNOW what you are doing, let alone if you are NEW AT IT.

The BB's protest of your call is assinine as hell and he should be flogged for being such an idiot. What the hell did he expect the floor to rule, that since you checked (out of turn, or so it seemed), you should be FORCED TO FOLD to his bet? Whine goes with cheese, not with poker. Shut the hell up and head for the rail, moron.

As for players who act out of turn, let's check Robert's rules of poker for a "rule" that applies...

from http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/rrpprinter.php

"Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet, call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed. "

In my cardroom, the rule is that action out of turn MAY be binding. This of course depends on the exact situation.

It should be noted that this rule also applies here (from the same source) ...

"The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person's amount of poker experience and past record. "

However, even given both these rules, there is no reason why your hand would be declared DEAD because you checked out of turn. Someone who checks out of turn may of course still call bets TO them. As to whether they would be allowed to raise, that might be handled on a case-by-case basis. For instance, someone who is purposely checking out of turn to intice someone else to bet, so that they can then raise the bettor, might not be allowed to raise, but certainly wouldn't be forced to fold.

I believe that "clear intent" should always be considered in situations where a decision is needed, but it's not the only factor of course.

al