Significant action isn't actually a rule, but when we say it, we mean this rule:
Quote:
12. To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act.
Unfortunately, this rule has a few shortcomings.
(1) it doesn't specifically tell us what the penalty is for not protecting your right to act. You "lose the right to act", but what does that mean? Dead hand? Non-aggressive actions only?
(2) it doesn't take into account whether or not the dealer putting out the next street(s) of cards should be considered actions, or worse.
As A20 noted, there is also a rule about premature cards being dealt:
Quote:
15. If the dealer prematurely deals any cards before the betting is complete, those cards will not play, even if a player who has not acted decides to fold.
Obviously, these rules are (or can be) at odds. There can be many interpretations, and context for what happens probably matters.
Generally speaking, for #15 above, we use this rule to handle what happens when a dealer messes up and (quickly) puts out the next street not seeing that action still remains on the previous street. This is the rule you use when the player is not at fault, or it is indeterminate.
Rule #12 is generally used when a player lets OOT action proceed behind him, and is at fault for allowing it. In this case, the penalty is not proscribed, but we will generally either kill his hand or not allow him aggressive action. The floor needs to determine which is appropriate based on the totality of the context. If not too much other action occurred and allowing the player to call does not cause much advantage to the player or disadvantage to the other players, or if the player can convince the floor that he did not have a nefarious purpose, you attempt to let him call (or check) and continue on.
If, however, it is clear that the player is trying to get away with a freeroll, or get off without paying a bet, or in some other way makes it problematic to allow him to check or call without gaining unfair advantage, then you kill his hand.
In this case, player B waits what appears to be a long, long time before speaking up, after not one but three streets are dealt. [Absent DJs clarification that he was distracted], it is likely he is trying to freeroll. He doesn't like the board that came out, so he speaks up and tries to get a new one. If he did like it, he stays silent, and attempts to play in turn and hopes no one realizes he never called the earlier bet.
IMO, this behavior must be punished, unless there is some other reasonable explanation for his delay in raising the alarm. We cannot allow a new board to be dealt. His hand must be killed.
Even with DJs explanation that he was distracted, while I would be tempted to give the player the benefit of the doubt, after so much action has occurred, it is very bad to back up three streets of action, allow him to call, and then redeal the entire board. In this case you also have to apologize and kill his hand, and hope he realizes that his distraction is what caused the issue, and there is no fairer way to correct the problem that doesn't potentially harm the other players.
As played, it is good the players came to their own agreement about it and didn't force in a ruling. Good on them.
