Tda:
55: Invalid Bet Declarations
If a player faces no bet and: A) declares “call”, it is a check; B) declares “raise”, the player must make at least a minimum bet. A player declaring “check” when facing a bet may call or fold, but cannot raise.

My questions to the tournament floor were much more fun today.

"Do we allow reverse implied blockers?"

"Can a player not in the hand request for the King to be turned upside down?"

TDA Rule 44 addresses out of turn action. If action doesn't change once it's backed up to the correct Player and re-returns to the OOT Player then the action is held. But in this case there's nothing to call .. However I don't think we should allow all actions either, so I'll kind of lean towards a Robert's phrase of holding the Player to passive action which limits the Player to a Check here since Folding is also against the Rules.

The issue can be penalized as The Floor sees fit. GL


PS .. it appeared Rule 55 covers this as shown above!

PSS .. Really both Rules apply since it was OOT initially then apply Rule 55 once it returns.

There was no OOT action.

Perfect.

This matches my gut on what my ruling would have been, but I didn't remember if there was a specific, clearly defined rule.

Thank you.

I understand where it comes from, which is why it's easy to anticipate and stop in its tracks, which is what I do, usually with a decent success rate.

I learned in another thread the TDA procedure for premature turn cards changed 2 years ago. I was confused for a minute because I've been dealing tournaments almost exclusively for the past 2 years, then a tiny bit proud because I realized I didn't know because I hadn't put out a premature turn card since the new rule.

I do need to get better about going through the TDA redline docs.

That is 100% true. You, me, and every dealer SHOULD go through the redline rules for more often. Absolutely true.

Unfortunately that involves effort. I will fully admit that I am lazy. Really lazy. Don't get me wrong, I will try my hardest to deal fast and clean, but when it comes to reading rulesets on my off time? **** that. I have better things to do.

The best and worst thing I ever was told/taught was that the rules exist for a reason. If a person understood the basic rules of poker and intuitively understood human nature and how people will try to take advantage of other players, you can automatically grasp 99.99% of the rules.

The simple rule is that the rules are there to protect players from other players and protect the integrityof the game. Full stop. So a person who understood the basic rules of poker and understood human nature would be able to immediately come up with a decent ruling a vast (97%+) percent of the time.

String bet rules are there to protect other players. The oversized chip rule is there to protect other players. Folding out of turn is there to protect other players.

As a result I have gotten very lazy. Really lazy. I don't need to study the rules if I can figure them out with basic poker common sense (which means 97%+ accuracy).

Don't get me wrong, it is a bad attitude, but it is also an easy trap to fall into.

Agree, Jim. I have a goal to spend time each week reading a rule or procedure to keep sharp.

Unfortunately, in reality, I get busy/lazy, and that happens when a situation comes up that I'm not sure about, and need to review.