I'm playing 1/2 NLHE cash. I'm in MP with AK and we get to the river with the BB and CO on 47210A. Here the CO (who is a rec whale) jams way out of turn. The BB then proceeds to put in £2 as the action is technically on him. I assume that even if I just flat the £2, the shove from CO would stand and therefore I can potentially trap the BB along with the CO who is never folding (he had QX).

So I flat the £2 and then the dealer announces "on your backs" as the £2 from BB changes the action so therefore the out of turn shove no longer stands and therefore it changes to just a call. We get a ruling from the cardroom manager and he states the £2 from UTG changes the action and sticks with the dealers ruling.

Is this correct, as I would have thought the out of turn shove would stand or else I would obviously have shoved. Also, the BB was chuntering about how I was being scummy trying to "angle him", which I massively disagree with.

Ruling is correct for our card room. If you guys wanted to ‘trap’ him you should’ve checked to him, then his all in would’ve stood.

And conversely, if he shows a ‘passive’ action like checking out of turn he’s not allowed to raise you if you bet, or can’t bet of you check to him. At least where I regularly play.

I should also add that I didn't query as to what the out of turn shove would mean after the BBs action so yes I think I am also at fault for assuming what I thought would happen. If I had asked the dealer what would happen then I would have raised and then the CO would still shove and I win the bigger pot.

The most commonrule is that OOT action stands unless action to that player changes, at which point they have the full range of options. Your room appearently has the rule, except it only allows the OOT player passive options.

I can see BB point that you trying get the OOT shove to stand by underbetting your hand in order to trick BB into calling is a bit scummy, but it is like a 2 on the scale of 1 to 10

Am I reading this right? Your room makes the OOT shove a forced call?

I understand you should act in turn but that makes the BB's $2 bet a massive angle. Maybe a "re-angle" to the OOT bet. How the hell did the BB accuse hero of angling by flatting?

"on your backs" I have no idea what that means? I guess in your room OOT action is punished to just checking or calling if action changes. Looks like BB was the one with the angle betting the minimum to change action so he can get to showdown.

no idea what on your backs means but action changed

“On your back” is a way of telling players to table their cards in UK card rooms.

I agree that action changed. House rules dictate what COs options are in that case.

This is exactly what I am getting out of this. What an odd rule. I have never heard of this before. CO should have been given all options (including check and fold) since the action to him has changed. You should have raised.

yeah ruling seems correct

I doubt that it's ruled a call unless I missed it specifically stating so. I'm making an assumption, but I'd imagine the CO called the $2 and OP just missed this detail?

so what if BB had open jammed? CO is still bound to a call? What if CO had only bet $15 out of turn, is he only bound to call up to $15?

Yes .. a bit of an odd one in a few aspects ...

1) OP is kind of screwed here since he can't really ask the Dealer any questions until action is on him. Thus an unknowing BB may not know how to 'properly' handle the spot. It may look too obvious if OP had really pressed the Dealer while action was still on BB ... but some Dealer's would've answered OP's questions anyway.

2) I don't really care how obvious it looks, OP should've asked the Dealer where things stood before acting ... and probably raised regardless of the room rule.

3) Limiting a Player's options when action has changed is an odd one, yes. GL

Based on the fact that BB bet the minimum, I think there’s a good chance he knew how the card room would handle that situation. In that case, it would be an odd house rule, but at least a consistent one.

Anyway, after BB bet, OP should have asked for a clarification of the house rules and act accordingly.

I am curious what the floor would do if that was a tournament and they had the rule about having to bet/raise the nuts on the river? If CO is held to passive action, would OP risk a penalty if he didn’t raise?

Yes .. that's another twist. They would have to assume that OP knows the rule and then apply the penalty. GL

The CRM stated the CO had to call and did not have an option due to the OOT action. He didn't voluntarily call (although he obviously would have).

Yeah 100% I should have clarified this with the dealer when action was on me. CO had 3rd nuts so he wasn't going anywhere regardless of my actions. So I definitely haven't helped myself. BB is a bad reg who plays almost everyday so im sure he knew what the ruling would be.

The CRM and the dealer definitely did not give the CO an option after I had completed my action. I am sure the £2 call was also a forced call and he did not get the option to fold his hand.

I don’t think that’s a good house rule, but as long as they apply it consistently that’s their prerogative.

So you are saying that CO would have been forced to call any bet up to the amount that he jammed with OOT correct?