£20 rebuy pub tournament. So maybe a question for Home Games, but I'm pitching for a card room vibe, so I'd like to hear what you guys think should be done to rescue this situation.

16 players left, 2 tables of 8. Blinds are 500/1k with a 1k BB ante. Average stack is 50-60k.

Folded to HJ who raises to 3k, fold, fold, SB calls, BB folds.

Then UTG raises to 9k. FLOOR !!!! And i get called over.

I'm very sure that there wasn't any angle shooting, just people not paying attention. It wasn't talked about at the time, but i think a likely explanation is that the BB ante landed in front of UTG, and UTG mistakenly thought it was their BB.

What's your ruling?

TDA rules state that the action back up to the player that was skipped. Therefore, the action is on the UTG. Folds are binding, so anyone who folded doesn't get their cards back. UTG can call, raise or fold. If the UTG sticks with their raise, then the CO has the option to pull their bet back to fold, or call. If the UTG folds, then the CO has to put in the 3k.

That's certainly an option.

I'd also be fine with holding UTG to non-aggressive action after they failed to defend their right to act. If the floor thinks an honest mistake happened they shouldn't kill the hand though.

Thanks,

Would you not take the UTG 3-bet as a valid action then? I was expecting that if we back up the action to UTG, then their 9k raise would have to stand.

And is there a limit to how far we can back it up? Usually it's just one or two hands, but this was a whole orbit. Would you back up to pre-flop if UTG had only noticed they had cards after the flop comes out?

I'll see if I can find more answers in the TDA rules.

That's a lot of action to roll back.

Part of why dealers should pull in the ante before they deal. In a more serious venue, this seems like a clear-cut dead hand for UTG situation. 5 folds, a raise and call have occurred behind them without them protecting their right to act in turn. Not sure what the rescue mechanism would be here in a small pub tournament.

I'm not sure if this changes anything, but is it possible that UTG thought it was his limp? And so UTG thought he was limp / reraising?

(The reason why this seemingly minor detail might change things is it brings it a lot closer to a post-flop situation where HJ opens without anyone really knowing if UTG checked. We would neither rewind the action nor kill UTG's hand there. If anything, we would ask UTG "Did you check?" and he would shrug and say "Yeah sure, I checked".)

Is this really the TDA rule? If so, it's even worse than I had thought. Standard cash game rule is that if a player facing a bet lets three actions happen before he says anything, his hand is dead. I have seen it ruled that the skipped player can call without penalty, but loses his option to reraise. Rolling back the action here seems like the worst possible thing to do.

The TDA rule states that if substantial action has occurred after the player is skipped then the OOT action is binding. So in this OP all the folds and call are binding. Action is still backed up to UTG, but the rule states that it is completely a floor decision as to what happens to that hand, including declaring it dead or limiting it to nonagressive wction.

TDA Rule 53: Action Out of Turn (OOT)

A: Any action out of turn (check, call, or raise) will be backed up to the correct player in order. The OOT action is subject to penalty and is binding if action to the OOT player does not change. A check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action. If action changes, the OOT action is not binding; any bet or raise is returned to the OOT player who has all options: call, raise, or fold. An OOT fold is binding. See Illustration Addendum.

B: Players skipped by OOT action must defend their right to act. If a skipped player had reasonable time and does not speak up before substantial action (Rule 36) OOT occurs after the player, the OOT action is binding. Action backs up and the floor will rule on how to treat the skipped hand given the circumstances, including ruling the hand dead or limiting the player to non-aggressive action. See Addendum.


This is the current TDA Rule from their last meeting in 2022. There are no 'red lines' so this rule wasn't modified during that session.


For this spot I would limit UTG to call or fold. They have to stop the bus .. there were folds, a raise and more folds/calls.

How does UTG not know they put chips into this hand? Either via supposed BB or Call of 1000? And to compound that there's an Ante .. so how does 2000 in chips get into play from UTG's 'mistake' without them knowing about it?

I completely understand the 'lower' threshold for stuff that 'may' come from a card room, but this is just too much IMO .. and a great teaching moment for the whole table. GL


PS .. The use of 'back up' is a bit loose since the Floor can rule that action is 'just' on UTG .. with them being able to Call or Fold without putting in the 1k limp.

PSS .. Had a spot like this in cash. B Straddle in Seat 9 and it (supposedly) folds around to the B who assumes they got a walk. SB (Seat 1) then speaks up and says they never acted. Floor rules they still have a live hand with action on B. B raises .. SB shoves 60bb and B snaps with TT. Of course SB had AA and holds. Floor ruled that 'this Player' would never angle and thus still had a live hand.

Thanks everyone, that's all quite reassuring. I ruled that the actions should all stand and that it is now on UTG, who loses aggressive action due to not protecting his hand, and can only call the 3k or fold without having to put the 1k limp in.

UTG wasn't happy, claiming he hadn't done anything wrong, and shouldn't be the one suffering the punishment. With it being a pub game I can understand, it's not a game where players are 100% focused at all times and I don't want it to be. But I was happy to remind them that not paying attention comes with a cost.

I will never kill a hand if it can be avoided, so because there had been substantial action I now think the TDA rules suggest the correct ruling is :

Wind it back to UTG, the 3k's stay in and UTG loses his aggressive action on this street. UTG can only call or open fold as his first action. HJ and SB have no choice but to go 3k, 3k. If UTG limped, it's back round to him and he still has no aggressive action and can only call or fold.

So pretty much much what I said, except I didn't offer the option of limp folding. However, I think if I'd explained it in this way it would have been more palatable to UTG, since it feels like the other players are also being punished by having their OOP actions being made binding.

Thanks again

Good ruling imo.

Just because he didn't do it on purpose doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. It's not only his responsibility to protect his action but also to know if he put out chips or if he didn't.

Initially I thought there might be a 50% chance he showed up with aces here

UTG cannot limp and check on the same street.

?? Okay?

Good ruling by OP.

I would also contend that not putting out the BB and ante and thinking he was the BB was doing something wrong.

Not speaking up when literally the entire table acts out of turn behind you is 100% "doing something wrong". You don't get to sit back silently and reap the benefits of seeing everybody act when you were supposed to be first.

Perfectly fine ruling. In a casino setting, I'd probably lean towards killing UTG's hand as this is was a rather extreme infraction as opposed to 2-3 people acting OOT which is the line for substantial action. In a pub/less serious setting, I like limiting them to call or fold.