Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtnfisher
Three way action going to the flop. Player first to act looks toward me (I believe he wanted to just see if I had cards, which I did not). Somehow dealer interprets a check and announces check. Quickly before player had time to act, other players checked behind, when player attempts to bet $15.
Floor gets called when the player who checked last protested, and ruled significant action so the check stands. I can see that and no problems there. However he also went onto rule that since the player second to act folded his cards after the bet attempt ( but totally retrievable) but before the protest, had to have his fold stand.
This seems totally wrong and unfair. Is this any way a correct ruling?
This ruling seems wrong. You really can't have it both ways. Either, it went check, check, check, action is closed, or it went bet, fold, ???. Either the action was rolled back or it wasn't, I can't see the justification for having it both ways.
Also, if dealer rolled back the action to allow first to act to bet, and last to act did not object at that point, it seems to me that he would not have grounds to protest once middle player folds.
Hard to say what happened with the original out of turn action(if the players behind checked so fast that the acting player had no chance to stop them, it should be action on him), but it is possible that the floor made the rare trifecta, three bad rulings in one incident.