Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman
calling is acting.
how does not letting him raise fix the advantage he has gained?
I don't think there are different definitions of 'act' in the same sentence. The focus needs to be put on 'the right to'. When the Floor decides to kill a player's hand he is essentially taking away his 'right' to fold, call or raise in this hand.
My proposed solution may be a happy medium for the two wrongs that have occurred. OOT action (x3) and failure to stop said action. It wasn't UTG's fault (disputable) that there was OOT action, but it was his fault for not stopping it, by rule.
Granted the rule doesn't say 'your right to act may be limited' it states 'you may lose your right to act (at all)'. So I probably lose to the lawyers here.
I have already stated that I'm leaning more towards a killed hand here, but if I let UTG stay in the hand I want to 'limit' his advantage gained by taking away his 'right' to raise unless action reopens to him on the current street (by the SB or BB, not B). If we back action up UTG can still limp and he would still have the option of acting on the B raise (because OOT action stands, right?). I'm saying 'no', as a trade-off for me letting you stay in the hand you don't get to take advantage of the extra information you acquired until the next street unless action changes after we move past this issue.
Certainly you can say that this was his plan all along but if this one guy in this one spot can spin such a web then praise he shall get from me! GL