In a NL game, a big pot developed between two deepstacked players. On the turn, the action checked to Player A, who had been driving the action in position on every street. Player A made a big bet, and Player B called again.

After Player B called and as the dealer is dragging in the chips, Player B slapped the table hard with his hand and said, "no spade!"

The dealer burned and dealt the river, a spade to complete the flush draw.

Player B then announced, "I'm all-in."

Was Player B's conduct after the turn

(a) a clear check in the dark;

(b) subject to the consensus of the dealer and/or the table as to what B's conduct meant; or

(c) never a check (but possibly subject to a stern warning from floor)?

Hard to say for sure without being there, but as described, c.

I would almost never rule just a table tap as a check in the dark without some verbal announcement of the same (or perhaps some context, like two players who are checking it down by both continuously tapping the felt as the dealer burns and turns).

As always, the best idea is to protect yourself by not doing anything ambiguous like this. But if I were at the table, I would strongly argue to the dealer/floor that B did not check in the dark, regardless of whether I was in the hand or not, as soon as B confirms that that was not his intention either.

I would hope that the dealer would maybe ask if it was a "dark check" just to clarify before dealing the river. Just a mild warning from the dealer is enough. Calling the floor is a waste of time on this. I doubt that player B actually meant that slapping the table was a check since he shoved after the river was dealt.

All he did was slapping the table while saying something that could never be interpreted as a check? Or did I miss anything?

Trying to get that ruled as a check is one of the dirtier angle shots out there. What's next? "The way seat 9 put his phone back on the table is a clear check out of position! He has to be held to that if I check!"

Not sure why there even should be a warning of any sort, unless the floor thinks that slapping the table is a horrible thing in general.

I'm curious about this statement in several respects.

First, when Player B hits his flush, he's always going to say that he did not intend to check. So, as a floor, why do you want to hear from Player B and how much credit do you give his statement of intent?

Second, is appropriate for other players, not involved in the hand, "to strongly argue" for a result? Is it one thing for other players to confirm the facts of what happened (i.e., the turn was completed, Player B rapped the table, Player B said "no spade," Player B did not say "check", the river had not been dealt, etc.), as opposed to advocating how those facts should be interpreted?

Finally, if you're the floor, do you take into consideration how other players interpreted the conduct or just listen for a confirmation of the factual scenario? Do you want to know what others' opinions are, and is it appropriate for other players to voice theirs?

Clearly "No spade!" is equivalent to "If the River is a spade, I fold".
Hence, Player B's hand is dead.

But seriously, if any player at the table, the dealer, or the Floor (if called for a ruling) considered his actions to be a check, they really don't understand live poker.

Checking dark is unusual and as such should require extra confirmation that it's the intent. Option c.

But in the more common case where a spade comes out and Player B slams the table and says, "****in' spades!" I'd say option b. Maybe even option a if he's been warned before.

I don't even know why, but I am really hoping you are not player A and tried to get that ruled a check.

If you are, I guess at least kudos to you for describing the situation accurately without adding anything that might lead people to believe that should indeed be ruled a check.

If the other players considered it a check, they are idiots. And only an idiot floorman would take such stupidity into consideration.

Unfortunately, idiocy is not confined to players.

Just think that telling the guy that slapping the table might be interpreted as a check by sombody is all the warning I meant. Maybe friendly advice rather than a mild warning.

A- It's obviously not a check in the dark to me. Absent some info not presented in the OP, trying to call that a dark check is bad, really bad, and I want to do everything in my power to make sure no one pulls an angle like that. But if the player decides he is going to check anyway, I'm not going to jump in and argue about whether it was a check dark or a normal check, because the outcome will be the same - the player checks. That is my only reason for making sure that the player is going to do something other than check before joining his side of the argument about whether it was a dark check.

B- As a player, it is appropriate for me to do whatever I think will result in the fairest outcome. Not all players agree with this, but in general this is my philosophy as a player. If the floor doesn't want to hear from me, so be it. In general, my strong arguments will stick to facts anyway. But in cases where a player tried to get a terrible ruling by omitting important context, I will attempt to correct that.

C- Depends on the issue. Usually the dealer's perspective is the most important and the controlling one, but not always. Certainly I have played with dealers who misunderstand the rules, or who were not paying attention to things, or who were paying attention but were looking in the wrong place at the time to see something firsthand. And it's not like the floor should put it up to a table vote. But there are issues where context matters, and sometimes you want to get the players' interpretations as well. Especially from players who are known to be fair and reasonable in the past.

In the end, I expect the floor to make the best decision possible given the descriptions given to him, and to weight these things appropriately. If a dealer disagrees with something I say and the floor goes with the dealer, I will live with it. If a dealer lies about something to protect his own ass, I will make a note of it, and possibly talk to the lloor or the shift manager about it. But usually dealers don't do this, IME. If they don't know or aren't sure, they say so.

This was hope and emotion, manifested in physical action that occurred before the river was even dealt. This can never be a check as described.

I was Player A, but I did not ask for the floor and did not try to get the action changed. When it was my turn, I just asked for a clarification from the dealer as to what Player B's action was, and then made my decision.

As the player in the hand, I guess I can say at the time of Player B's conduct, I interpreted what he did as a check. Player B tanked before calling the turn, and so when he rapped the table, I remember thinking, "ok, he's not drawing, he just checked, I'm probably ahead, I don't have to fade a spade..." After the river was dealt and Player B shoved, I was a little confused and simply asked the dealer "didn't he check?" When the dealer said, "no," I acted.

I ask these kinds of questions for a few reasons. First, I read this forum a lot, and certain statements in threads stick with me for whatever reason. One of them was someone who posted something to the effect of "if you tap the table, point to the next bettor, rap your chips up and down, spin your fingers, nod towards the next player, you just checked." The point was that all kinds of motions can be considered a check without a verbal confirmation, and so just be careful what you do. I guess those statements were in the context of conduct when action is live as opposed to in between streets. Important distinction for me to note.

Second, I appreciate thoughts on how table conduct can be interpreted. I don't want to do something stupid and limit my options because of it. In other words, I want to avoid putting myself in Player B's position in this hand.

Finally, I want to know what the floor expects from me as a player. When these situations come up, should I speak up if I'm not in the hand? If I speak up, should I relay just the facts as I witnessed them or can I offer my opinion of them? What's helpful to the floor/dealer, and what's fair/unfair to the players involved?

So I learn a lot by how the posters react to the scenarios, and I just try to describe the situations in a neutral way. The comments are always helpful.

I would never consider that a check in the dark as described. The dealer is still dragging in chips on the previous street. If a tap on the table were binding for the next street in that situation, they would have to quit showing sports on TV in the poker room. People slap the table all the time when something happens in a game. So absent a check in the dark statement, I would just treat the slap on the table as a gesture to emphasize "no spade".

As for talking to the floor, what I've seen is that the floor wants to hear the dealers input first, then will ask the players involved for comments if they need more info, and then finally ask other players if needed. If a dealer said something I was sure was incorrect I would offer ir up even if not asked, but let the dealer finish first. But what I usually see is the floor walks up and three people start making their case at the same time, which just slows things down.

Well, you were there and we weren't, but my guess is that you thought it was a check because of the second part quoted above, not because you really thought the guy was probably checking dark for any other reason.

The second part is generally true (or at least, as a player you need to be aware that it may be ruled that way, so that you can protect yourself by not doing it), but you should know that it is generally only relevant when the action is on you. Which is to say, sometimes players accidentally make checking motions while the action is on them, and in cases like this, if it causes the player behind you to act, it will often be ruled a check.

In this case, though, the action is not yet on the player, because the dealer is still pulling in bets on the previous street. A hand motion, particularly one that can clearly be explained as being a gesture of enthusiasm on the players' part concerning the next card to come, would generally not be considered in the same light.

Hope that helps.

My gut is to say 'No way is that a dark check'. But if action had been to Player B, and he slapped the table, everyone in the world would consider it a check. Since action is technically on player B, even though the river hasn't been dealt, why wouldn't this be a check? Taking any explicit and intentional action with your hand when action is on you is almost always interpreted as a check, whether it is rapping, pointing, flexing slightly one finger, etc.

It's understandable why you might think that based purely on first principles, but it's just...not.

This is pretty clearly not a check. I think there is or should be a presumption against checking the dark and that people should have to be very clear about it. It would be different if action was already on the player in question.

If I'm the dealer, after putting the turn out, I'm open-palm gesturing to B and saying "action's here". I'll take whatever heat he's going to throw my way barking "No, I checked dark, duh" the 1 time in 10 that this is actually a dark check. I'd rather do this than ask him. I tend to do a lot of little things like this to keep actions as clear as possible and I never hesitate to just ask or announce "not a check" if I think something is unclear like the guy who action will be on is drumming on the table like an idiot because he doesn't realize it could be taken as a check.

Would you have asked the dealer whether Player B checked if he had not immediately acted? It sounds like you would not have, because you genuinely thought he checked.

I also wonder how this thread would have gone if, in response to the dealer saying "No" he did not check, Player B said "Yes I did". Further, I wonder if Player B's shove had an effect on the dealer's opinion, if maybe the extent of the dealer's thought process was "He must not have checked, because he bet".

I can totally see where OP is coming from. How often do you witness a dealer stare at a player, awaiting his action, only to be told "I checked blind"? I see it all the time. Now OP sees what he believes to be a blind check, and the dealer is saying with certainty that it's not. At this point, you have to accept their reality in which he checked. Sounds like OP dropped it quickly.

The bolded really isn't a problem though. If V checked blind then action is on the next player.

We know that. I didn't say it's a problem, nor that I wonder how the hand would have gone.

First I would argue the action is not on the player before the the next card comes out. Since he is next to act when the action starts he can check dark but the action isn;t on him yet.

At this point I will not hold him to a dark check unless his action appears to clearly indicate a dark check.

Slapping the table as the card comes out and calling out what he wants or doesn't want in no way shape or form clearly indicates a dark check.

Just like ifyou are doing a drum solo with your fingers on the rail before the action gets to you I will not consider you to have checked out of turn, but if your still doing it when the action gets to you, you risk it being interpreted as a check

Not everyone in the world, at least psandman and I am not so sure about it. Card comes out, players sees it, slams the table and screams 'yes, baby!' is not a clear check to me. But I agree that it's at least somewhat ambiguous.

Out of curiosity, if the player slaps the table while saying 'all-in', do you go check the video to see if his hand touched the felt before the words came out of his mouth or would you rule it as an all-in anyway since that was clearly the intention?

Re: action: so you are saying if I am first to act, and declare All-in before the river card is dealt, that I would not be held to it?