This is a new one on me.......(Poker Rule)

[dik9]

But he doesn't need to ask for time, he has already said what his action will be when he announced raise, he just needs to finish his action off by saying how much. Obviously stalling to see how players react when he call's raise, is a stroke. But the players after him are acting out of turn ,until he completes his action by putting the raise in or announcing how much.

10.02. ACTING PROMPTLY.
A player is entitled to a reasonable time to think about his action, but should in no other way slow the game down. If a player wishes to take time to act he must stop the action by calling "Time." Failure to stop the action before there has been substantial action behind a player may cause the player to lose his right to act. If the player is facing a bet when he has lost the right to act he shall be deemed to have folded, and his hand is dead. If he is not facing a bet when he has lost the right to act he will be deemed to have checked. A player does not forfeit his right to act if any player in front of him has not yet acted, so that the failure of another to act properly in turn shall not cause another player to lose his right of action, even if there is substantial action behind the second player who has not yet acted. All action made behind a player who has not acted shall be binding, so long as the action by the delaying player or any other intervening player does not change the action which the person acting behind him is facing.

[doubleup]

I don't disagree that the rule as quoted is nonsense, in fact it is quite common for players to serial fold when some states raise.  I was merely pointing out that there is a duty on a player to shout when out of turn action occurs.  In this case out of turn action would only take place when someone called, not realising there had been a raise.

[dik9]

But They can't call because they don't know how much they are calling for. He has quite clearly announced raise (according to first post).

[doubleup]

But They can't call because they don't know how much they are calling for. He has quite clearly announced raise (according to first post).

The raiser put out the amount required to call and then went back to his stack to count out the raise.  Players acting afterwards unaware of the raise would assume that he had just called.  If this occurs and he doesn't shout out he should lose his right to raise. 

[Snatiramas]

Isn't it funny how these subjects bring out such heated debate.......maybe it's because poker players so rarely get anything wrong. Still it has been fascinating reading

[dik9]

Steve Read, to my right, has a habit, when Raising (which is almost every hand) of saying "raise", then FIRST putting the CALL in the middle, then he counts out the Raise & places that in.

The only worry, is that Tikay didn't hear him say raise, missed that in the first reading.
Now it is entirely down to the dealer, whether he heard it or not, and stopping any other action.

[BlueWolf]

LMFAO

I just had to reply to this lol seeing as i'm officially out of action now i suppose i can post a bit lol.

Where to begin hehehe

Grosvenor-wide rules??? we all know they never are its usually something we were told to say at festivals to shut up players who argued about rulings.

I understand the point of view that the raiser  could be pulling a stroke by delaying his raise but its up to the dealer to keep an eye on this and stop players passing out of turn (tut tut TK and Joe you both should know better lol) but the rule is absolute bollocks (i thought some in Brum were stupid!!!) and for those suggesting that the young fella asking about the rule was shooting an angle i doubt it if hes seen the rule applied surely he wants a bit of consistenacy?

once again its a stupid rule lol

oh and hi again everybody lol

[dik9]

Welcome Back Dude

[tikay]

Good stuff this.....

To clarify.

Raiser (Steve Read) announced "RAISE" & then placed his ""call" chips in first, as he did every time.

I never heard "RAISE" (though he DID say it) & Passed out of turn.

Joe Grech fell foul of the domino effrect, & passed the nana-second I did.

Joe & I passed within a second - there is no way Steve Read could have anticipated or reacted to this in time. So, by the Rule, his hand would be killed.

(There is a Red Herring in here, as technically, neither myself nor Joe really passed out of turn, as Steve HAD acted, he'd said "RAISE", so Joe Grech's & my pass were bad etiquette(mistakenly) rather than Passing Out Of Turn).

Just assume this to see it clearly....

Steve had not acted yet, I had not realised & passed out of turn, & Joe Grech followed me due to "domino effect". Joe & I acted within a second, it's not fair or reasonable to expect the Dealer or Steve to react to our Passes that quickly. For which, Joe & I get off scott-free, & Steve gets his hand killed!

Those that argue this is fair & reasonable are whooshing me good & proper, I must confess. I'll have to have another think I guess.

[tikay]

I've had another think, & I still can't fathom how this is right.

I shall muse for a little longer....

[tikay]

Go away, I'm musing.

[RED-DOG]

It's the 6 OClock Muse.

[BlueWolf]

Surely musing this long will cause Hysteria? maybe you should plug in baby hehehe and hopefully find some absolution for tis ruling

sorry i'm bored but some one should get it lol

[Jon MW]

To me this rule seems to be a confusion between players acting out of turn because someone is deliberately not acting to slow the game down,
and players acting out of turn because they haven't noticed that somebody has made an action but not completed it.

In the first instance the player slowing the game down is (arguably, but a different argument) in the wrong and gets penalised, in the second the players acting out of turn are in the wrong, but the turn player still gets penalised.

The rule may have been created to counter the former situation, but because of the way it is worded it will also penalise people in the second situation and if any concerns were addressed to the casino then maybe a clarification of this rule would perhaps be more appropriate than the suggestion that it should just be removed.

[dik9]

But even if someone is taking their time you can still call the clock on them?