Another ruling!

[Cf]

Slightly clearer case:

We're on bubble. You're second short stack.

Short stack pushes.

All fold to the big blind, who's not sure whether to call or not. Short stack for whatever reason decides to show that he has AA, and doesn't want to be outdrawn. BB, who had 44 now decides to fold, when otherwise he'd have probably called. Here's the catch tho: on this particular hand there'd have been a 4 on the flop. The short stack, in the act of showing his cards, has prevented the bubble bursting and hurt every other player in the tournament.

4 on the flop, lol wtf ?

It's obviously a slightly contrived example. But the point is, even in a heads up pot, you cannot reveal information about your hand, whether this is verbally or physically declaring it. You can't agree to check hands down. You can't agree to "keep it friendly" (i hear that one a lot :/). Etc. By doing so you are potentially damaging everyone else in the tournament.

I agree with this to some extent but why would you play a pot with the intention of checking it down, unless someone else was all in?

Even if someone is all in you obviously can't agree to check it down. But I've occasionally seen instances where people say to each other to keep the pot small because they're blind vs blind for example. It's daft but people do it.

[Cf]

5 handed

UTG limps
SB makes up
BB shoves

UTG says 'u callin?' to Sb
Sb says 'nope'
UTG snaps with a mediocre holding he would have probs passed if not for the SB's answer

To fast for the dealer to stop it

BB loses the hand due to blatant colusion

What actually happened? Was a ruling sought afterwards? What cardroom?

[I KNOW IT]

I've gotta pretty much agree with phatomch's first answer. in a vacuum there's nothing wrong here, with history maybe there is

Players are obliged to protect the interests of other players at all times in a tournament.  The utg should not ask the question and should be penalised for asking.  The sb should refuse to answer as whatever he says will affect the uncompleted action.  When he answers he should be penalised.

Poker is riddled with scummy ppl - if these two aren't scummy but just ignorant, a penalty will get them to think about poker etiquette.

Indeed. It is the first rule of tournament poker. Both players have failed to do so here.

This is the first rule of poker
1.   Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson's decision is final.

Unfortunately there is no universal set of rules so there may be grey areas where rules are concerned. Some situations have to be looked at individually.

 Also someone saying they are folding, out of turn is completely different to actually walking off to take a piss and physically folding out of turn.Verbal declarations out of turn are not binding

People are mentioning scenarios which are completely different from OP and each case can be ruled differently

[#1Instigator]

I've gotta pretty much agree with phatomch's first answer. in a vacuum there's nothing wrong here, with history maybe there is

Players are obliged to protect the interests of other players at all times in a tournament.  The utg should not ask the question and should be penalised for asking.  The sb should refuse to answer as whatever he says will affect the uncompleted action.  When he answers he should be penalised.

Poker is riddled with scummy ppl - if these two aren't scummy but just ignorant, a penalty will get them to think about poker etiquette.

Indeed. It is the first rule of tournament poker. Both players have failed to do so here.

This is the first rule of poker
1.   Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson's decision is final.

Unfortunately there is no universal set of rules so there may be grey areas where rules are concerned. Some situations have to be looked at individually.

 Also someone saying they are folding, out of turn is completely different to actually walking off to take a piss and physically folding out of turn.Verbal declarations out of turn are not binding

People are mentioning scenarios which are completely different from OP and each case can be ruled differently

explain how is folding out of turn different to walking off? Doing anything out of turn is not on, mistakes can be overlooked (for so long) but delibrate out of turn actions should ALWAYS get a penalty. So walking off is surely the same as a delibrate fold out of turn, which people should not do...at all.
Always verbal declarations out of turn are BINDING!

Still trying to get people to post solutions to these infringments. Since everyone is upset whenever a decision is not gone their way, lets work out whats the best thing to do, rather than list examples which in time will still be there, and many more people getting upset.

[I KNOW IT]

I've gotta pretty much agree with phatomch's first answer. in a vacuum there's nothing wrong here, with history maybe there is

Players are obliged to protect the interests of other players at all times in a tournament.  The utg should not ask the question and should be penalised for asking.  The sb should refuse to answer as whatever he says will affect the uncompleted action.  When he answers he should be penalised.

Poker is riddled with scummy ppl - if these two aren't scummy but just ignorant, a penalty will get them to think about poker etiquette.

Indeed. It is the first rule of tournament poker. Both players have failed to do so here.

This is the first rule of poker
1.   Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson's decision is final.

Unfortunately there is no universal set of rules so there may be grey areas where rules are concerned. Some situations have to be looked at individually.

 Also someone saying they are folding, out of turn is completely different to actually walking off to take a piss and physically folding out of turn.Verbal declarations out of turn are not binding

People are mentioning scenarios which are completely different from OP and each case can be ruled differently

explain how is folding out of turn different to walking off? Doing anything out of turn is not on, mistakes can be overlooked (for so long) but delibrate out of turn actions should ALWAYS get a penalty. So walking off is surely the same as a delibrate fold out of turn, which people should not do...at all.
Always verbal declarations out of turn are BINDING!

Still trying to get people to post solutions to these infringments. Since everyone is upset whenever a decision is not gone their way, lets work out whats the best thing to do, rather than list examples which in time will still be there, and many more people getting upset.

Verbal declarations out of turn are not binding if the action changes before them.
In this case sb was asked a question by a player to which he replied "nope".Is this deemed a  verbal declaration or part of some speech play? Should he be allowed to call or raise if he wanted to or should he be forced to fold?

Verbally stating you are folding out of turn is different to walking off because if the action changes before it gets to you the player can act on his hand as if he had made no verbal declaration where as if you walk away from the table you are not there to act on your hand regardless whether the action changes or not  . That is how they are different

Often rulings are made but not everyone will agree with them.
Listing other examples I agree does nothing for this situation as I stated earlier there are grey areas and the situation(was it obvious collusion) has to be taken into consideration.
Not forgetting every cardroom has their own local rules which change from place to place.
It would help if OP would name the venue
IMO hand should play out and warning/penalty given to BB and possibly SB

[relaedgc]

In Grosvenor, verbal declarations are binding irrespective. If you're seat 10 and you say you're going all in, then seats 1-9 can do whatever they like and you're still going all in. If you said raise, you'll be held to raise. etc.

[I KNOW IT]

In Grosvenor, verbal declarations are binding irrespective. If you're seat 10 and you say you're going all in, then seats 1-9 can do whatever they like and you're still going all in. If you said raise, you'll be held to raise. etc.

This is why I added this bit

Often rulings are made but not everyone will agree with them.
Listing other examples I agree does nothing for this situation as I stated earlier there are grey areas and the situation(was it obvious collusion) has to be taken into consideration.
Not forgetting every cardroom has their own local rules which change from place to place.
It would help if OP would name the venue
IMO hand should play out and warning/penalty given to BB and possibly SB

As much as I love Grosvenor they have some rules which dont apply anywhere else. It really is down to the local/house rule.
i.e A missdealt turn card is rectified differently from some other places