Hand dead - ruling

[AdamM]

Quick ruling question.
We're four way at the river, and there's been action pre, post and turn.
Seat 4 (nervous newbie) checks,
seat 5 insta-bets,
seat 9 insta-raises.
Seat 2 says "I haven't acted. It's me to speak first."
Ruling is his hand is dead because of the action.

The check, bet, raise was REALLY quick. 5 seconds max.
No question that seat 2 was angle shooting. As soon as he realised there'd been out of turn action, he spoke up.

I understand that because of the two actions after him, it makes sense not to cancel the action and let him speak first, but it seemed very harsh to rule his hand dead, when he's made no mistake.

Surely more in the interests of fairness to allow him to call, raise or fold?

[kinboshi]

His hand is never dead. Like you've said, as so much action has taken place, they'll stand and Seat 2 now can call, raise or fold.  Why on earth would his hand be dead?

[Oxford_HRV]

depends entirely on the dealer to explain to floor how fast action took place in regards of changing the usual ruling here, none the less you cant have a confidence issue in live poker and if you are watching the table you should speak up asap. i think a verbal check should rule his hand dead and little tap on the table should rule his hand live, as its harder to recognise someone has acted out of turn this way. personally i would like to rule seat 2 player cant make aggressive action but let him make a decision to call or fold in this betting round.

[Longines]

Passive action only for seat 2 would be my choice.

[Oxford_HRV]

His hand is never dead. Like you've said, as so much action has taken place, they'll stand and Seat 2 now can call, raise or fold.  Why on earth would his hand be dead?

rules declare that if you get two actions after you, your hand should be dead as you have gained an unfair advantage, standard rule in most places. seen this happen plenty of times but seen put into practice maybe once or twice.

[tikay]

Quick ruling question.
We're four way at the river, and there's been action pre, post and turn.
Seat 4 (nervous newbie) checks,
seat 5 insta-bets,
seat 9 insta-raises.
Seat 2 says "I haven't acted. It's me to speak first."
Ruling is his hand is dead because of the action.

The check, bet, raise was REALLY quick. 5 seconds max.
No question that seat 2 was angle shooting. As soon as he realised there'd been out of turn action, he spoke up.

I understand that because of the two actions after him, it makes sense not to cancel the action and let him speak first, but it seemed very harsh to rule his hand dead, when he's made no mistake.

Surely more in the interests of fairness to allow him to call, raise or fold?

The "normal" Ruling is that his hand would be ruled "Dead".

It's a bit harsh, because arguably he has done nothing wrong, & been penalised, but you have to draw the line somewhere & that's the general (& correct, imo) rule.

[UgotNuts]

I have seen this ruling given out before, and it is indeed correct.

Although I'm not sure I agree with it, as the player in seat 2 is the innocent party in all of this, and IMO this ruling is exploitable.

[tikay]

His hand is never dead. Like you've said, as so much action has taken place, they'll stand and Seat 2 now can call, raise or fold.  Why on earth would his hand be dead?

Because he never objected until at least 2 players behind him had acted.

He COULD have been acting to gain info. We are assured he was not - fine - but the Rule is there for a reason.

[zerofive]

lol yeh unfortunately this hand is dead. Two positive actions is considered "significant." Got to give penalties to seat 5 and 9 in this situation tho, as the rule can be manipulated both for and against.

[Ironside]

If he didn't say anything and it gets to him now what? Rule his hand dead he could claim he checked! And now have all options open to him!

[AdamM]

when seat 4 checks, seat 5 and 9 have no responsibility to check he acted in turn do they?
Don't understand why they would need penalizing.

Seat 4 apologised immediately and was clearly fairly new to live poker.
It was so fast, seat 2 could not reasonably have alerted the dealer to being missed out until it was too late.
Dealer never mentioned the speed to the TD, just the action, and it was a snap ruling that the hand was dead.

I don't see how seat 2 has benefited by this if he's allowed to call, raise or fold, because if he'd kept quiet about being missed out (which I'm sure he'll do in future) he'd have had that anyway. He only benefits unfairly if bets are taken back and he's allowed to act first, but even then, the only way he really takes advantage is by check raising, which he can do anyway if he keeps it buttoned.

Seemed to me the only person that had made a mistake was seat 4 (absolutely unintentionally) but it was seat 2 who was the only one to suffer.

[Alverton]

Hand dead.  Penalty to seat 4.

The only leeway is if the dealer says the action was so ridiculously quick seat 2 didn't get a chance to stop the action, then TD discretion. 

[George2Loose]

This happened at the big game on Saturday. Imo it's pretty unfair and length of time should be taken into consideration.

[Jon MW]

Hand dead.  Penalty to seat 4.

The only leeway is if the dealer says the action was so ridiculously quick seat 2 didn't get a chance to stop the action, then TD discretion. 

I think this - that's the problem with any cardroom that just applies rules uniformly without taking context into account.

[Royal Flush]

Seat 2 should have his hand killed for just being an idiot imo, why on earth would you speak up?? Just pretend like you have checked, its gone bet/raise what more could he want, somehow became button in the pot and has seen people show strength.