Rules question...acting out of turn

[Calgary Dave]

Was at a poorly run home game last night. This scenario came up: (I kept my mouth shut as I wasn't sure, and didn't know anyone there).

Hand is down to three people, fairly large pot and River is about to be turned (all three are pot committed):

River is dealt, and dealer blurts out "all in".
"uhh...your out of turn".
"Oh, sorry..my bad". Pulls his chips back in. UTG checks, UTG +1 checks.
Dealer then goes back "all in" and both players fold, dealer wins. No one even blinked, and next hand is dealt.

My thoughts:

Dealer acts out of turn and for this, his consequences are: he has to check. To allow his "all in" to stand (either on his initial bet, or when it WAS his turn) it forces the other two to either fold and give their chips away, or call, and lose possibly more chips. Allowing him to keep his bet seems like a win/win situation to the dealer.

Thoughts? Actual rules pertaining to this?

[Shadow]

Actually, the way it played out was exactly right. In fact, in that scenario, he HAS to go all in when it is his turn to act. The reason: no action changed in front of him. If the action changed, then he can change his bet. Otherwise, his verbal declaration, in or out of turn, is binding. At least that's the way I understand it.

The players in front of him got free information. They didn't have to put anymore chips in the pot. If they did, they did so knowing he might come over the top (but he wouldn't have to at that point, but you have to figure he will). So, knowing he was going all in, they can check-fold, or if they have more chips, check-call, etc.

From Roberts Rules of Poker, V.10, ch 3:
11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet , call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.

[2_hotty]

^^I agree with Shadow 100%

[Calgary Dave]

That explanation makes it more clear to me now. Glad I kept my mouth shut. I looked up Roberts Rules, but couldn't really find the definitive answer (or rather I couldn't grasp it).
thanks for the explanation.

[IFLOPPEDITSUCKER]

yup, it was right. If there was a $25 bet with 4 to act, and #4 said AI ooturn, if the first 3 just call the $25 then 4's AI is mandatory. He couldn't fold or call after everybody called or folded in front of him.

[Doctor_XXX]

Once again, Shadow is spot on. :cool:

[SniperD5]

Shadow is correct. That said, if the dealer in this situation did it intentionally to intimidate the players, knowing that the first to push would win the pot, it would be considered angle shooting and should not be tolerated. If it was my game, I'd give him one warning, and if he did it again, I'd take more strict action (kick him out, rule his hand dead, etc.)

[Guma]

Shadow = Right

Dealer = Douche, and could be considered Angle shooting if he showed a pattern of doing this.

[Shadow]

I agree with the angle shooting bit. It's a little harder to determine, but for sure if it becomes a pattern or something, it must be dealt with.