Stud8 ruling

[Phat Mack]

$100-$200 stud 8; $30 bring-in; chip rule is in effect; 3rd street; 1 Seat has 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]; 4 Seat has 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. 1 Seat is the Emily Latella of all wannabe table captains, and is badgering the dealer about some idiotic notion when the dealer says, "Three brings it in."

As 4 Seat looks at his hole cards, in rapid succession the 1 Seat throws out $30, the 2 seat throws out four quarters; 3 Seat folds; and the 4 Seat throws out a $100 chip.

Dealer says, "$100 to go."

4 Seat says, "Hey, I brought it in for $30!"

What's the action?

[Rush17]

I take it that "Emily Latella" was actually the 2 seat (you wrote it with 2 people being in the 1 seat), but if I'm reading it as the way that I think you meant it, You're saying that the 3D thought that he was the bring in...seat 4 (who actually WAS the bring in with the 3C never acted), and then, out of turn, EL raised it to $100, correct?


The correct action (at least where I play, that is) would be as follows: because the chip rule is in effect, then the 100 chip that the bring in throws out there is just a 30 bring-in bet. It doesn't matter if EL wanted to raise it to 100 (and his raise is valid because he didn't just throw out an oversize chip, he threw out 4 quarters, so yes, his raise stands whether he acted out of turn or not.) And. it's not the fault of the bring-in that everyone acted out of turn, and, the bring-in in seat 4 is not entitled to call the 100 raise because all he did was throw the oversize chip out there, so yes, he is facing a raise, but he is definitely entitled to get his $70 change back if he choses to. Anything other than that ruling would not be honoring the oversize chip rule.

Good dealer you got there, btw, way to be on top of things.

[Phat Mack]

1 Seat (Emily) incorrectly brings it in for $30. 2 Seat raises to $100. 3 Seat folds. 4 Seat throws out a $100 chip thinking that he is bringing it in for $30.

(Dealer wasn't that bad, just made the mistake of listening to an idiot (and of not specifying the suit of the bing-in).)

[Rush17]

Well, the rule should still be the same.

When you throw out an oversize chip *without* declaring that you want to raise (whether you shout out, "complete", which is something you might say as the bring-in, or "raise"), then it's the minimum bet. And, in this case, the it would be the minimum, bring-in bet of $30, which was thrown out by the bring-in. And, even though this bet was made out of turn, the player who threw out 4 quarter chips still gets that bet to stand as a raise. The dealer just has to retrack the action (if he wants to do it "by the book") and now the bring-in has the choice of calling the raise that he faces, or surrendering his $30 force bet, and collect $70 in return from the pot.

[Phat Mack]

It was ruled that there had been a bet and action, so Seat 1's bring-in stood, Seat 2's raise stood, Seat 3's fold stood and Seat 4's dollar chip was a $100 call.

[RustyBrooks]

That's pretty messed up.

[Andy B]

Questions of this sort are frequently asked in the B&M section. I can move the thread there if you like.

The last time this happened in a game I was in, I was the false bring-in, and the floor ruled that all action stood. The floor came back several minutes later and said that that was the worst ruling he had ever made. "I don't know about that," says I. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I got my two bucks back.

I'll guess that the exact ruling varies from room to room. At Canterbury Park, action out of turn is not binding. I know that in most places it may be considered binding. I would prefer to see the action backed up so that the right guy brings it in. Whether the completer is bound by that action would be according to the rules of that room. I really don't think that the 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] should have to call for $100. All that said, I don't have a problem with the ruling. It's the 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]'s responsibility to protect his action. He should notice that three people have already acted on their hands.

This is one reason why the dealer should always announce the suit of the bring-in, even if only one Deuce is showing.

[Phat Mack]

It's the 3's responsibility to protect his action. He should notice that three people have already acted on their hands.

Yeah, he should have noticed, but the whole thing went down in about 3-4 seconds while he was looking at his cards.

I thought about posting this in B&M, but I doubted if many there play stud. I thought the stud players might find it interesting. I had never seen this particular ruling made, but the 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] didn't say a word, so I guess it had happened before.

[DeathDonkey]

Where was the game? If at commerce I would be willing to bet not a single floorman will have a clue what the right ruling is [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

We spread 20/40 stud/8 there once and I taught several floormen the mechanics of the game.

-DeathDonkey

[AlanBostick]

I would rule that that seat two's completion and seat three's folde constituted substantial action, and that trumps the error of the bring-in.