I've been playing long enough that I don't have a lot of rules questions anymore, but they do still come up. I'm not at all sure that it would/should change the rule, but in both the situations below, no player was suspected of angle shooting.
Situation A: What constitutes a change in the action:
Player one (short stack) pushes. Player 3 calls out of turn. Player 2 (between Players 1 and 3) calls. Another player and I disagreed on the ruling. We both agreed that the out-of-order verbal call was binding unless there was a "change in the action". He said the call constituted a change, I disagreed. Google searches produced mixed results, suggesting that ultimately, it may be a local decision. After consideration, I am tempted to say that for a friendly cash game, I would tend to be lenient and rule that the call does constitute a change and that the verbal call is not binding. In a tournament, I might tend to rule differently. Opinions?
Situation B: Dealer error helps the dealer:
Playing Shuck - a 5 card stud variant with a discard after 5th street. If you discard and exposed or "up" card you get another up card. If you discard a down card, you get a down card. Dealer is dealing after the discard. He shucks a down card, and the other two players in the hand discard up cards. He accidentally deals his card up also, exposing a King. His hand is obviously going low, so the King is terrible for him. There is 100% agreement that he did it accidentally. If this had happened to another player, we would rule that the exposed card gets shuffled into the stub, and another down card is dealt. I ruled that even though the dealers mistake clearly benefitted him, the card should be treated exactly as if it had happened to a different player. Thoughts on this ruling?
L
Situation A: What constitutes a change in the action:
Player one (short stack) pushes. Player 3 calls out of turn. Player 2 (between Players 1 and 3) calls. Another player and I disagreed on the ruling. We both agreed that the out-of-order verbal call was binding unless there was a "change in the action". He said the call constituted a change, I disagreed. Google searches produced mixed results, suggesting that ultimately, it may be a local decision. After consideration, I am tempted to say that for a friendly cash game, I would tend to be lenient and rule that the call does constitute a change and that the verbal call is not binding. In a tournament, I might tend to rule differently. Opinions?
Situation B: Dealer error helps the dealer:
Playing Shuck - a 5 card stud variant with a discard after 5th street. If you discard and exposed or "up" card you get another up card. If you discard a down card, you get a down card. Dealer is dealing after the discard. He shucks a down card, and the other two players in the hand discard up cards. He accidentally deals his card up also, exposing a King. His hand is obviously going low, so the King is terrible for him. There is 100% agreement that he did it accidentally. If this had happened to another player, we would rule that the exposed card gets shuffled into the stub, and another down card is dealt. I ruled that even though the dealers mistake clearly benefitted him, the card should be treated exactly as if it had happened to a different player. Thoughts on this ruling?
L