There will be no hand summaries in this post. This post is about a dealer/floor ruling. I wasn't in the hand but I did have a front row seat minus the popcorn.
Three players were in the hand. Seat 5 is in mid position and seat 9 is in the cut-off. Seat 6 checks and the dealer tells seat 9 that it is his turn to act. Seat 9 bets $25. Seat 5, who has been drinking, speaks up and says he hasn't acted. Apparently, he was debating how much to bet. The dealer and seat 6 thought he had checked. The dealer moves the action back to seat 5. Seat 5 says he was going to bet but now he will check knowing that seat 9 will bet. Seat 6 checks also.
Now, seat 9 wants to check but the dealer won't allow it. The dealer tells seat 9 that he has to put the $25 out since the action before him hadn't changed. Seat 9 protests by saying that the dealer had instructed him that it was his turn to act initially and that it wasn't his fault he bet out of turn.
The whole table starts chiming in. The floorman is called and the dealer and seat 9 go over the whole thing again. Other players put their two cents in just for the sake of it. The floorman radios a higher-up who arrives after few minutes. Once again, the whole story is retold to the manager.
Ruling: They told seat 9 that his $25 bet stands and that it is every player's responsibility to follow the action and make sure he/she doesn't act out of turn.
After that, it's time to finish the hand. Seat 9 bets $25 and then seat 5 raises to $75. Seat 6 folds. Seat 9 folds reluctantly and is steaming.
My take: I understand that this is the rule of this poker room and you have to play by the rules. But, to me, it's a dumb rule. The dealer is the policeman of the table. The rule should be: the dealer has to make sure he/she receives a clear signal from the acting player. In this case, the dealer should have asked seat 5 if he had checked before letting the action proceed.
What do you think?