Beware surrender in no-hole-card blackjack

So the other day I was playing blackjack at another casino in the Caribbean...in Belize, to be exact. The dealer did not take a hole card, which I, being American, am not really used to, but it's going OK so far. I get dealt a 16 against a dealer 10, and ask the dealer if I can surrender. She says yes and gives me half of my bet.

A few hands later I get a 15 against a 10. The players before me hit their hands, and then I ask to surrender mine. The dealer starts to give me half my bet...but the supervisor stops her. She tells me that if I want to surrender, I have to do it before the next card comes out of the shoe. On the first hand, the players before me both had 20, so it was OK. But since they hit their hands this time, I wasn't allowed and could only hit or stand.

This strikes me as completely ridiculous, for several reasons. For one, the order of the cards does not change regardless of when I decide to surrender. Furthermore, none of the dealers were giving any time between dealing the cards and asking the first player for their action, unless someone had a Blackjack--then they offer even money if they have a 10 showing. So from that point on I had to almost shout at the dealer to get his/her attention when I wanted to surrender, which felt silly and rude at the same time.

For those who are used to European-style blackjack...is this the commonly accepted rule? I sure hope not.

That's completely wrong. You should have spoken to a higher supervisor. Belize is an English-speaking country, right?

So, if you had been sitting at first base, it would have been okay for you to surrender, but because you weren't, and other cards came out before your action, you aren't allowed to? That makes absolutely no sense.

And why the heck would you take even money on a blackjack when the dealer has a ten up? What a horrible bet. They shouldn't even offer that.

By the way, the correct strategy is to surrender 14s against a ten as well. So you're going to be surrendering a lot.

We dont have a surrender rule here at all, at least I have never seen it used, and I have played a lot of blackjack

Verbal declarations are usually not allowed in BJ. So how are you supposed to use a hand signal to surrender if the dealer isn't looking at you?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Verbal declarations are usually not allowed in BJ. So how are you supposed to use a hand signal to surrender if the dealer isn't looking at you?

I think it's been discussed in this forum before. I think the general consensus was both hands in the air, or waving a white napkin. :-)

I have always just said "surrender please."

I am sure this is a pitboss who doesnt know the exact rule and panicked. Its a shame, as it makes him appear like a bit of a moron.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Verbal declarations are usually not allowed in BJ. So how are you supposed to use a hand signal to surrender if the dealer isn't looking at you?

They are not allowed because the eye in the sky can not see or tape a verbal declaration !

Quote: buzzpaff

They are not allowed because the eye in the sky can not see or tape a verbal declaration !

So are you saying that if you did the hand signal, but the dealer didn't see it, that it would be OK?

Some casinos in Macau have this same ridiculous rule, where if you want to surrender you have to do it before the first player acts on his hand. Mathematically, it makes no difference.

Quote: Wizard

Mathematically, it makes no difference.

Negligible removal effect if you see a 10 or A come out before you surrender. But not enough to change the decision whether to surrender or not, unless you're counting.

Quote: teddys

Negligible removal effect if you see a 10 or A come out before you surrender. But not enough to change the decision whether to surrender or not, unless you're counting.

This particular casino (the only one in Belize City, actually) cuts off at least 40% of the shoe, and burns six cards at the start instead of the usual one...so counting is hopeless, anyway. Well, I won't be going back there anytime soon, so there was no point in complaining...