POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for New TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre 2017 Summit

Player "calls" a check to him: how to handle?

(1/2) > >>

MikeB:
Interesting situation last week: I'm playing an Omaha 8OB / THE mixed game. I'm the SB, post-flop I check, the BB checks and the UTG to the left of the dealer says "call" then puts out 100. There was no bet to this guy, floor is called.

Your ruling:
1: binding bet of 100, because saying "call" indicates intent to bet (plus, perhaps he then put out 100)
2: binding check, because he "called a check"
3: no definitive action, because "calling a check" is undefined, therefore action remains on player to take a legit action

Would your ruling be different if the guy had not put out the 100, i.e. only said "call"?

There was a TDA e-mail discussion on this situation awhile back, and there might be a thread on the forum on it (can't find it)... anyway, I was surprised by the floors ruling, will withhold that so not to prejudice responses.

BillM16:
Hey Mike,

Some additional information.

RRoP definitions:

BET: (1) The act of making  a wager before anyone else on a betting round. (2)The chips used by a player to bet, call, or raise.
CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.
FOLD: To throw a hand away and relinquish all interest in a pot.
RAISE: To increase the amount of a previous wager. This increase must meet certain specifications, depending on the game, to reopen the betting and count toward a limit on the number of raises allowed.
CALL: Interestingly, the term "call" is not defined by RRoP.

Related forum threads:
Verbally declaring check-raise
What does the declaration "bet" mean when facing a bet or blind?
(Many more can be found using search terms "non-standard," "checks," and "non-standard checks.") 

IMO: Verbally declaring "call" when not facing a bet is non-standard.  Compare this situation to the same player declaring either "fold" or "raise."  The non-standard "fold" would certainly be binding.  The non-standard "raise" would be a full-chip bet (or perhaps a minimum bet at TD discretion).  Making a non-standard "call" here more closely resembles the non-standard "raise" as chips are put into the pot.  So, my ruling is a "bet" of $100.  My ruling disregards the non-standard verbal declaration and enforces the bet resulting from the player's action with his chips.  As to the second part of your question:  If the player only declares "call" but does not put chips in the pot, he should be given the option of either checking or betting.

For the 2017 TDA Summit, I would be in favor of further clarifications to Rule #52 Non-Standard and Unclear Betting.  Perhaps, changing it to Rule #52 Non-Standard Declarations and Actions.  Also, additions to the Illustration Addendum might be a good idea.

Regards,
B~

Nick C:
Always a problem when players are unclear with their intent. I'd allow a bet of 100. Without the UTG tossing in 100 and just saying call...I might just burn and turn assuming he followed the check in front of him.

 Dealers are not mind readers but a good dealer will freeze the unclear action and get some clarification from the confusing action of the UTG player. As long as other players do not react after...   The second time would warrant a different decision.

 Curious how the floor ruled.

Brian Vickers:
I'm going to rule it a check because the attempt was to make a passive action and I wouldn't want to allow him to turn a passive action attempt in turn (check or call) into an aggressive action (bet or raise).

GreggPath:
I would rule a bet of 100. The player does not have the option to call so saying "call" is a moot point. I would rule that throwing out the chip is the action. What if Player A bets and Player B says "check"? Obviously the dealer would not just continue on to Player C because "check" is not a valid option.

If Player A checks and Player B just says "call", I would ask for a clarification because, again, "call" is not an option.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page