Valid Call or Angle Shot?

[Tristan]

What would you rule??

From 2+2 at: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick-mortar/weird-floor-situation-live-250-tournament-1388820/


"Without hesitation, Player A immediately shoves for ~14k. Player B sighs and starts to give the same annoying speech he gives in every hand he's been involved in. He starts saying things like, "Of course that flop..." and "Do you really have a queen?". Note at this time he's not counting out chips for a call, it actually looked a bit like he was leaning towards folding.

After about 45 seconds or so, player B says, "I have to call", then pitches his cards face up showing AhKh, after which he says "Show me the queen".
He didn't move any chips in front of him during this time though, and with the way he exposed his cards my initial thought that he was making some absurd sort of fold showing his cards. The dealer thought so too, and said "fold" before grabbing B's exposed hand and pulling it into the muck.

Player A, the older Italian guy, shrugs and turns over A7o, and the dealer begins pushing the pot towards him. However, once player B saw A turn over a worse hand, he turned to the dealer and said "Wait, that was a call". B begins to completely flip out at the dealer and the dealer said "I thought you had folded, and I mucked your hand. You didn't put chips out".

A shouting match ensues between the Italian guy and the annoying kid with both of them calling each other liars and various people in the room taking sides. Floor is called and reviews the story, and rules that since B did not simply say "I call", or
"Call", or
"I'm going to call", it wasn't technically binding, along with the fact that he didn't move chips out, and simply turned his hand face up.

Player B throws a tantrum about how badly he was robbed, floor warns him and said he's lucky they didnt award the other guy the entire pot. I honestly don't know the rule here. Is saying "I have to call" and exposing your hand binding?"

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 I would blame the dealer and Player B for not making his intention clear. I don't understand how the dealer could think that Player B was folding? Another confusing statement:  "Player B throws a tantrum about how badly he was robbed, floor warns him and said he's lucky they didn't award the other guy the entire pot. I honestly don't know the rule here. Is saying "I have to call" and exposing your hand binding?"

Why would Player A be entitled to a side pot?

 One more reason to assume Player B called...why would he ask to see Player A's Queens? If he folded, he would have no right, or not have the privilege (which ever you prefer) to see the hand. Sounds like the story isn't quite the way it happened but, there's enough there for some good discussion.

[K-Lo]

I must be missing something.

If a player says "I have to call" and then exposes their hand, there is nothing in that sequence that would suggest to me that he intended to do anything other than call.  I really don't see how this would be interpreted as a fold.  But... if the dealer had any doubt, he should have clarified the bet rather than assuming and simply saying "fold" and then mucking the cards.

As described, I think I would have to give the pot to Player B since he had the winning hand.  A tabled hand cannot be killed.  If it turns out it was a losing hand, he would have lost his chips, so the decision is fair, even if the dealer took "folded" his cards (in error).  If B happened to lose his chips because A had the winning hand, I would have said "Sorry... don't say "call" if you don't mean to call.... and especially don't say "call" and table your hand if you don't mean to call." 

[MikeB]

What would you rule??

From 2+2 at: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick-mortar/weird-floor-situation-live-250-tournament-1388820/

After about 45 seconds or so, player B says, "I have to call", then pitches his cards face up showing AhKh, after which he says "Show me the queen".

 I honestly don't know the rule here. Is saying "I have to call" and exposing your hand binding?"

This is slightly non-standard but extremely clear IMO if the guy's statement was clear...

1. Player says "I have to call". For me, whenever a statement is made that eliminates all other possibilities of action but one, then the player is bound to make that one remaining action. You won't find a specific rule stating that, but the TDA does have "player's responsibility to make their intentions clear". Well, to me it's clear because there are no other possibilities with that statement.

2. Player turned the cards face up .... TDA Rule 13: "Dealers cannot kill a hand that was tabled and is obviously the winning hand".

This all said, the player is going to have to make his case that indeed he DID say "I have to call"... who heard him say that? It's not clear from the OP just how clear that statement was and who heard it. Again, it's his responsibility to make his intentions clear... merely tossing your cards forward and face up is not in itself a universally recognized intent to call, and in fact is an often-used angle.... nor is "show me a queen" a recognized intent to call.

[Nick C]

It seems as if we are "skirting around" the interpretation of a couple different rules. We all agree that Player B's statement would indicate a call but, we also agree that a winning hand properly exposed (face up on the table), can not be killed...so, what's the right thing to do?

 If Player A had not exposed his hand, the dealer would have pushed the pot to him. Remember, Player B's hand was already mucked. I guess there's enough blame to go around: Player B should have made his intentions more clear. If he really wanted to call; he should have immediately corrected the dealer when the dealer said he folded. Player A never should have reveled his hand...if he assumed he was not called and the winner, there is no need to show. The dealer, (wow)... how in the hell could he believe that Player B was folding???

 I know we're never supposed to kill a winning hand but, there are too many benefits that Player B can reap from his "unclear" action. There are angle shooters out there that don't need any more new ideas...If they have a loser, they folded...if they have the winner, the result is just what happened...chaos! I rule against Player B and award the pot to Player A just because he was the least guilty of the three!

[MikeB]

It seems as if we are "skirting around" the interpretation of a couple different rules. We all agree that Player B's statement would indicate a call but, we also agree that a winning hand properly exposed (face up on the table), can not be killed...so, what's the right thing to do?

To me the real question is whether the dealer (and any significant number of players at the table) heard the guy say "I have to call".  The player could have outsmarted himself by mumbling it between his hand analysis and saying "show me a queen".

What if he had definitely not said "i have to call", and had merely tossed the AK face up forward saying "show me a queen". How's the dealer to interpret that? Regardless of the interpretation, the player has no recourse because making himself clear is his responsibility. If the house interprets it as a forward hand toss (i.e. muck), it's dead, if the house interprets it as an action in need of clarification then the dealer/TD may ask if the guy is calling (and he's subject to penalty for premature card exposure after the hand).

But the OP says he did say "i have to call", the question then is who heard it... if the dealer didn't hear it, the guy is real vulnerable unless a significant number of players at the table, including across from him, heard it.

If it's just the next seat saying "I think that's what he said", the guy has no recourse IMO. He can take some solace that if the opponent did show him a queen, the dealer wouldn't make him pay it off

[Nick C]

Mike,

 I'm not disagreeing with you. It does make me think that action should trump verbal. I asked this question years ago, and never got an answer: Who said verbal is binding?
If you can't say what you mean...just do it!

 Look at the original post. Based on all of the negative feedback on Player B, I believe that he was the main reason the action was unclear and therefore I would have awarded the pot to Player A. I realize he (Player B) had the better hand but, I feel that his consistent bending of the rules needs to be addressed. Make your intentions clear. If you don't... you will suffer the consequences.

[MikeB]

Mike,

 I'm not disagreeing with you. It does make me think that action should trump verbal. I asked this question years ago, and never got an answer: Who said verbal is binding?

I think it's just a long-standing convention.....RRoP, section 3, betting & raising, para. 9:

"A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action."

I've always used a slight amendment to this:
A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing simultaneous physical action.

That is, IMO, if action comes first > action is binding, if verbal comes first > verbal is binding, if they happen reasonably simultaneously > verbal is binding.

As applied to this case, assuming the player's verbal was clear for all, his verbal declaration "I have to call" came first, and would bind him to a call regardless of what he does in terms of physical action or gestures afterwards.

[Nick C]

Mike,

 Thanks for your reply. I've always been aware of "Verbal is Binding"  Just wondering if anyone knew it's origin.

 I also like your addition of "simultaneous" to the current rule. However, based on the many instances of unclear verbal bets and raises, I was wondering if an amendment to "verbal is binding" could be helpful. Whenever a verbal declaration is made by the bettor, action must be clarified by a complete forward movement of the correct amount, or a confirmation from the dealer. Any calling player must wait until intended action is complete (this includes folding), or Accepted Action will apply. I don't believe I said that

[Tristan]

Seems to be pretty unanimous here.  That seems interesting to me because there is at least one poker supervisor in that thread that would rule the other way. 

The counter argument is that the dealer did attempt to clarify by saying fold, and then grabbing the cards and mucking them.  Player B did not protest at that point...in fact he did not protest at all until after he saw he had the winning hand.  Would he have protested the other way if he had a losing hand?  "I never said call, I was just thinking out loud!"

Suit says: "The dealer made a mistake in failing to clarify Player B's action. By the time the floor is called to the table everything is done. Player B did not stop the dealer from mucking his hand and didn't seem to care that it happened until he say Player A's hand. We can not let him decide to call at this point. This should be ruled a fold. Player B hopefully learned his lesson. Nice try at an angle if that's what it was. If it was not intentional, well then he's just an idiot."

[MikeB]

Tristan, very interesting...

1. The OP says the player said "I have to call"... we still aren't sure who heard that...

2. I disagree that the dealer "made a mistake" by not asking for clarification... the player made a mistake by not making his intentions clear in the first place (TDA Rules 2, 3, 40 and 49)!

IMO if the player silently tosses his cards face up towards the middle of the table, with no chips pushed forward he has absolutely no recourse if the house declares that a muck. He can't very well claim "Well I'm entitled to have the house ask me what I'm doing"

....The house MAY give the guy a courtesy inquiry and ask him what his intent is, but IMO only before the opponent's cards are turned face up... but this isn't guaranteed anywhere I'm aware of.

3. but again, #2 above assumes a silent toss of cards and no push of chips... we're told the guy says "I have to call" prior to that, binding himself if he reasonably announced it to the table, the $64 question.

4. Now we have further clarification that the guy did not object when his cards were scooped up... leading me further to believe that he barely mumbled "I have to call", and no consensus at the table heard him... otherwise we probably would have heard a chorus of players chiming in "he did call", and we don't have that.

Very interesting case, thanks for posting it. More than meets the eye at first read.

[Nick C]

Mike,

 Put yourself in the dealer's place. Obviously, the dealer assumed that Player B was folding so he could not have heard Player B say "I have to call." That's when Player B should have stopped the dealer from mucking his hand. You're right when you said the Player is responsible for making his intentions clear, which he did not. Therefore, IMO, he has no right to any part of the pot.

 Pot awarded to the "old Italian guy." Hopefully the "long winded," and "annoying" player will learn a lesson and play the way he should.

 One more issue that I have with Player B's unclear action...don't ever release your cards unless you are folding. If you're calling put some chips in the pot and then show your hand. I know it's difficult but, with about 30 seconds of practice...you should have the procedure figured out.

 In this particular scenario, the "can't kill a winning hand" rule is "trumped" by player stupidity.

[K-Lo]

The only problem is, there is nothing in the rules that says hat once a hand has been tabled, that he must further protect his hand by ensuring it is not folded before the pot is awarded, for example.   As long as we are ready to force him to call if he were to hold the losing hand, I am not so sure we should be awarding the pot to the worst hand.  Are we penalizing the player for  being an annoying chatterbox?  Excessive chatter?  Delay of game?  If so, award the pot, and then give him a penalty for that.  

Personally, I need a better excuse than just playing stupid.  If he wasn't such an annoying person, but was some subdued grandma, would we have ruled differently?  I can envision situations in where the caller called with "ace high" or some such thing,  but the dealer folds the hand because he thinks it is a sure loser.  In that short period of time after the hand is tabled, the caller may not even know what is going on until it is too late.  

Again, maybe I am missing here...prior history of trying the same angle?  Other things that were said other than "I have to call"?  Seriously... "I have to call" followed by an immediate flip of the cards seems like a clear call to me, all subsequent mistakes aside. We are just assuming that he would have played an angle if he had the losing hand -- not sure what evidence of that there is.  And I just don't see where the dealer gets "fold" from.

[Tristan]

To me, the tough part here is being fair is making the same ruling without the contents of the hand affecting it.

The way that it is described, at least 2 people who weren't involved in the hand, including the dealer, thought it was a fold.  Also, it appears that the Player A only exposed his hand because he also thought it was a fold.  So 1 of the 2 players in the hand, the dealer, and at least one other player thought it was a fold.  I think that if Player A had exposed a Q, that Player B would have gotten off without paying anything in this scenario.  Seems like a win-win scenario for Player B and I don't really like that...the player the caused the foul should be the one penalized by it.  But.... I also don't like awarding the pot to the losing hand.

Did not make intentions clear as multiple people (at least 3, including the dealer & only other player involved) thought it was a fold
Did not put chips in, nor at any time did he go back to his stack
Did not dispute when dealer mucked hand
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have to call" was the last thing the player said after muttering other things
Did table hand and was the best hand shown

Yep, I'm not happy with either side of this... I'm almost more in the camp of the original ruling as I feel that the original ruling will prevent that situation from ever occurring again...but I am not 100% because it could have been innocent.

I think I would have had to have been there to feel out the situation.

[MikeB]

If he said "I have to call", and a persuasive contingent at the table heard it, then it's a call... he can win, but must also pay off obviously.

If the dealer and opponent and whoever else heard it, but thought that "I have to call" and tossing cards forward face-up means fold, they are wrong...

... so we're back to the $64 question... who heard him say it?

If no persuasive contingent at the table heard him say it, then it's a fold, IMO (his duty to make himself clear), and we just can't let the guy see his opponents cards then argue that the inaudible mumble was "i have to call"

The fact he's annoying is really irrelevant...

BTW, to Tristan's point that the guy would get away with paying nothing if the opponent showed a Q... well he would have to pay it off if a persuasive contingent heard him say "I have to call"... but the fact it sounds like they didn't just raises more doubt that the guy clearly made that statement.

Where's Neil Johnson' suggestion for a video-replay when we really could use it!