This is all great discussion, and very welcome.
Thanks Mike. I enjoy participating.
Actually it makes a very important distinction from the 2011 and 2013 Rules. Starting 2011 the equivalent rules of 2015 38-A and 39-A read "verbal declarations in turn are binding" AND "chips put in the pot stay in the pot". In fact ALL bets in turn (both verbal and silent chips) are binding and both "commit chips to the pot that must stay in the pot". A subtle but very important clarification in 2015. BTW, this was pursuant to a suggestion on this forum.
So then, my understanding is:
All verbal and nonverbal betting actions made in turn are binding. Chips put in the pot in turn must stay in the pot.
Also 39-A now explicitly states that a general declaration such as "call" or "raise" commits a player to a full call or at least a full min-raise on top of the full current action. NLHE 1-2k. Player A opens post flop for 2k, Player B raises to 8k, Player C declares "call". C is bound to 8k, he can't then put out 2k and claim he didn't hear the raise.
I have a couple of comments here.
On several occasions, I have failed to fully appreciate the distinctions that the 2015 rules are making with declarations that are “general, a specific amount only, or both.”
As given in #37B: Verbal declarations may be:
- general (“call” or “raise”)
- amount only (“one-thousand”)
- both (“raise one-thousand”)
Perhaps, using different terms might help folks like me better understand these distinctions.
Verbal declarations can be:
- action only (“call” or “raise”)
- amount only (“one-thousand”)
- fully qualified (“raise one-thousand” or “call one-thousand”)
Then, 39A might become:
A: Action-only verbal declarations commit a player to the full amount of the current action.
This then sets up the contrast with an undercall where a Player C silently pushes out 2k or declares "2k". In these cases the TD may, at his discretion, allow C to leave the undercall in and fold, or require it be brought to a full call. Note this is not an automatic right that C has, but an option at TDs discretion.
So then, my understanding is:
At TD discretion, nonverbal and amount-only undercalls may be ruled or full call or may provide the player an option to fold while forfeiting the undercall amount.So overall, my understanding is:
- Action-only verbal declarations bind the player to the full amount.
- Amount-only undercalls may be made full or folded and forfeited.
- Nonverbal undercalls may be made full or folded and forfeited.
Leaving me with:
- Fully-qualified verbal declarations.
- Nonverbal actions that are not undercalls.
So, are fully-qualified verbal declarations of an amount less than the full amount of the current action to be treated like nonverbal undercalls?
I am assuming that nonverbal actions which are not undercalls are subject to the other rules pertaining to betting, raising, calling (e.g. 41 thru 47).
"Players may erroneously attempt to call the lesser amount"... that's defined in the rule as an undercall. The rest is similar. The term undercall (or underbet) has been used since at least 2013 and approved by Summit vote twice.
Agreed.