Author Topic: 2015 Rules 1.0 - #39 Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn  (Read 5364 times)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
My opinion here may not fully recognize TDA history ... so, please accept my apology in advance.  I have only the best intentions.

#39A: This section offers nothing new that isn't already covered in other rules - especially when speaking of bets and raises and partial bets and raises.

#39B: Appropriately addresses the call and partial call aspects.  IMO: Introducing a new poker term "undercall" is unnecessary.  I respectfully suggest the alternative title and content wording for your consideration.

39: Calling the Correct Amount

In hands involving multiway action, when one or more raises have occurred, players may erroneously attempt to call the lesser amount of a posted blind, an initial bet, or an earlier raise without realizing that they are facing a raise of a greater amount.  In these cases, the TD may use their discretion to require the player to either call the greater amount or to allow them to fold while forfeiting the lessor amount.

In hands involving heads-up action, and in all cases when calling an initial bet, the call is required to be the full amount of the bet or raise.



 
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 09:39:32 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 Rules 1.0 - #39 Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2015, 09:35:55 PM »
My opinion here may not fully recognize TDA history ... so, please accept my apology in advance.  I have only the best intentions.
This is all great discussion, and very welcome.

#39A: This section offers nothing new that isn't already covered in other rules - especially when speaking of bets and raises and partial bets and raises.

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. 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.

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.

#39B: Appropriately addresses the call and partial call aspects.  IMO: Introducing a new poker term "undercall" is unnecessary.  I respectfully suggest the alternative title and content wording for your consideration.

39: Calling the Correct Amount

In hands involving multiway action, when one or more raises have occurred, players may erroneously attempt to call the lessor amount of a posted blind, an initial bet, or an earlier raise without realizing that they are facing a raise of a greater amount.  In these cases, the TD may use their discretion to require the player to either call the greater amount or to allow them to fold while forfeiting the lessor amount.

In hands involving heads-up action, and in all cases when calling an initial bet, the call is required to be the full amount of the bet or raise.

"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.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2015, 09:43:06 PM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: 2015 Rules 1.0 - #39 Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2015, 10:14:22 AM »

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.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 Rules 1.0 - #39 Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2015, 12:58:55 PM »

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.

And... chips verbally committed to the pot in turn stay in the pot.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: 2015 Rules 1.0 - #39 Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2015, 02:19:15 PM »
If player A bets 100 and player B makes it 500:

  • What happens if player C says "raise 200", while not realizing he was facing a raise?  This is an example of a fully-qualified verbal raise that was an underbet that is 50% of the raise.
  • What if he says "raise 100?" This would be a fully-qualified verbal raise of less than 50% of the raise.
  • How about "call 100?" A fully-qualified undercall, clearly indicating that he was unaware of the raise.

Mike, please bear with me.  I would like to build a decision matrix that represents the multi-criteria analysis that a TD might consider.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 06:11:30 PM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 Rules 1.0 - #39 Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2015, 11:20:40 PM »
If player A bets 100 and player B makes it 500:

  • What happens if player C says "raise 200", while not realizing he was facing a raise?  This is an example of a fully-qualified verbal raise that was an underbet that is 50% of the raise.
 Very non-standard. To me he said "raise" and then a junk amount "200". I'd hold him to a min-raise of 900 total.  Note that he FIRST makes a general action declaration "raise", and that per 2015 rules obligates him to full current action.

  • What if he says "raise 100?" This would be a fully-qualified verbal raise of less than 50% of the raise.
 He still said "raise" first. It's TDs discretion, but in the interest of enforcing betting discipline I'd make same ruling... 900 total bet.

  • How about "call 100?" A fully-qualified undercall, clearly indicating that he was unaware of the raise.
 This is a bit more discretionary. But again the forst word uttered is "call". He's facing a 500 bet. I'd hold him to calling 500. If he had just silently tossed out the 100 (or simultaneously tossed it out) then maybe I let him leave it in and fold. Others may be more lenient, some stricter.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 11:21:57 PM by MikeB »