all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding

[The Hitman]

Hi everyone,

I have a tricky one for you, and I had to go out of the grid to rule it (still not sure I did the right thing, but looked obvious to me).
Here is the situation:
Blinds 1200/2400, everybody folds to the SB who announces "call" in order to call the 2400, but (quite important) doesn't put the chips straight away, action is now on the big bling who moves all-in, action repeated by the dealer. The dealer is coming back to SB and sees the players is putting chips (the chips he didn't put previously to call the BB) and announces "call, showdown please!", BB opens his cards as requested and everybody realises that SB actually didn't act....
What would you do in that case?

Thanks for the feed back gentlemen!

[MikeB]

Hey Hit:

Thanks for the great case. IMO it's pretty clear per 2017 TDA Rule 40:

A: Bets are by verbal declaration and/or pushing out chips. If a player does both, whichever is first defines the bet. If simultaneous, a clear and reasonable verbal declaration takes precedence, otherwise the chips play.

... the BB is all-in and the SB has called. As the SB correctly requests per TDA Rule 16: turn all hole cards up for the showdown then run out the board.

Would have liked to see an All-In button used here but otherwise looks clear-cut.

[BillM16]

Hi everyone,

I have a tricky one for you, and I had to go out of the grid to rule it (still not sure I did the right thing, but looked obvious to me).
Here is the situation:
Blinds 1200/2400, everybody folds to the SB who announces "call" in order to call the 2400, but (quite important) doesn't put the chips straight away, action is now on the big bling who moves all-in, action repeated by the dealer. The dealer is coming back to SB and sees the players is putting chips (the chips he didn't put previously to call the BB) and announces "call, showdown please!", BB opens his cards as requested and everybody realises that SB actually didn't act....
What would you do in that case?

Thanks for the feed back gentlemen!

I see this a bit differently ... depending on some clarification.

1) The SB verbally announced call while facing the BB bet of 2400.  But did not put chips into the pot.
2) The BB announced All-In.
3) The dealer repeated the All-In bet.
4) The SB puts in the chips necessary to complete the call of 2400.  He says nothing at that time.
5) The dealer mistakenly announced "call, showdown please."
6) The BB reveals his hand.
7) The SB and everybody else realizes that the All-In wasn't called.

As worded, it sounds to me like SB did not call the All-In raise.  He merely completed his prior call.  The SB has rightful obligation to complete the initial call by putting in the necessary 2400 in chips.  The dealer made a mistake and should have clarified the action. Unfortunately, the dealer and the BB acted to quickly and failed to realize that the SB did not act on the raise.  I'd rule that the SB can either call or fold. 

Regards,
B~

[Dave Miller]

Dealers sometimes make mistakes.

It is the BB’s responsibility to not act until the SB finished his action of putting in chips. When the BB jumped the gun, the BB must suffer the consequences of following the direction of a dealer who made a mistake when trying to follow the action.

Also, Rule 65:
“Players must protect their hands at all times...”

[MikeB]

4) The SB puts in the chips necessary to complete the call of 2400.  He says nothing at that time.
5) The dealer mistakenly announced "call, showdown please."

Ahhh... that sounds right, I thought the SB had said "call, showdown please" but re-reading the post looks like the dealer said it. In that case the SB has made no action towards calling the all-in.

AND, if that's the case then the first decision for me is Rule 1 on whether to hold the BB to an all-in bet as he exposed his cards in good faith following the dealer's order. The BB has some culpability under responsibility to follow the action but IMO the dealer declaration far eclipses the BB's responsibility and I'd tend to favor giving the BB the option to retract the all-in or go ahead and make the bet with his cards exposed.

There's no direct TDA Rule addressing this but it vaguely falls into the Koroknai vs. Baumann category where the bulk of the error is caused by the house and a Rule 1 approach is needed. Thanks again for presenting the case!

[Nick C]

I replied before reading Mike's corrected answer. I agree with Mike and I'm happy to see that the dealer is going to assume some responsibility for this.

Mike, do you think that Accepted Action could be applied here? I don't care for that rule at all for the very reason you mentioned about being misled by the dealer. Just curious, that's all.

Bill, I agree with your answer, too!

[The Hitman]

Thanks a lot for your feedback,

Although I'm aware of all those precisions and I took them in consideration for my decision, I have to say that I didn't go to the strict rule for a couple of reasons:
- SB is seat 9 and BB is seat 1 (sorry I should have mentionned that earlier)
- SB is creating the situation by not putting the chips at the moment he declares call
- Dealer enforces the mistake by not waiting the SB to finalise his call
- BB doesn't make any mistake here: he goes all-in, is given the information that he's called and is asked to showdown. Of course he didn't double check, which is his only "mistake".
- SB is given a huge advantage here for his decision whether to call or not...

My decision is off the grid as I said: I chose to give back the all-in bet to BB and play face up, in order to let them decide what to do from the flop.
Not sure it's the best decision ever, but it appeared to me to be the fairest one at the moment.

Don't hesitate to give your opinion!

[BillM16]

4) The SB puts in the chips necessary to complete the call of 2400.  He says nothing at that time.
5) The dealer mistakenly announced "call, showdown please."

Ahhh... that sounds right, I thought the SB had said "call, showdown please" but re-reading the post looks like the dealer said it. In that case the SB has made no action towards calling the all-in.

AND, if that's the case then the first decision for me is Rule 1 on whether to hold the BB to an all-in bet as he exposed his cards in good faith following the dealer's order. The BB has some culpability under responsibility to follow the action but IMO the dealer declaration far eclipses the BB's responsibility and I'd tend to favor giving the BB the option to retract the all-in or go ahead and make the bet with his cards exposed.

There's no direct TDA Rule addressing this but it vaguely falls into the Koroknai vs. Baumann category where the bulk of the error is caused by the house and a Rule 1 approach is needed. Thanks again for presenting the case!

This is vaguely similar to Koroknai vs. Baumann.  However, as you note, in this case, the error seems largely due to the dealer's mistake.  However, the BB did raise all-in without any adverse influence.  And, without the dealer's mistake, the SB would be faced with a decision to either call or fold. 

IMO, following the mistake, I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.  Then, action would either continue on the flop or we'd go to showdown.

[Dave Miller]

... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.

If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

[BillM16]

... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.

If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

I disagree Dave.  Here is my reasoning.  I'm assuming that the following is true.

When the dealer made the mistake by saying "Call, showdown please" neither the SB or the BB had done anything wrong.  Then, the BB followed the dealer's direction and revealed his hand.  At that time, the SB and others pointed out that the SB had not yet acted on the all-in raise.

Assuming this to be true, here is my reasoning.

The SB is facing an all-in raise and it is their turn to act.  My ruling would require the SB to declare either fold or call at this point.  If the SB folds, the BB wins this hand and we proceed to the next hand.  Only if the SB decides to call the all-in bet would I consider invoking Rule #1 (fairness) to offer the BB an option to keep the bet as all-in or reduce it to a min-raise.  If the BB keeps it as all-in we proceed to showdown.  If the BB reduces it to a min-raise then we deal the flop and the SB acts first.

It makes no sense to offer the BB an option if the SB wants to fold to the all-in bet.  If the SB is defending their right to act on the BB all-in bet, it is most likely to fold.  On the other hand, now that BB hand has been exposed, the SB might be quite willing to make a call if they also know that the bet is being reduced to a min-raise.  In other words, the ruling would be an attempt to minimize the adverse impact on the BB due to the dealer's error.  Offering the option to the BB before the SB has made the call does not accomplish that objective.  IMO, that offer would be the second house mistake in this hand.

Of course, there is no perfect solution to the problem as the hand has been exposed due to the dealers error.  The SB will certainly call if they have a better hand and might bluff with the second best hand.  But, given the OP, I expect the SB is planning to fold.

[Dave Miller]

I disagree.

In my opinion, the BB failed to protect his hand when he exposed it. True, he exposed it because of dealers instructions, but he should have waited for the SB to put his chips in. TWICE! Once when he went all in before the SB finished making the initial action, and then again when he exposed the cards before the SB made his indication to call by putting chips it.


But I also see your point regarding the unusual ruling invoking Ruke 1.

However, I would hope that if you give the BB that option to reduce his bet to a min raise, you then give the SB the option of a reraise.

[MikeB]

... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.

If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

All of this is Rule 1, but I agree with the above because why ask the SB if he calls a bet that you might revoke? Further, asking the SB first gives the BB ALOT of information he's not entitled to. If the dealer gives me the option to retract the bet after I know the SB wants to call then on average I'll want to have a stronger hand than if I'm unsure of the SB's action.

As to Nick's question about Accepted Action, IMO it doesn't apply here as nobody has called, there's just been premature exposure. Accepted Action applies to the amount of a bet not whether a bet and call has occured.

As to the other point about giving the SB the right to re-raise, it's an interesting question as to whether you first allow the BB to retract and just check his option with his cards exposed. In that case there is no re-raise possibility for the SB. If you force a min-raise on the BB then absolutely I'd give the SB the re-raise option. Again, all Rule 1 so there's no 100% perfect solution but I personally tend to favor allowing the BB to either check or all-in, but not make any wager in between.

Very interesting discussion, worth considering for the 2019 Summit.

[BillM16]

My decision is off the grid as I said: I chose to give back the all-in bet to BB and play face up, in order to let them decide what to do from the flop.

That is a creative solution.  So then, the players were allowed to bet after the flop?  Other options would be to simply chop the pot and proceed to the next hand.  Or, run out the board, face-up, without further betting. 

[The Hitman]

That is a creative solution.  So then, the players were allowed to bet after the flop?  Other options would be to simply chop the pot and proceed to the next hand.  Or, run out the board, face-up, without further betting.

Basically yes. My thinking was to minimize the dealer's mistake and the impact he could have had on the tournament's life of both players. So I consider a call from the SB and a "mandatory face-up check" from the BB, and then give them back all options on the flop.

Once again, thank you for your comments!

[Nick C]

The Hitman,

 It is an interesting discussion. I like your call. To minimize the financial damage because of the dealer contributing to the unfortunate situation.