Author Topic: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)  (Read 21178 times)

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« on: October 27, 2010, 08:07:39 AM »
Ok, so a player is three handed at the final table in the small blind.  For whatever reason the Dealer had to indicate that it was his action..the player look to his right to the button player and doesn't see any chips in the pot in front of him.  He then looks over at the big blind player and SAYS "I'll call" and was at the same time grabbing chips and brought out just enough to match the big blind (3000/6000 at the time I think) and snaps those chips on top of his standing small blind.

At this time the dealer tells him the button player was all in and of course the button player is saying that he was all in. (Yes, the dealer claims to have announced the raise when it happened).  The big blind saw the problem and did not take any action.

So the obvious question is: Does the small blind have to call off all his chips? (he was covered)  Is it a "gross misunderstanding of the action" (RROP sec14 #12)?

This prompts a follow up question regarding RROP rule #9 (TDA rule #20) regarding verbal bets.  Does it just refer to the fact that if a player says I bet $3500 he can't physically put out just 3000 or 4000 and expect the difference to stand?

Looking forward to all comments and I will tell you what our little committee of home TD's decided at the time.  Just know that we have been arguing over these rules for two weeks now! 

Thanks for the input!!

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2010, 08:24:25 AM »
If the dealer confirms that the raise was announced then it's a call.
Best,
Max

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2010, 09:13:30 AM »
hi there it is indeed a gross misunderstanding as to the amount of the wager,  TDA rules at present allow the player in the SB to 'retract and re-consider' his call.

My house rules and WSOP rules would make the call (6,000) remain in the pot as penalty for failing to keep abreast with the action.

Providing you are satisfied the SB did not realise the pot had been raised there is no requirement to force the player to call the all-in, if you believe from events that have occured that the SB is fully aware that the button is all-in I would hold him to a call, but that's an exception rather as a rule, most of the time I'd make him leave his 3,000 extra in and he can either complete or fold, or if soley by TDA standards he can take his 3k back and complete or fold.

Regards
Stuart

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2010, 10:24:30 AM »
Hi Stuart,
This happened to me at the TDA tournament during the last summit when I called what I thought was the big blind not realising a raise had been made at the far end of the table. I called the top floor man in the WSOP (we were playing in the same room). He ruled that because the dealer confirmed he had announced raise, the bet stood no mattter how much I insisted I did not see or hear the raise.
I cannot see from Jaspertoo's explanation why this is a gross misunderstanding. IMHO, the player (and indeed I) should have been keeping up with the action.
Best,
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 11:37:35 AM by MaxH »
Max

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2010, 10:45:11 AM »
LOL!
Isn't it ironic that this should happen with a table full of TDs!
Best,
Max

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2010, 10:57:23 AM »
Yes it is ironic, but did the decision generate as much discussion as I am apparently having over it?

How do you answer the second part of my question regarding RROP rule #9 and "verbal statements in turn"  -  is that just about saying one thing and trying to put out a different amount of chips?

One of our guys is trying to reason that rule 9 differentiates from rule #13(RROP B&R section) and subsequently sec14R12 in this way: Rule 9 speaks of a verbal declaration in turn is binding.  Period end of subject.  Rule 13 speaks of physically putting in chips, no mention of verbal action, and that rule 13 is the one with the exception to reconsider action.  His argument right now is that the two rules are speaking of separate things and are exclusive of one another.  what do you think?

I argue that rule 9 simply covers the fact that if you say something your physical action has to match it.  It seems to me that there is really no difference in putting in chips physically that don't match the raise vs saying call when you don't understand the action in front of you.

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2010, 11:36:41 AM »
No. No discussion at all! In fact I was not going to question the dealer's decision because, as far as I was concerned, if you say something you are committed. The dealer sort of pre-emptied me and called the floor to explain the situation.
Once The Floor confirmed the dealer had said 'raise' that was it!
Best,
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 11:38:54 AM by MaxH »
Max

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2010, 11:54:11 AM »
so you are agreeing with my friends view that rule 9 has nothing to do with rule 13?

How about you  Stuart? Any comments on how those two are related?

Anybody else have an opinion?

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2010, 12:17:48 PM »
Here's a similar situation from a World Poker Tour main event that happened less than one year ago:
Quote
John Juanda moved all in from the button, but failed to move any chips forward, opting instead to verbalize his action. The dealer then repeated the all-in bet and awaited Chad Batista’s decision. Batista, wearing headphones and a hoodie, and seeing eyes on him, asked the dealer if the action was on him. The dealer confirmed that it was and the young online pro announced that he was all-in, seemingly putting the pressure on the shorter stacked Scotty Nguyen in the big blind.

At this point, Nguyen, recognizing Batista’s mistake, began laughing at him. Batista became visibly upset after realizing his error and he and Nguyen traded words as the floor was called over. Nguyen continued to laugh as the tournament director ruled that verbal declarations are binding and then moved all in himself, quickly turning over pocket aces.

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2010, 12:56:38 PM »
Haven't got the rules with me (I am on the road) but as DCJ001's link shows: verbal declarations are binding.
I think that the issue here is the interpretation as to what is a gross misunderstanding; granted a misunderstanding seemed to have occurred but that doesn't make it a 'gross' misunderstanding to me.
If you say that verbal declarations (in turn) are binding it takes all the doubt out of these situations. Players learn they had better pay attention or their chips are at risk and it takes a few possible sharp angles out of the game.
Best,

« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 12:59:38 PM by MaxH »
Max

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2010, 02:50:12 PM »
the thing with the situation at the WPT is that Scotty acted after the all-in from Batista thus sealing the action..a quote from pokernews.com article on that call...."John Juanda moved all in from the button, however it was only a verbal declaration and Juanda did not push any chips to the center. Chad Batista, wearing headphones apparently did not hear Juanda and moved all in himself thinking he was first in the pot. This sent Scotty Nguyen into a bout of laughter as he quickly pushed his chips in the center essentially binding the action.  "" poker news.com.  however, apparently the TD made the call because the all in was verbalized and the dealer repeated it.  Interestingly, there was supposedly an eye/ear witness that reported that if Batista had not been wearing the headphones the call would have gone the other way (presumably because even with the verbalization and the repeat he theoretically could have not heard it but since he was distracting himself with the headphones it was his fault for certain).

So if you act and cause action behind you (in this case both situations only had one other player to act so I would say that is SIGNIFICANT action in these cases) then your stuck even if you didn't hear the action.  In the home game situation the BB didn't act so didn't "seal" the action.

Since you don't have the rules with you I suppose it's hard right now to comment, but.... what's the difference, exactly from Verbalizing a bet and physically putting chips in the pot??  What you are saying so far is that verbal bets are binding, end of subject.  But rule #13 (RROP) gives a player an out if there is a misunderstanding as to the action in front of him.  The difference in rule #13 is that the player PHYSICALLY places chips in the pot in that rule and doesn't verbalize his intentions.  Why should a player be forced to make the call if he verbalizes (with misunderstanding) but be able to pull actual chips back and reconsider???

Thanks MaxH for the comments and when you get a chance to review the rules tell me what you think.

Anybody else have thoughts as well??

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2010, 03:48:19 PM »
Hi all,

For completeness I have copied the rules in question below.  With regard to announcing call and placing the 3,000 into the pot, I would deem that the SB has made a misunderstanding asto the amount of the wager - this being a Gross misunderstanding as the pot has been raised.  A simple misunderstanding would be calling 400 from outwith the blind seats, not realising the blinds have increased to 300/600 between hands,that is where I stand on the difference between a misunderstanding and a gross misunderstanding.

I do see the argument that 9 and 13 of RROP contradict each other slightly, but I think you have to take these rules on face value, rules are never going to be perfect and that's why we exist.  IMO rule 29 tda / 9 RROP are designed for where a player announces for example 800 but puts in 700 in error.

I think though however it comes down to how 'soft' a TD you wish to be most will overlook the "call" from the SB, some stricter TD's may wish to commit the SB to calling the all-in, indeed some circuits will also look to do the same, but IMO that's just not in the spirit of the game.

Regards
Stu

TDA RULE
29.   Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn
Verbal declarations in turn are binding.  Players are required to act in turn.  Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed.  A check, call or fold is not considered action changing.

RROP RULES
13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule 8.

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


MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2010, 04:05:51 PM »
what's the difference, exactly from Verbalizing a bet and physically putting chips in the pot??
There is no difference, both are valid methods of betting or raising (See TDA Rule 30). You ask previously if "the action has to match the verbal". My answer is that whatever happens FIRST is the governing action. i.e. I say 1200 and put out 1000, my bet is 1200 because I said 1200 before pushing 1000. If I put out 1000 then say 1200, my bet is 1000 because that's what I put into the pot in one motion, the verbal following it doesn't apply. If they happen simultaneously then by convention the verbal has priority and is the bet (RROP Sec 14, Rule eight).
But rule #13 (RROP) gives a player an out if there is a misunderstanding as to the action in front of him.  
What B&R rule 13 really does is refer to Section 14 (see last line of the rule) and Section 14 gives the TD a basis for considering it gross misunderstanding. In Section 14 it's not an automatic "out" for the player. Essentially, the player is at the mercy of the TD in these situations. As you can see from this thread there's a fairly wide range of opinion about how to handle it in general, let alone how to respond to each specific situation. Note that Betting & Raising Rule 13 appears to GUARANTEE the right of the bettor to reconsider a gross misunderstanding, BUT that rule links to Section 14, Rule 8 when it (I think) should link to Section 14, Rule 12. It says "if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule 8..." and clearly it should link instead to Section 14, Rule 12 which is the gross misunderstanding rule. (gross misunderstanding isn't even mentioned in Rule eight). This is important because by making that link, RROP, IMO says that Section 14 clarifies the B&R Rule 13, and in Section 14, Rule 12 the right to reconsider is NOT GUARANTEED, but specifically resides with the TD "who has considerable discretion" per Rule 12.  This is all a bit confusing with these linked-up rules but the bottom line is functional: a) player makes a mistake; b) player is at the mercy of the court; c) it's players fault if he doesn't get the ruling he wants "it's players responsibility to make his intentions clear" (TDA Rule 30). d) TD has considerable discretion. That's about the most functional package of options for the TD to have in making a ruling, IMO.  Thanks for the question, perhaps this is a topic for TDA Summit review?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 09:24:47 PM by MikeB »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2010, 11:18:44 PM »
Thanks for those last opinions Stuart and Mike.  Mostly because they seem to support my position  ;D but also because they were pretty well reasoned interpretations. 

I believe rule 9 indeed simply gives a verbal bet in turn precedence over a physical action but is not exclusive of a bet described in rule 13.

The explanations offered in the rules under sec14rule12 also clearly combine Verbal action with physical action and are allowing for the gross misunderstanding.

I think it is fairly clear that the SB in this situation should NOT have to CALL, though I think having leave the extra chips in wouldn't be a "BAD" decision, if not technically strict with TDA.

Now to see if my co-director in our little league will see it the same way!!!

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Gross Misunderstanding - rule 20 (RROP B&R #9, Sec14 #12)
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2010, 01:47:31 AM »
Hi again Stuart,
In my book the difference between a misunderstanding and a gross misunderstanding is not the amount of chips at risk - as in your example - but the situation itself which gave rise to the misunderstanding.
If, for example, Player A says: 'All-in. It will cost you another 3,000' and Player B responds with 'Call' only to find out that it will really cost more than 3,000 to call the bet it seems to me that this is a gross misunderstanding. It may be different if self-dealing is happening but the situation as described is, at best, a simple misunderstanding. The player claims he didn't see the raise; the dealer confirms he called it.
If, however, the dealer doesn't confirm he announced the raise we now have a player claiming he didn't know and a dealer not doing what he should - this seems to fit 'gross'.

Hi JasperToo,
Whether you push chips in or verbalise your action you can get a read off a player and it seems (to me) a dangerous road to follow to allow a player to retract a bet.
About a month ago a lady went all-in (verbal) with a hand gesture to indicate her chips going in. I insta called (verbal) and in that fraction of a second she smiled and I knew she had me beat! This would have been a perfect situation for a player to claim they didn't know a raise or all-in bet had been made.

As MikeB says, TDs have considerable discretion if they believe that the player is genuine but whilst ruling that verbal declarations in turn are binding is sometimes a little harsh everyone knows where they stand and it takes a lot of the subsequent debate out :-)
Best,


Max