Jumping the gun after a raise is announced

[K-Lo]

There are a few issues that I've been debating with my fellow TDs recently on this topic.  Perhaps we can share some of our thoughts on these scenarios:

1.  Player A announces "raise", and is contemplating what amount to raise to.  Meanwhile, subsequent player(s) begin to fold their hand without waiting for Player A to complete his action. 

2.  Player A announces "raise", and is contemplating what amount to raise to.  Meanwhile, subsequent player(s) announce "call".  Player A then announces his raise to X.

---

In my opinion, re #1, the subsequent folders have acted out of turn with action pending.  The dealer should prevent the actions out of turn from continuing until Player A completes his action.  The folds are binding, and a TD may exercise his discretion to assess a warning/penalty.  At the very least, folding "prematurely" is a breach of etiquette, as Player A may act differently (e.g. may change his raise size depending on the number of players left to act, or if he is next to the button, depending on whether the button is going to fold) were it not for the folds out of turn.

Re: #2, in my view the "call" is binding, from the minimum raise amount to all-in.  Although the call is technically an action out of turn, it is essentially a conditional statement that means "if you raise to any amount, I will call it".  In an older thread, it was suggested that once Player A announces the amount of the raise and it is more than a minimum raise, the action has changed and thus subsequent players may reconsider their action and choose to fold or even raise.  I don't think this is right.  The action has not changed (it is still a raise); it is just that the action was not fully completed, so the call ought to still be binding.  I would not even hesitate to let Player A know that the subsequent call will be binding.  The only time that I would allow the call to not be binding, is if it is clear that the caller reasonably misunderstood Player A's statement (e.g. I thought he said raise to a specific amount, X).

[mooredog]

I'm not so sure I'd rule this as a conditional statement. After player A says "Raise" and the next player says "Call" I am holding him to that call, period. Now if others behind him also said "Call" I only let them off the hook if player B reraises, otherwise they are going to be made to call also. If they are going to jump the gun on the amount they are going to pay. Anyone verbalizing a call that quickly most likely has a hand they'd call any raise with anyway. If not, it should be a good lesson to be a little more patient in waiting for the action to be complete.

[Stuart Murray]

I don't think I can agree with #2, It would all be down to the intent of the player IMO, if he thought he was calling the blind amount, then  I would likely allow him to either call the blind amount and fold or call the raise, but I would bind him to either of those options.  A lot of this comes down to how experienced the player is, if it's someone new who has just woken up with aces and he knows the other player was raising then, fair do's he has to call the raise instead, but if it's an experienced player who has announced call, not realising the pot is in due process of being raised then it would go the other way for me.

With regard to #1 players passing their starting hand or folding to an announcement of raise, these are out of turn actions, as the action of the player who announced raise has not yet been completed.

Regards
Stu

[K-Lo]

I don't think I can agree with #2, It would all be down to the intent of the player IMO, if he thought he was calling the blind amount, then  I would likely allow him to either call the blind amount and fold or call the raise, but I would bind him to either of those options.  A lot of this comes down to how experienced the player is, if it's someone new who has just woken up with aces and he knows the other player was raising then, fair do's he has to call the raise instead, but if it's an experienced player who has announced call, not realising the pot is in due process of being raised then it would go the other way for me.

Hi Stuart:
I agree with you that if the caller was under a misunderstanding (e.g. didn't know the pot was being raised), that would be an exception.  But for this particular fact situation, I am specifically talking about the situation where the subsequent player KNOWS that Player A has announced "raise" but has not yet verbalized the specific amount, and despite that, the next player says "call" intending to call the raise.  Basically, assume that if you had asked the next player "Player A hasn't indicated the amount of the raise yet" that he would reply "I don't care, I'm calling" -- In that particular situation, what would you rule?

I'm not so sure I'd rule this as a conditional statement. After player A says "Raise" and the next player says "Call" I am holding him to that call, period.

Assuming that the next player knew the pot was being raised, I agree with Mooredog. I am fine with not treating it as a conditional statement per se, but it is another way of looking at it.

[Stuart Murray]

Hi Stuart:
I agree with you that if the caller was under a misunderstanding (e.g. didn't know the pot was being raised), that would be an exception.  But for this particular fact situation, I am specifically talking about the situation where the subsequent player KNOWS that Player A has announced "raise" but has not yet verbalized the specific amount, and despite that, the next player says "call" intending to call the raise.  Basically, assume that if you had asked the next player "Player A hasn't indicated the amount of the raise yet" that he would reply "I don't care, I'm calling" -- In that particular situation, what would you rule?

In that situation, yes they have to call whatever bet is made by the player who has announced raise.

Regards
Stu

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
 It amazes me with three people responding that we can't agree. My response to #1: I see absolutely nothing wrong with players folding (in turn) once a raise is announced. They were probably going to fold even if the pot were not raised.  The amount is irrelevant..

 Response to #2: If the player is aware of the announced raise, that player is bound to that call at any amount.

That's how I see it.

[K-Lo]

My response to #1: I see absolutely nothing wrong with players folding (in turn) once a raise is announced. They were probably going to fold even if the pot were not raised.  The amount is irrelevant..

Nick, I have to say that your response is interesting, because we usually agree.  I am a bit surprised you don't see anything wrong with this.  I am thinking back to our separate discussion about players folding in turn when facing a check, where you had previously said:

Folding in turn without facing a bet is one of the worst things that any player can do. It violates all rules of poker etiquette. It offers no protection to other players. The only exception is when the action is head to head... A player drops out to let his "partner" know that he will not be in the action, or stand in his way.

I agreed with you 100% there, and would think that the principles here are exceptionally similar.  If the justification for folding once "raise" is announced is that it is OK "because they were going to fold anyways", then why would folding in turn when not facing a bet be any different?  The same reasons that you previously gave apply. 

The fact is that the raiser hasn't completed his turn yet, so the folder is actually acting out of turn; by folding prematurely, he allows the raiser to know that he will not be in the action and can size his bet accordingly.  For example, he may be inclined to risk less chips for his raise if he knows that he is guaranteed position for the next round (if everybody including the button folds early), but risk more if he thinks he needs to in order to obtain position.  Other players, who have an interest in seeing opponents eliminated, may want the player to risk more chips and thus increase his risk of elimination.  While the amount of the yet-to-be-announced raise amount may not be an issue for fixed limit games of course, it can be for no-limit games. 

[Nick C]

Sorry K-Lo,
 We usually do agree but not on this one. I see no comparison to a player folding in turn when facing a raise and folding if action is checked to that same player. The player that announced raise is commited to raise, period. Would you consider a different answer if the game were limit? I think you would...what is the difference? Knowing the amount? If so, why? Perhaps we should separate or clarify rules that are applied to no-limit that differ from limit.  A player folding in turn (IMO) violates no written rule that I know of, and I consider it to be acceptable.

 Going back to folding when action is checked to a player, now that's real bad (I'm trying to get away from the old ...highly unethical and not in the best interest...). I don't want to get into the whole scenario about not offering protection to other players, but if you want to discuss any of that further I won't mind.

 When someone raises in front of me, and I don't want to play, I fold all the time. I have to say that I have never heard of a player getting a penalty in that situation.

K-Lo, you say that the player that said "raise" has not completed his turn yet I think he has. That's where we don't agree.

[K-Lo]

I see no comparison to a player folding in turn when facing a raise and folding if action is checked to that same player. The player that announced raise is commited to raise, period. Would you consider a different answer if the game were limit? I think you would...what is the difference? Knowing the amount? If so, why?

Then we may have to disagree. But for what it is worth, I know a few TDs that would probably agree with you.  Hopefully though, you will keep a bit of an open mind, and let me try to persuade you otherwise.

Personally, I think this amounts to a breach of etiquette, and I treat it as such.  In a lot of cases, it is probably not a big deal so no warnings or penalties are warranted;  but in other cases, it can drastically alter the way the hand plays out.  It is notable that Robert's Rules states that as a matter of Poker Etiquette:  "Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot" are improper and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator.

What do you think about this NLH situation?

Player A is in the SB and is chip-leader.  Player B is in the BB and is short-stacked.  Player C is on the button and has a large stack, but is covered by A.  Post-flop, Player A bets and Player B calls.  Player C has made middle pair, and is contemplating a raise as a squeeze play.  Now...

a)  Player C announces "raise" and is contemplating how much to raise.  He is wary of Player A playing back at him, so he decides to raise a typical 3x the bet, intending to fold to a shove from chip leader A but call a shove from B.  A actually folds, and B closes the action by making the call, intending to see one more card with his straight draw.  B hits his card on the turn and ultimately, excitedly doubles-up through C.

b)  Player C announces "raise" and is contemplating how much to raise.  He is wary of Player A playing back at him, but thankfully, player A folds before the amount of the raise is decided.  Now, with Player A out of the way, Player C faces no risk of elimination and goes all-in to put maximum pressure on short-stacked player B.  B now folds his straight draw to the all-in bet, not having the odds to call and/or not wanting to risk elimination on a draw.

Comparing the two situations, I believe it is quite unfair for A to get out of the action prematurely here, by not waiting until C has announced his raise amount before folding.  A's presence in the pot alone provided some protection for B by tempering the degree to which B can be aggressive; however, A's premature fold has opened up the possibility for C to go all-in against B, an option that C likely would not have exercised had A, as chip-leader, not stepped out of the way. B is directly affected because he is now facing an all-in bet that he cannot call, even if he would have called a smaller amount that C might otherwise have raised to.  If I were B in the second scenario, I would definitely feel that A's failure to wait until the raise amount was decided upon before folding gave C a huge, unfair advantage.  

The difference between limit and no-limit is this:  In limit, once "raise" is announced, the amount of the raise is already determined because it is absolutely fixed -- the amount of chips that must go into the pot is pre-determined by the betting limits in effect for that betting round, no more and no less, and so in that sense, simply saying "raise" can be considered a complete, well-defined action.  In no-limit, however, once "raise" is announced, there can be a wide range of possibilities for raise amounts -- from a min raise to an all-in -- that will have varying effects on subsequent action and therefore, the raiser's action is not fully-defined in the same way as it would be in a limit game until the amount of the raise is decided.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
 Wow, this is getting good! First of all, I don't remember playing at a table with players that sharp. The examples you give are excellent, and certainly make for an argument in your favor. I'd like to take this just one step further (for my side of this debate), consider the effect this would have on substantial action? Pre-flop; UTG says raise, UTG+1 folds, the dealer then notices that he failed to deal to the correct seat first. Would this be a misdeal? What about the player that makes a forward motion with his stack, and the next player folds before the chips are actually released? How many of us have played in full games where a player tells the dealer to fold his hand when it "gets to him" because he's going for a smoke.
 Now I'd like to address another issue on a rule that I don't like that falls right into this discusion. Our player announces raise, and the next player folds before the amount is...what?... announced? Or what about the player that just pushes his chips forward and the next player folds instantly. Should he have waited for a count? It does him no good to ask for one (according to TDA Rule #41).
 I guess I just don't see a difference from a player making an insta-call when facing an all-in bet, or going all-in after a player says raise before the amount is determined.
Good topic for discusion.

[K-Lo]

Hi Nick:
You raise a few points relating to misdeals and forward motion of chips, which confuses me slightly.  But let me address one of your points that I think is directly at issue:

Our player announces raise, and the next player folds before the amount is...what?... announced? Or what about the player that just pushes his chips forward and the next player folds instantly. Should he have waited for a count? ...  I guess I just don't see a difference from a player making an insta-call when facing an all-in bet...

Once the player announces the amount of a wager, the action is complete and subsequent players may act. The amount of the wager is decided and can't be changed.  Similarly, if a player pushes his chips forward, the next player does not need to wait for a count and may fold.  Again, the amount of the wager is decided and can't be changed.  In both these cases, the amount of the wager is decided and can't be changed.  That's the difference between your situations and folding before the amount of a wager has been decided upon.  In a big bet game such as NLH, the bettor may have different bet sizing options available to him that he might not otherwise have practically considered if everyone just simply waited before folding, and this may prejudice remaining players who may wish to contest the pot.   

[Nick C]

K-LO,
 If you do not consider the fold (as legal) from the player that followed the raise pre-flop, how can you consider that as substantial action? Make sense?

[K-Lo]

K-LO,
 If you do not consider the fold (as legal) from the player that followed the raise pre-flop, how can you consider that as substantial action? Make sense?

If UTG says raise and hasn't said how much, he hasn't completed his turn yet.  I would say that two people have not yet acted.  No substantial action, therefore misdeal.  I don't see this as unfair result. 

In general, the dealer can and should ask subsequent players to wait before UTG has fully completed his action before folding/calling/raising.  It's really a matter of players having to wait for their turn.  Simple, really. 

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
 It might work for your room, but I don't think it will work everywhere. It looks like the same few members will have to sort these rules out for ourselves. That's fine with me.
K-Lo, my final response to this; I don't know how you can penalize a player for folding (in turn) when the player in front of him says raise!

[Stuart Murray]

Hi guys,

I'm with K-Lo on this one, when a player announces "raise" and without completing his action following players proceed mucking their hands they are IMHO folding out of turn as the action has not yet moved onto them, this is also true in "non-standard folds" which was discussed, as a non-standard fold can adversely affect the hand, no different to this scenario where players start mucking their hands without the raiser finishing his action, this passes additional information onto the raiser, for example say you let this go in your card-room,  Player UTG announces raise at a 9 handed table and 5 players muck their hands before UTG has even decided what his raise is going to be, that means that he now has a mere 3 players that he wishes to compete against still remaining in the hand, thus narrowing his competition, and giving him far more information than he should of had and possibly information that the next player now to act who has the button is possibly interested in playing their hand depending on the size of the raise.

Regards
Stuart