POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2013 Summit
Review of Accepted Action language.
MikeB:
As one twist on this topic: How should a chip(s) NOT pushed forward in an all-in be treated... should this be included in language? Player A declares all-in and pushes out 100k, leaving a 5 k chip behind. Player B calls. We know the all-in bettor (Player A) can't be saved by the chip if he loses... Must Player B pay this chip off if he loses? Will he win it if he wins or should the chip be taken out of play?
Also: Does a silent chip-push gesture that looks like an all-in (without verbally declaring all in) constitute an all-in if a straggling chip remains behind?... or in the absence of a verbal declare all-in is the bet amount only the chips pushed (with the straggling chip available to the player for a future hand even if he loses)?
K-Lo:
Re: chips moved forward - I was thinking more about the situation where a player announces all-in, dealer does not announce all-in and does not put out an all-in button, but the player has only left in the amount to call, for example... subsequent player announces "call" thinking he is calling the amount in front when in fact it is much more to call the all-in. If there is no retraction or option to top-up allowed or fold, then strict AA proponents would force a call here despite the caller not being able to see the chips being put all-in.
MikeB:
Another accepted action thread, if not already linked to new suggestions: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=808.msg7205#msg7205
MikeB:
--- Quote from: K-Lo on February 05, 2013, 09:51:50 AM ---Re: chips moved forward - I was thinking more about the situation where a player A announces all-in, dealer does not announce all-in and does not put out an all-in button, but the player has only left in the amount to call, for example... subsequent player B announces "call" thinking he is calling the amount in front when in fact it is much more to call the all-in. If there is no retraction or option to top-up allowed or fold, then strict AA proponents would force a call here despite the caller not being able to see the chips being put all-in.
--- End quote ---
That's an interesting situation also. IMO in that situation there's a real question whether or not Player B had a legitimate reason not to be aware of the nature of the bet in the first place. Rule 41 says it's the caller's responsibility to be aware of the correct AMOUNT of the bet, but in this example there's an even more fundamental question about the NATURE of the bet (did Player A call, raise an amount or go all-in?) and whether that was sufficiently conveyed to Player B that by continuous alert observation he would be expected to be aware of it or not.
I don't think Rule 41 absolves Player A of making his intentions clear.
All of this is good material for AA discussion at the Summit.
K-Lo:
--- Quote from: MikeB on February 05, 2013, 10:02:22 AM ---I don't think Rule 41 absolves Player A of making his intentions clear.
--- End quote ---
Amen.
There's a whole series of related situations that we have been discussing... what if the dealer did announce all-in but the player didn't hear it? What if the caller was wearing headphones or not playing complete attention? etc. But in all cases, no chips were pushed forward... I know for a fact that some very strict prominent TDs would say there is no longer an option to top-up or fold given AA - I'd like to see that only applied if like you said, A made his intention clear by placing chips in front and that the wager is consistent with any verbal declaration. Otherwise, we should still be open to providing the option.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version