2013 Rule 37: Undercalls, must player make a full call or can they fold?

[MikeB]

A TDA member sent in the following question which is probably of interest to alot of people, so posting it here. Please feel free to join the discussion.

***********START copy ****************

I would like clarification on a situation and how rule 37 applies.  Situation: 8 players dealt in preflop, blinds are 600-1200 player A goes all-in for 45k player B puts out 1200.  Is player B committed to call the all-in wager at this point or is the 1200 committed and he may elect to fold?  I allowed player B to fold and left his 1200 in the pot because my interpretation of rule 37 was that since there was a raise, player B was no longer facing the opening bet (1200), he was facing a new wager therefore my discretion was used as the TD.  Would the all-in wager count as a new opening bet and my ruling was incorrect?

Thank You for your time, Name Withheld.  

***********END copy *****************

Hello Name Withheld, and thanks for the great question. We are posting your inquiry anonymously on the Poker TDA Discussion Forum at the following link:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=939.msg8352#msg8352

Looks like your decision followed the 2013 TDA Rule 37 to the letter:
A: the opening bet was the 1200 BB.
B: a following bet was made (45k), which as you correctly note is not the opening bet.
C: the next player to act puts out 1200 silently.
D: Per Rule 37: "In all other situations, TD’s discretion applies..."

So, you used your discretion and decided to allow the player to forfeit his undercall and fold his cards, exactly as permitted in your discretion.

Twist the scenario a bit, post-flop, and the first player to bet puts out 45k and the next player puts out 1200. In that case the 45k is the opening bet, and the under-caller will be held to making a full call of 45k per Rule 37: "An undercall... is a mandatory full call if made facing an opening bet multi-way on any betting round, or facing any bet heads up..."

This important rule was adopted after extensive discussion at TDA Summit 37, to fill a gap in the rules regarding when a player must call and when, at TDs discretion, the player may be allowed to leave the undercall in and muck his cards... Thanks for asking for clarification!

Poker TDA Member Support Team

************* START Follow-Up reply *******************
Thank You for the response. I will be straightening this interpretation out with the rest of management at our property.  They were wanting to commit the player to a full call in every under call situation  Thanks again! Name Withheld.

************* END *********************************

Name Withheld: your comments in red above are very interesting.

You actually have the latitude within Rule 37 to commit every undercaller to a full call if your venue decides that's the way you want to handle it. The rule is more intended to focus on when a full call must be made rather than when a player must be given the choice to forfeit and fold.

n fact there is no situation where the player is guaranteed the right to forfeit, such are only at TDs discretion. Most venues do want the latitude to occasionally allow the player to forfeit if it's believed that it was an honest gross mistake, based on some reason such as a preceding (opening) bet in the amount of the undercall....

.... But when someone undercalls and the only bet they are facing is the opening bet (or any heads-up bet), then they should get those calls right, thus be held to mandatory full call, and that's really more the focus of Rule 37.

[Nick C]

Mike,

 I've been waiting for another member to participate...but, I guess it's you and I, for now.

 I'm sorry but...since when is a big blind considered an opening bet?

Does it count as the first action when considering substantial action for a misdeal? Or is it only for this scenario?

You wrote that the initial player (under the gun), by his raise; is not the first action? This is getting more complicated each time I read it.

I doubt that I will have any influence on any change but, I'll tell you how I feel anyway... #1). The BB is never considered to have acted until the action returns to the BB position on the first betting round. #2.) I would like to see player's wait for clear bet amounts before acting...in other words; I'd like the bettor to push the amount wagered forward, before the calling player has the option to act. This would assure that the correct amount is visible to all.

 This would also be in compliance with TDA #37 b.) Players should wait for clear bet amounts before acting. Ex. A says "raise" (but states no amount), and B and C quickly fold. B and C should wait to act until A's exact raise amount is clear. This should also apply if Player B wishes to call. IMO, Relying on verbal causes too many problems. If player's practiced this method, I might even consider changing my utter dislike for Accepted Action.   I don't believe I just wrote that!

 I've never liked forcing any player to complete a bet that was unclear. I also am not in favor of forcing the calling player to surrender his short bet, or forcing a completion if the bet was unclear, or the action was obviously a gross misunderstanding, or the calling player was mislead by the dealer. This, of course, would only apply if substantial action has not followed.

[MikeB]

Nick wrote:
I'm sorry but...since when is a big blind considered an opening bet?

It's the opening bet on the initial betting round for the purposes of Rule 37, and that is clearly specified in the rule. If it were not the opening bet under Rule 37, then the player would have to call here. These are specifically the kinds of situations where a majority of TDs want some latitude and not be absolutely bound to making the player call.

Does it count as the first action when considering substantial action for a misdeal? Or is it only for this scenario?

No forced bet is considered "action" for purposes of determining substantial action on the initial deal

You wrote that the initial player (under the gun), by his raise; is not the first action? This is getting more complicated each time I read it.

It's all spelled out in Rule 37....

[Tristan]

Nick,
It would be very helpful if you were to watch the footage from the Summit.  Many of the things you have been bringing up were discussed quite thoroughly at the Summit.  That way instead of spending our time rehashing who, what, when, where, and why the rule was implemented, we could then spend our time going through potential additions or changes to the rule.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 I'm real sorry I'm wasting your time. If you think the rule is fine the way it is...then don't worry about what my feelings are. I've wasted enough of my time, trying to understand the reasoning behind half of the damn rules that were introduced. Furthermore, I'd still like to know; who, what, where, when and why? If you don't mind.

 If your not interested in my suggestions, I suggest you pass over my posts, or better yet; why not add something constructive to our discussion instead of criticizing my participation.

[chet]

Nick:  I am going to refer you to the Introduction to the TDA Rules, where it says:

"The Poker TDA is a voluntary poker industry association founded in 2001. Its mission is to increase global uniformity of poker tournament rules. [size=14]Poker TDA rules supplement the rules of this house.[/size] In case of conflict with a gaming agency, the agency rules will apply."

You usually bring up good points, but as Tristan and others have said, many of your concerns were discussed and for whatever reasons, left as they were or not adopted by a majority of the members present.  It seems to me that some amount of discussion of these things is a good idea, but after some point, it becomes non-productive to go on and on and on. 

The TDA has adopted a process of rule making over the years that seems to work for the vast majority of the membership.  Are there other ways to do what the TDA does, certainly.  Are those other ways superior to the process that is in place, perhaps, but that decision is not, in my opinion, up to the membership.  Those types of issues are for the Board of Directors to resolve, at least in my opinion.

So, please continue to bring up those things that concern you, but please also realize that others may not agree and if the issue is brought up at a Summit and your position is not adopted, so be it. 

Now back to the Introduction and the sentence I highlighted.  If you or anyone else has a problem with any of the TDA rules, you can certainly develop a House Rule to "correct" whatever you feel the error is.

Just my 2, 4 or 6 cents worth.

Chet

[Tristan]

If your not interested in my suggestions, I suggest you pass over my posts, or better yet; why not add something constructive to our discussion instead of criticizing my participation.

You missed my point Nick.  I have no issue with discussing new issues or potential changes to the rules, it is just that you are asking for our time in order to answer questions that you can answer yourself if you watch the videos from the Summit.  I would rather spend the time discussing the issues themselves than explaining why the Summit collectively decided to implement them.

The information you want is there and all you have to do is watch the videos to get those answers.  Instead, you are asking us to explain the majority decisions that were made at the Summit.  And then when we do, you criticize them as if they are our own personal views.  Many of the concerns that you bring up were brought up at the Summit and discussed.  You can get so many answers by watching them, please do so!!  Then come back here and we can discuss changes that could possibly be adopted by the majority at the next Summit.

Once again, it is not that I feel you are a waste of time in any way.  I just feel we could, together, do more productive things with our time

[Nick C]

Chet and Tristan,

 The original question on TDA Rule #37 was presented to us by Mike Bishop...The question sat there without any response. If you think my concerns were addressed at the Summit, I suggest YOU go back and see if they were.

 Believe it or not, I'd really like to know how you feel about the issues Mike and I have been debating.

 Chet, you actually made reference to the TDA board of directors You also make it sound like I've re-hashed my disdain for TDA #37...when this is the first time I've really taken a good look at it. And now that I have, you're right, I don't like it.

 I'd really like to know how either of you feel about my suggestion:  "I would like to see player's wait for clear bet amounts before acting...in other words; I'd like the bettor to push the amount wagered forward, before the calling player has the option to act. This would assure that the correct amount is visible to all."

 You see...I am asking questions, and trying to stimulate discussion...after all...isn't that what the Discussion Forum is for?

[MikeB]

 I'd really like to know how either of you feel about my suggestion:  "I would like to see player's wait for clear bet amounts before acting...in other words; I'd like the bettor to push the amount wagered forward, before the calling player has the option to act. This would assure that the correct amount is visible to all."

 You see...I am asking questions, and trying to stimulate discussion...after all...isn't that what the Discussion Forum is for?

I think in far more cases than not, players do put out their chips (i.e. "complete their bets") before action is directed onto the next player. In fact the TDA has led the industry in making bets more clear: the TDA was the first organization to introduce the all-in button and in 2013 it adopted Rule 37-B "Players should wait for clear bet amounts before acting..."  Dave Lamb made the Rule 37-B proposal for that language in Summit pre-meetings while discussing undercalls generally.... and it was very well received by the Association, one of those spontaneous ideas that surfaced at Summit VI.

The problem is what happens when for whatever reason(s) a misunderstanding of the bet amount (i.e. undercall) happens. Undercalls are an unfortunate reality. Rule 37-A is there to help guide TD decisions in those situations.

[Nick C]

Thanks Mike,
 At least you've answered a couple questions I had. #1 For TDA Rule #37 only...the big blind will be recognized as the opening bet. and #2 Player's should (there's that word again), wait for clear amounts before acting. How about; using the word "must" instead of should. We might even find that Accepted Action will be a more realistic rule to enforce.

 You mentioned the introduction of the all-in button. Over two years ago, I thought the idea sounded interesting. I asked for some feedback from anyone that had experience using the all-in button...I never got a response. Here are my questions from 2011:

RP-1 I think the idea of an all-in button is great. I was wondering if anyone has experienced problems using it.
 a.  What happens if the all-in button is put in, by the dealer, and the player has more chips?
 b.  Exactly where should the dealer place the all-in button after the player goes all-in?

[Tristan]

I did not chime in earlier in this thread because I felt Mike nailed all of the answers already.  I did not have anything to add.

I do think that players should pay attention and wait for clear amounts before acting.  Most of the time that they fail to do this, they usually do in error.  It is usually a mistake.

I use an all-in button for our tournaments.  No issues with it.  I view the button as more of an additional fail-safe than anything.  A visual aid.

a.  The action of the player is what I would base my decision on, not the dealer's error with the button.
b.  In front of the player who is all-in.  Roughly the same spot their bet would normally be.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 Thanks for the feedback. I feel that our rules should help sort out situations like unclear bets. If the all-in button can help us accomplish clarity...I'm all for it.

 The problem, IMO, is the verbal bet or raise. Is there any player out there, that does not want the other player's to know how much they bet? I don't think so...but if there is...why?

 All of the old rule-sets, and the TDA have rules that require player's to make their intentions clear. There are times (many times) while dealing, that I misunderstood an amount wagered, or had to correct an incorrect amount placed into the pot after a verbal declaration. If player's were instructed to push the proper amount forward after announcing raise, the dealer and player's would have far less problems than we do currently. I am not offering any protection, for a calling player, that insta-calls, or reacts before the proper bettor has completed their action. I realize, this can only happen in the "perfect poker world" but trying to create a rule to eliminate the confusion that occurs on a regular basis, should be our goal.

[K-Lo]

Had something similar to this happen tonight...  Pre-flop action: Mid-position player raised all-in, chips were pushed forward, all-in button used and clearly visible, action folds to SB who says call and puts in just enough to cover the BB.  SB was distracted talking to BB, and only wanted to call the BB.

All things considered (including the clarity of the all-in, the relative amounts of the chips involved, and the verbal declaration), I held the SB to the call (the short explanation that I gave that a verbal declaration made in turn is binding)... and the SB proceeds to eliminate the all-in player with 4-3.  Obviously, it could have gone the other way, (and the SB would have learned a lesson), but sometimes it is still a bit sad to watch.

[Nick C]

Ken:

 The only thing I question is whether the SB should have been allowed to surrender his under-call or fold? Is forcing the call in the best interest of the game? What I understand is your clear enforcement of Accepted Action...more so than the use of the all-in button.

 Yours is a good example of how some rules can force player's to call, when they didn't want to, and win or lose when they shouldn't have

 

[K-Lo]

Yes, I definitely considered that option, and I do believe we have that discretion now (to allow top up and fold).  I was partially swayed by the fact that I would not consider this a "gross" misunderstanding given the amounts involved; and I also have to be wary of the possibility that the player could have announced "call", observed a reaction from the all-in player, and then put in less than the required amount of chips.  Some under calls look more innocent than others...