Implied check call, or opening bet?

[Dave Miller]

Two players remain after the flop.

Before player A has a chance to act, player B bets out of turn for 200. Before the dealer gets a chance to ask player A if he had checked, player A silently put out a single chip for 500, intending it to be a call for 200.

So is it a call of 200 or a bet of 500?

[MikeB]

Opening post-flop with a single chip is a bet up to the allowable maximum for the chip. So, in this case assuming NLHE, it's a bet of 500 by A. If A intended "a call of B" but didn't announce "two hundred" prior to the chip hitting the table surface, he's bet the full 500. Now action is back on B who has all options open.

[Max D]

Mikes logic sounds right to me too.  Can't be a single chip call since the bet is out of turn.  I am wondering if Rule 43 A should be used:
43:  Action Out of Turn (OOT)
A: Any action out of turn (check, call, or raise) will be backed up to the correct player in order. The OOT action is subject to penalty and is binding if action to the OOT player does not change.  A check, call or fold by the correct player does not change action. If action changes, the OOT action is not binding; any bet or raise is returned to the OOT player who has all options: call, raise, or fold. An OOT fold is binding.

[BillM16]

... If A intended "a call of B" but didn't announce "two hundred" prior to the chip hitting the table surface, he's bet the full 500. ...

How would you rule if player A had announced "call" before tossing a single 500 chip into the pot?

[Dave Miller]

Had player A said "Call" before throwing out the 500 chip, I would have let it go, ruling it an assumed check and call.

For the record, in this case, player A did confirm that he did NOT check, but said he didn't realize that the action was out of turn and really thought he was calling.


FYI: I was the dealer. This was just 3 nights ago in my pub poker league, where I am known as the rules guru (or sometimes the rules Nazi). I ruled it an opening bet of 500. When player A complained, I asked the lead dealer for a confirmation ruling, kinda like calling the floor. She agreed with me as I knew she would since she's pretty good with the rules too. (FYI: Player B called the 500, it was checked down, and player B won.)

Player A was playing again last night and again complained about the way it was handled. I'm sure if he had won that hand, we never would have heard another thing about it.

Anyway, this type of thing happens often, but usually the player who got skipped doesn't act immediately, almost like he's wondering what happened. I keep it simple by asking, "Did you check?" When the response is no, I ask, "Do you want to?"

In the 8 years I have been dealing, I can't remember any case where the player needed additional information, or an additional ruling before the hand was completed, until Tuesday.

Normally, after the hand is over, I'll explain how if the skipped player did anything other than the check, the OOT player would have all options opened to him. I also explain how I can't volunteer that info during the hand since it may influence the action. I'm certain that player A has heard me explain that in the past. He's also one of the most vocal complaining about me being a rules Nazi.

So last night, when he brought it up again, I calmly explained that although we're playing 'free poker', we try to adhere to regular casino rules so that the players can learn and won't make a mistake when they're in a casino. His reply was that he never makes mistakes. Sigh.

I chose not to debate him further. I similarly chose not to tell him that he is also one of the players who often acts out of turn, and puts out multiple chips expecting change without saying call. I also chose not to follow up with the argument that knowing the rules helps you to identify and exploit other players when they make mistakes.


Anyway, thanks for confirming my ruling, and letting me rant.

[Nick C]

I'm with Max...I think TDA #43 covers the situation. I might consider a change for the angle-shooter who is notorious for betting OOT. Why give this repeat offender an option to withdraw? I'd prefer, call, surrender the OOT, or even allow a raise...

[BillM16]

How would your rule under the same scenario but you add Player C? 

So, three players remain post flop.  Player A is skipped when Player B bets 200 OOT.  Before the dealer intervenes, Player C says "Call" and tosses in a single 500 chip. 

How do you rule in this scenario?

[MikeB]

Had player A said "Call" before throwing out the 500 chip, I would have let it go, ruling it an assumed check and call.

Me too, best Rule 1 interpretation IMO. Both players in for 200 and play proceeds

[BillM16]

Had player A said "Call" before throwing out the 500 chip, I would have let it go, ruling it an assumed check and call.

Me too, best Rule 1 interpretation IMO. Both players in for 200 and play proceeds

How can a check and a call result in a bet of 200?

[MikeB]

Had player A said "Call" before throwing out the 500 chip, I would have let it go, ruling it an assumed check and call.

Me too, best Rule 1 interpretation IMO. Both players in for 200 and play proceeds

How can a check and a call result in a bet of 200?

The 2-player scenario:

B bets 200 OOT...
Action back to A. If he had declared "call" prior to tossing the 500 then we can use Rule 1 to short-cut OOT formalities, and assume A checks first...
Now B's 200 is binding, action is now back to A
A's 500 overchip (and declaration of call) = call B's 200 bet.

[Dave Miller]

How can a check and a call result in a bet of 200?

As Mike explained, It results in a CALL of 200.

Thanks Mike.