Greetings all!
I have been hosting poker tournaments for about 3 years, and the first 2 years and 9 months went swimmingly. :-) But the last 3 months, it's like there's a full moon every Friday night at my house. I have had some situations happen, and I would like your input. I use Robert's Rules of Poker as my bible, unless TDA rules supersede RROP, which would be rare. I am going to post a few in the same topic -- it seemed better than bombarding the board with 6 new topics from a new user. I will post 3 now, and then more later on.
**********************************************************************
Scenario 1: NLHE tournament (all of these are NLHE tourneys) - Jeff and Mabel are currently in a hand; both have over 100,000 in chips. The turn card is revealed. Jeff bets 4,000. Mabel says "I raise" without yet stating an amount, or pushing any chips forward. Jeff, jumping the gun, says "I call". I ruled that since Mabel's action had not been completed, his "call" was not binding (he can't call an "infinite amount"), and I let the table know that Jeff still had action. I gave him a warning for acting out of turn. Mabel then raised to 12,000. Jeff then says "I raise" (??!!??!!) and went all-in. Mabel's husband did not at ALL like the fact that Jeff was allowed to raise after saying "I call". I have reviewed RROP and it is very....murky...on this subject.
a) Is Jeff's initial call binding for any amount? What if Mabel goes all-in for 100K after hearing this, as she has the nuts? Is he liable for the whole amount, if any?
b) If he is NOT liable for the call, does he still have "full action" (ie: can he raise?) The rules would APPEAR to say that while his call was not binding, he may also not raise, which I find incredible. Either he has action, or he doesn't. You can't have "neutered action". Can you?
******************************************************
Scenario 2: A new NLHE hand is dealt. Upon 3 players folding, and one player limping in, it is discovered that the button was not moved. I rule that since the Big Blind didn't protest until 4 people had acted, the hand is live. Additionally I point out that he voluntarily put his BB out in front of him. He says that there is a rule that "you can't be the big blind twice" and thus. it trumps the "significant action" rule. I said I have never seen any rule about "you can't be the BB twice". I said that's something that poker players say so much, that people think it's a rule, when in fact it's not. You CAN be the BB twice, if for example, you get moved to a new table in rebalancing.
a) Is the hand indeed live? Does the fact that he put his BB out in front of him when the hand started mean anything? Would the ruling have been different if he HADN'T have put his BB out there?
**********************************************************
Scenario 3: We are at the turn in a 3-handed NLHE hand. Player A bets 14,000 (1 pink and 4 yellow, where the pink is 10,000). Player B says I call, and puts out 4,000. As player C is folding, it is noticed that Player B only put in 4K. He says that he thought it was 4K. He says he didn't see the pink chip behind the yellow chips (Player 1 had his pink chip on the bottom and had "rainbowed" his chips somewhat, so the pink chip was a little obscured from Player B's viewpoint. I rule that it falls unde the "gross misunderstanding" part of RROP. Someone at the table, a fellow TD, says that RROP "gross misunderstanding" applies only to RAISES. I say that the spirit of the rule seems to indicate that all bets are covered, not just raises (why would it be just raises?) I rule that Player B can reconsider and withdraw, and I do not make him put his 4,000 in the pot.
a) Should I have made him call? Does this fall under the RROP defintion?
b) Should I have made him leave in the 4K? (BTW, it was not indisputable whether or not Player C had folded first or WHEN the error was caught, so I didn't take that in to consideration. I know that if another player acts, then PLayer B would be forced to call the entire bet. )
Thank you for your input! I hope it's OK putting these in the same topic!
Brent