Rule 45 Non-Standard Folds Questions

[MikeB]

See following discussion on this topic.

[Nick C]

Hello Mike,

Can you explain why the first part of TDA #45 is necessary?

45: Non-Standard Folds
Anytime before the end of the last betting round of a hand,

Also, why is it necessary to specify "in turn" ?

Wouldn't the following cover it all?

Folding when facing a check, or folding out of turn, are binding and considered highly unethical. Offenders will be penalized.

[chet]

Nick:  Read the rule carefully.  If you do you will see that rule 45 only applies if the hand has not yet reached the last betting round.  For example, in Hold'em, if, after a check in front of you, you fold a) on the post flop betting round or b) on the turn betting round, that action is binding and is subject to penalty.  Rule 45 does not apply to the pre-flop betting round since there is a 'bet', ie. the blinds in front of you or to the river betting round.  At least this is how I interpret this rule.

Neither rule applies pre-flop since there is a 'bet' (blinds).

Your proposal would apply post-flop which the existing rule does not.  Is that your intention?

If, on the river betting round, I know that there is no possible way I can win the hand other than a stone cold bluff, why can't I fold?  I don't want the other players to know that I am such a poor player or   so why?

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. Are you saying that you can fold during the last betting round when facing a check? I think my suggestion is much clearer.

Let me play out this scenario: last round of betting, 4 players remain... I check, the next player checks, you can fold with another player to follow?

[chet]

Nick: 

I guess I need to take some of my own advice and read the rule closer.  To quote some NFL officials, Upon Further Review I guess I agree with most of your suggestion except for the word "will" in the last sentence.  I prefer "May", as that gives me the option of whether or not to impose a penalty for the action.  Why would I choose not to impose a penalty, consider the new player who is just trying to learn the game.  I would prefer to pull that person aside, explain the rule and the reason therefore and go the "education" rather than the "enforcement" route. 

It seems like several of the words in the current rule are superfluous, as you pointed out.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,
I prefer your more lenient punishment for first offenders, but that's what Rule #1 is for (IMO). Myself, I prefer "will" in almost every rule that "may" is currently being used. Players that should know better, know you mean business. I would like a more "firm" approach, that's all. It's easier to enforce a penalty after the player has been warned. One warning, that's all it takes...new player or seasoned veteran!

Back to my original question. Can anyone explain the current TDA rule #45? Would my suggestions be easier to understand?

Hey Chet, I want to thank you for your response. It's always good to hear from you.

[K-Lo]

I'm expecting that these comments should probably be moved into its own thread in this folder. 

As to your question, Nick, based on the posts that I've come across, I'm guessing that the rule is worded the way it is to differentiate between folding before showdown, and "folding" after all action is completed on the final betting round during the showdown. 

I can see the point of your suggestion -- what about the case when you are first to act on a given betting round and you fold... are you still "facing a check"?

[Nick C]

Hello K-Lo,

I guess I don't understand what is meant by; anytime before the end of last betting round

As far as folding when first to act, that is the most unethical act of any poker player. It is the action of a complete novice or, even worse. If that's not worthy of a penalty, nothing is!

How's this: Folding when facing a check, or when first to act, or out of turn, are all binding folds and considered highly unethical. Offenders will be penalized.

I know I come across like I'm disputing every rule when I'm only trying to understand exactly what this rule is trying to say. How can I explain a rule to a student, when I don't understand it myself?

[MikeB]

Hello Mike,  Can you explain why the first part of TDA #45 is necessary?

45: Non-Standard Folds
Anytime before the end of the last betting round of a hand,

Great question.... Because after the end of the last betting round you are in showdown, and this rule does not apply to showdowns at the present time. The question of whether a folding gesture has any binding meaning at showdown may come up at the next Summit.

Also, why is it necessary to specify "in turn" ?
The "In turn" situation applies when facing a check. It clarifies that if a player (by error or deliberately) folds when there is no bet to them, they cannot retract the fold. A good example of this is folding on your option when you're the BB and there's been no raise of the BB.

And to complete the intention of the rule... prior to Rule 45 there had been some question of whether an out-of-turn fold might be retracted if the action changes to the out-of-turn folder. The rule as adopted clarifies that the answer is no.  Whereas an out of turn check, bet, or raise may be retractable if the action changes, an out of turn fold is not.... it is binding.

Wouldn't the following cover it all?

Folding when facing a check, or folding out of turn, are binding and considered highly unethical. Offenders will be penalized.
The first sentence seems to convey a meaning similar to Rule 45. As to the 2nd sentence, as of the 2011 Rules a first offense doesn't carry a mandatory (i.e. "will be") penalty... that could be proposed at the next Summit.

[Nick C]

Mike,

Thanks for answering my question. If I'm understanding you correctly, do you think this might fit a little better? Anytime before showdown, folding in turn when facing a check....

*I corrected what I wrote earlier, I replaced the incorrect word bet with "check"

The exception to this rule would be when any player were all-in...correct?

[MikeB]

RE the language: Folding when facing a check, or folding out of turn, are binding and considered highly unethical. Offenders will be penalized.

To keep such language MOL 100% consistent w/ the rule as adopted, you'd have something like this:

"Anytime before the end of the last betting round of a hand... folding when facing a check, or folding out of turn are binding,... unethical and may be subject to penalty."

Is it the line "in turn" that you're concerned with? While that could be removed, and leave essentially the same meaning, the whole purpose of this Rule 45 is to clarify ruling in the event of a non-standard (or irregular) fold. The two situations the rule was intended specifically to address are: a) folding when it's your proper turn to act and you're not facing a bet; and b) folding out of turn.

As to the first situation, there is some history in poker management that (especially when dealing with a newbie player) ... when a player does something they don't have to do (in this case fold when they don't have to), the situation is brought to their attention and they are given a chance to change their action (in this case retract their fold).... the Rule 45 is intended to clarify that in general such folds should be binding in tournament poker...   It can be proposed at the next Summit to remove the line "in turn", the membership would have to vote whether they think the line clarifies what is intended or confuses it.

While on this subject, the language "folding when not facing a bet" might also be considered, instead of "folding when facing a check"... b/c the first player to act in a betting round might also inexplicably fold and technically he's not facing a check made by a preceeding player (although the rule is intended to apply in that situation)...
on the other hand "when not facing a bet" should not be construed to include during the showdown....

Also, is some language to the effect that "such folds are a form of soft play and may be subject to penalty" worth considering?... more food for thought.

[K-Lo]

While on this subject, the language "folding when not facing a bet" might also be considered, instead of "folding when facing a check"... b/c the first player to act in a betting round might also inexplicably fold and technically he's not facing a check made by a preceeding player (although the rule is intended to apply in that situation)...
Also, is some language to the effect that "folding when not facing a bet is a form of soft play and may be subject to penalty" worth considering?... more food for thought.

I like this point and suggestion a lot, Mike.  This happens a lot more than you'd think... e.g. in a three way pot, with the first player to act post-flop simply folding "because they need a smoke" or "gotta go to the loo", leaving the short stacked third player at the mercy of the player who would otherwise have been in the middle.

[Nick C]

How does this sound:

Folding post flop, in turn, or out of turn when not facing a bet, is highly unethical and will be ruled a binding fold subject to penalty.

[K-Lo]

How does this sound:

Folding post flop, in turn, or out of turn when not facing a bet, is highly unethical and will be ruled a binding fold subject to penalty.

Does that mean you are of the opinion that, pre-flop, folding one's option to raise from the BB is not binding?

[Nick C]

K-LO,

My statement is directed at post flop because there is no checking pre flop. To answer your question about the BB attempting to fold...my answer is yes, I am in the opinion that folding on your option, being in for all bets, should never be allowed. When dealing I would push the cards back to the BB and remind him that he is already in. Why would a player do that? It had to be an obvious mistake.

The purpose of my original post was: To define what was meant by the first line of TDA #45 Anytime before the end of the last betting round of a hand....

I think we have made great strides in the right direction. It's not perfect yet, but it's getting close.