Tournament Directors

Articles

You are here: Home › Poker Articles & Features › You are the Tournament Director Series 5 › Articles › Is This Verbal Action Enforceable?

You are the Tournament Director Series 5: Is This Verbal Action Enforceable?

First hand of the WSOP main event and action passes around to the small blind who says ‘raise’. Before he can announce how much or put chips in the pot the big blind says ‘call’.

The small blind now announces all-in. Must the big blind call for all his chips?

Jack Effel
The small blind’s “all-in” raise is legal, because the player made it with one additional motion after announcing raise. The big blind did make a mistake by jumping the gun, which may have influenced the small blind’s raise amount. But the big blind’s verbal action is binding, because it was made in turn.

Thomas Kremser
Verbal action in turn is binding and the Big Blind must call.
 

David Lamb
Good one guys! Saying “call” in turn, I think has to obligate the BB to put in the minimum raise and face forfeiting those chips or calling the all-in. It could be horribly unfair to the other players at the table to force the BB to go broke (or worse, double up by getting lucky against the genuine raiser) based upon the technical requirement that verbalizations in turn are binding. There is a case to be made that the BB has acted out of turn and as such may not act until the amount has been established. If he had said, “I am going to call whatever you bet”, prior to the player saying all-in, I would rule it a call for the all-in amount.

David Luzago
No. I will request the SB to put the minimum raise in this situation because is obvious that the big blind misunderstood the exact amount wagered. I will recommend both players to respect clearly their turn to act for the rest of the tournament.

Matt Savage
We also addressed conditional statements as “may be binding” in the latest TDA Summit held on June 29-30th 2011. In this case I am going to allow player to put out a minimum raise and fold his cards or call the all-in. I am not entirely happy with my own decision here but it could be considered an angle by either player.

Thomas Lamatsch
Verbal announcements are binding! In this case, it is a bit more difficult, because we don’t have an exact amount of the raise by the small blind! Like acting out of turn, the BB has to call the raise of the SB. The BB has to put the minimum raise in the pot and SB has now the option: If the SB raise the minimum, BB has to call! For any other raise of the SB the BB has the option to call, or muck his hand and losing the amount of the minimum raise! BB is not allowed to reraise any action of the SB!

JP McCann
I wouldn’t force the BB to call the all-in bet. I would force him to put a min raise into the pot with the option to call the all-in or fold. I would also warn the BB to wait until prior players action is complete before he acts.

FIDPA (The International Poker Rules) Ruling (Marcel Luske)
5.1 Poker is an individual game. Actions, statements and/or behaviors that compromise the fairness of the game, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are considered unethical play and unsportsmanlike behavior.

5.2 Tournament Directors and Floor People will penalize any player who acts in an unethical manner.

52.1 A 'declaration of action' may be an obvious physical motion or verbal statement: a fold, check, bet, call, raise, re-raise or 'all-in.'
52.3 A player is responsible for clearly stating their action in turn.
52.4 A player intentionally acting out of turn will receive a penalty. A “declaration of action” IN TURN will be binding; the player will be forced to take the declared action.

So in this case the player that called was ready for any amount that was raised as he or she was well aware of the fact that a raise was clearly announced! Not willing to call the all in would indicate clearly that the direct call was a try to get the raiser betting less! So the player that called should be hold to his statement and be obligated to call. Before the hand is played out that player should be getting an official warning/penalty for unethical play aswell!

David Flusfeder (IFP – International federation of Poker)
The big blind can still call or pass—as the small blind’s raise had not been specified and therefore the bet had not been completed (rule 32: ‘Raising a bet’). I might advise the big blind to calm down a little…

Mob Verdict

Firstly, let's be clear. As most of our TDs acknowledge, the small blind has done nothing wrong by announcing his intention to raise and there is no reason to penalise him or restrict his actions as David Luzago suggests or to suspect a possible angle on his part as Matt Savage implies.

What is most interesting here is that there are two different ways to view the BBs call. Is it as Matt characterises it a ‘conditional statement‘ or as David Lamb describes it an ‘action out of turn’? Or indeed does the fact that it is the latter necessarily make it the former as well.

It does seem logical to see it as an action out of turn since the SB had not completed his action. However the normal rule for action out of turn is to make the action stand unless prior action changes the available options, and obviously that doesn't quite make sense in this particular case. There is nothing the SB can do to ‘change the action’ he can only clarify or complete it. Therefore it makes no sense to give the BB back his range of options, specifically he can never be allowed to raise. You can of course view the minimum raise as the default action to which the BB is committed and give him the option to call or leave the minimum in the pot and fold if the rase is bigger. Though we know of nothing in the rules that would bind the TD to this.

In exactly the same way, when viewed as a conditional statement the option is there as Matt says to make the call binding or not.

We believe that the TDs would be within their rights to force a call for the full amount, but that whichever way you define the BBs action the option is there to penalise the player in what may seem in the particular circumstances to be a more proportional way.

Most of the TDs have used their experience to arrive at the solution that feels right. And we agree with all those who would make him call the minimum raise and give him the option to call the rest or fold. If there were action on subsequent streets both players would of course have all normal options.

Post your comments in the forum