B&M NL ruling

[mrKevin99]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's toss another wrinkle into the Robert's Rules question since we said the rule states that it "may be binding".

This is a different situation from the OP, and I am the floorperson asked:

Seat 1, 3, 4 and 8 are in a tournament hand with Seat 8 to act first. Seat 8 checks, Seat 3 doesn't see Seat 1 has cards and bets out. Seat 4 immediately pushes all-in. Seat 1 says "Wait up! I haven't decided yet." Seat 3 calls me over and explains the situation. I say "neither bet is binding" and warn Seat 3 that if he does it again, he will be penalized. Seat 1 then decides to check, Seat 3 checks, and Seat 4 fumes. I understand why he might be pissed, but should I have asked Seat 1 what he is going to do before ruling, and then force Seat 3's actions to stand if Seat 1 checks? The rule, as written, seems to leave it open for debate. Seat 4 isn't that angry any more, but I'd like to make sure that if I did get this wrong ... that it won't happen again!

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was seat 4, I'd be fuming too. Seat 3s action and seat 4s action should stand if seat 1s does not change the action. He checked, therefore the bet by seat 3 and 4 must stand.

If seat 1 bet out less than half of seat 3s bet, seat 3 and seat 4s action stands. If seat 1 bets all in (assuming he has enough chips) or bets more than half of seat 3s original bet, he changes the action, therefore it is now up to seat 3 to call/fold/raise any amount.