"I Check / Raise In the Dark." Is the Raise Binding?

[epdaws]

What's the proper ruling here?

We've all seen players check in the dark. But if you announce, "I check/raise in the dark," in a multi-way pot, are you obligated to raise if another opponent bets?

Regardless of the answer, you will not BELIEVE what the floor said when this question came up at Seneca Niagara yesterday.

In a 1/2 NL game, a player often checked in the dark. I jokingly remarked, "If you had any stones, you'd check/RAISE in the dark one of these times." Here is how the rest of the conversation went.

Player: Actually, what would the rule be in that case? Would I have to raise?

Dealer: I would say no. Your check would be binding, but you can't announce a move out-of-turn.

We all seem to agree, but at that moment, the dealer was shuffling and the floor walked by. She was a heavy-set woman with whom I was not familiar.

The dealer asked the floor if a check/raise in the dark would be binding.

Floor: Hmm, that's a hard one. I'm not sure. I'd have to think about it.

Other Donkey at Table: Actually, I think you'd have to make the player go all in if he check/raises in the dark. He announced his move!

Floor (I'm not making this up): You might be right. I think the raise would have to count.

Me (incredulous beyond belief): Wait, obviously the player wouldn't have to be all in. At most he'd be obligated to a min-raise.

Floor: Well, you're probably right about that.

Me: But you'd really decide that the raise would have to stand? Even if the raise is out-of-turn?

Floor: Well, I guess it would depend on the situation.

Me: Why would the situation matter?

Floor: I just couldn't say what I'd do unless that situation came up.

This does NOT exactly inspire confidence. Yeesh.

[steamboatin]

Some (most?) floor people don't care about hypotheicical situations.

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
Some (most?) floor people don't care about hypotheicical situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough, but for comparison's sake, I was lobbing hypotheticals at the floor at MGM one drunken night last year in Vegas, and that staff was absolutely outstanding. They had a quick, direct answer for everything.

Regardless, is there a proper ruling here?

[Mano]

If it is heads up, player 1 checks dark, player 2 bets dark, then player 1 check raises dark I think that may be binding.

[steamboatin]

No way check raise dark is binding, check dark is binding if player is first to act but the raise is out of turn and is not binding under normal circumstances.

[shane88888]

This is so nit-tastic, even by B&M forum standards.

[BigBadBabar]

i asked the floor this once at foxwoods and he said it doesn't count, it's basically two actions, you check and then raise when it comes back to you, so you can't declare both at once and have it be binding.

[cmattos]

I would think that the first action (in this case, the "check") would be binding, much like the hypothetical "I call your bet and raise you another x" would be interpreted as only a call by the dealer.

[Hair_of_the_Dog]

[ QUOTE ]
i asked the floor this once at foxwoods and he said it doesn't count, it's basically two actions, you check and then raise when it comes back to you, so you can't declare both at once and have it be binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember this ruling when someone tried to c/r in the dark in a my local card room. He ended up having to check, but the raise wasn't binding. He was pretty drunk.

[BREWMANCHU]

How many times has a player said in first position, "if you bet, I'm all-in". And then after a bet he folds. No way an out of turn verbal declaration is binding.