call no call?

[dark-o]

Player A goes all-in. Player C didn't see player B and calls the all-in. Player B then acts by calling, Player C then changes his mind and announces he is folding. Can player C fold after he called player A all-in?

[DrewOnTilt]

If I understand correctly:

A, B, and C are in the pot
Player A goes allin.
Player C acts out of turn and says "call" before Player B acts.
Player B calls.

The question here is, can player C fold, or is his call binding?

Action out of turn is SOMETIMES but not ALWAYS ruled as binding. In this case I THINK that the correct ruling should be that I'll let the dealers/floorpeople who post on this board further discuss this...

Robert's Rules of Poker, Betting and Raising rule 10, states: "An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet, call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed."

In this case, there was a call by an intervening player.

[RarocASP]

Player C is held to his call unless player B decides to raise. If Player B does raise, now Player C may fold or call or raise.

I think preflop the rules may differ and Player C may be allowed to fold regardless of player B's actions (not positive on this though).

[Al_Capone_Junior]

This is an interesting situation. I'm too lazy to look up robert's rules on my blackberry to see if this situation is covered, but hopefully someone will.

Action out of turn MAY be binding. The idea is that it should stand if the out of turn action affected the table's action. So if you bet out of turn on the button, then they all check, you must bet. But if it's now bet, raise, reraise, you don't have to call.

This situation is different. Calling one player on the river is much different than OVERCALLING on the river. I asked one floorperson in my haunt and they said "they would have to call anyway, but could not raise." I'm not totally convinced, would like to hear more responses.

[RR]

They don't have to call. When deciding if out of turn action should be binding we should assume the player did not mean to act out of turn. If the situation they now face is the same as the one they "thought" they were facing they have to take the same action, if the situation is different (different number of players or different) there out of turn action is not binding. If this is not the sort of player that you can assume their out of turn action was an accident you can ask them to leave on the basis that poker is played by ladies and gentlemen and you should not allow players that will not conduct themselves as such in your room.

[dark-o]

thank you RR, i need that simple answers.

[tangled]

But then can player b retract his all in call? Maybe he's on a draw and thought he was getting the right price 3 handed, but not HU.

[jeffnc]

Yeah, this is not so simple. To many ways to angle shoot, which should be obvious if you think about them. I don't know a perfect solution though.

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
poker is played by ladies and gentlemen and you should not allow players that will not conduct themselves as such in your room.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please come run my room.

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting situation. I'm too lazy to look up robert's rules on my blackberry to see if this situation is covered, but hopefully someone will.

Action out of turn MAY be binding. The idea is that it should stand if the out of turn action affected the table's action. So if you bet out of turn on the button, then they all check, you must bet. But if it's now bet, raise, reraise, you don't have to call.

This situation is different. Calling one player on the river is much different than OVERCALLING on the river. I asked one floorperson in my haunt and they said "they would have to call anyway, but could not raise." I'm not totally convinced, would like to hear more responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does this mean you get updates on your blackberry everytime there is a new 2+2 post?