In the fitz there tonight and was involved in a ruling which i thought was handled incorrectly, so was looking for a few more views on the matter. The hand began when there roughly 13/14 players left, 9 get paid.
The hand begins with my being UTG, i get dealt kings and i declare all in. Its folded round to the button who removes his earphones when told by the dealer it was his turn, and he declares ' i call''.
When the dealer tells him to put all his chips in he says he only meant to call the big blind, not my all in. The TD is charge gets called him to sort everything. He says that it was an honest mistake and that the benefit of the doubt should be used and that his hand can either call my all in, or fold, without putting anything into the pot. He folds, in doing so putting nothing into the pot, and i take down a pot that should have been bigger. It gets slightly more odd when the next rule is said tho.
The TD states that, because i didnt put any of my chips over the line, this allows the ruling to be empolyed, as opposed to the other scenario where if my chips had been pushed into the middle, he would HAVE to call.
Does this make any sense what so ever?I was always told that verbal declarations were binding be it fold, call or all in.
Opinions?
The hand begins with my being UTG, i get dealt kings and i declare all in. Its folded round to the button who removes his earphones when told by the dealer it was his turn, and he declares ' i call''.
When the dealer tells him to put all his chips in he says he only meant to call the big blind, not my all in. The TD is charge gets called him to sort everything. He says that it was an honest mistake and that the benefit of the doubt should be used and that his hand can either call my all in, or fold, without putting anything into the pot. He folds, in doing so putting nothing into the pot, and i take down a pot that should have been bigger. It gets slightly more odd when the next rule is said tho.
The TD states that, because i didnt put any of my chips over the line, this allows the ruling to be empolyed, as opposed to the other scenario where if my chips had been pushed into the middle, he would HAVE to call.
Does this make any sense what so ever?I was always told that verbal declarations were binding be it fold, call or all in.
Opinions?
Comment