Weird spot at a 1/2 table yesterday.

Three players go to the flop. First player checks. Second player begins cutting out chips to bet, but before he moves the chips forward to finalize the bet, the third player says "Call."

The third player explains that he thought the second player had stopped cutting out chips and was going to bet $22 and so he thought he was calling $22. But the second player had definitely not finalized the amount he was betting.

There was a bit of debate as to whether he should be held to that call. If second player decided to shove, would third player's call be binding? I thought it was fairly obvious that if he was not actually facing a bet yet, saying "call" is meaningless. Then when player 2 actually does bet, it changes the act and player 3 should still have all his options. One player thought he shouldn't be forced to call an all-in, but he should lose the ability to raise if a non-shove bet is made. Half the table thought his call should be binding regardless of the amount of the bet.

In the end, the floor ruled that his call was not binding.

Room dependent.

In many/most rooms, his OOT call action is not binding if the action to him changes, which it does if a bet is now made. In many of these same rooms, he will be held to just checking and calling for the remainder of this street.

What if it gets raised after him? I think he's allowed to re-raise when it comes back around.

Since action is not on the player at the time, his 'call' is not binding. Similar to saying "I'm going all-in if it checks around to me." This is not a binding statement either. He would be limited to folds and calls however as stated in this case if facing a bet. If the player had decided to check rather than bet, then all options would still be open to our 'caller'.

I agree that if action 'returns' to this player during the current street the 'penalty' is no longer in affect. GL

Pretty much standard. I would also not let him raise on his turn to act.

This is just straightforward OOT action. He called the current bet (which was zero). If action to him changes, he should have his full range of opitons (if that is the room rule for OOT action). The idea of holding him to a call of a bet that has not been made is ridiculous.

What do you guys think should happen if he says "check" out of turn in the same spot?

Effectively, a call when there is no bet is the same as a check, so I believe this spot should be handled the same.

I would not allow him to raise at the first turn, but not hold him to a call if the bet is more than what he thought it would be. I would also tell him he needs to start waiting for his turn, and warn him that next time he could be forced to call whatever is bet.

I don't think many would agree that you can 'call' a check, whether action is on the player or not.

This is an interesting spot where the rule applies differently depending on 'what' your OOT action is ...

Check .. Call or Fold allowed, no raising (Prevents angle shooting by OOT player)
Call .. Must Call .. no raising or folding .. May Call or Fold if the 'bet' is not put out as of yet. (Prevents an inadverdent advantage to Bettor)
Raise .. Must min-Raise but can go all-in
Fold .. Binding regardless of action, even if action changes. (Although not directly addressed in Robert's)

'Calling' without actually facing a bet is not binding, but it does open up the door to folding and blocks any attempt to raise. Similar 'statements' when not facing action are not to be considered binding in most cases. ("I'm going all-in if it checks around.") These OOT actions are taken much more seriously in tournaments than cash. You might be let off the hook for your statement but then receive a penalty for future hands.

Robert's allows for a 'subsequent' player's call to count as 'changed' action, but TDA doesn't directly address this in the rule.

It's a slippery slope for sure .. with enforcement dependent on Dealer knowledge or at least being able to correctly relay the events to the Floor. GL

If action is checked to a player who, acting in turn, says "call", I would interpret that as a check (player has called the current bet of $0), and I have seen it done with no objections. When I played online they usually even had a single button for "check/call" - the actions are equivalent, giving the minimum action allowed to stay in the hand.

You got Spewing, chillrob, and now me. So...

Not sure what there is to 'get'. I'm not 'after' anyone ... Spewing's comment is mostly spot on. I don't think you can 'call' a 'check' or a bet of zero. (Most Dealers would simply say 'That's not one of your options right now.') And ?? for you.

OP gives us multiple spots to discuss and the rulings are applied based on what is the prevailing action (or non-action) of the 'bettor' and attempted action of OOT player. GL

Spewing said: "He called the current bet (which was zero)." I don't know which of us is confused, but if you say he is spot-on then I agree.

He did say that, but then he came to a different conclusion about what actions should be allowed than I did. I think the statement should hold him to non-aggressive actions on his next turn, while Spewing said he should have his full options.