Odd situation with BB who checked a raise

[JGlo]

I played in a small home tourney the other night when this situation occured.

Blinds 50/100 ; 10 handed

Blinds posted
UTG raised to 300, MP and CO both call, SB folds
BB (who had not been paying attention) looked at his cards and then said "Check"
We informed him that there had been a raise and he had to put in 200 more to play, he thought a second and then said "Raise" and raised it to $1000.

What is the ruling here? Is he allowed to do this? We discussed it a few minutes and decided that he could only call the bet due to his initial action. Your thoughts?

[Solami17]

Since the action that he originally called for, checking, was not possible, his call cannot be allowed.

If he wants to raise he can

[Bulldog]

Raise okay by me.

[SheridanCat]

His initial action didn't cause any action behind him nor was it a legal action, thus it shouldn't be binding. He should have been allowed to raise.

Why would allowing him to call be any different than allowing him to raise? Neither is the action he declared.

Regards,

T

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
His initial action didn't cause any action behind him nor was it a legal action, thus it shouldn't be binding. He should have been allowed to raise.

Why would allowing him to call be any different than allowing him to raise? Neither is the action he declared.

Regards,

T

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I strongly suspect that if he said check, they say, you can't its been raised, and he said oh, then I fold, nobody would have said a word. If so, then forcing him to call instead of raise is asinine.

--Zetack

[Lottery Larry]

I agree with the group- if it didn't affect action behind him, then allowing him to raise after "check"calling is okay.

If, however, action had resulted from his verbal check, then I would probably rule that he was calling (which is what a check in the big blind sort of equals)

[ZenMusician]

Just to be a nit...

The language "check" is the same as "call" (not raising the bet, even if = $0)
The language "raise" is the same as "bet" (you are adding to the bet;
you cannot "bet" over a "bet")

Therefore...check = call and that should be the decision. It is up to the
player to pay attention, and up to the host to define rules that protect
against possible angle shots...like this one.

-ZEN

[Piiop]

[ QUOTE ]
The language "check" is the same as "call" (not raising the bet, even if = $0)
The language "raise" is the same as "bet" (you are adding to the bet;
you cannot "bet" over a "bet")


[/ QUOTE ]

Except those aren't the same....

A check isn't the same as a call when you're facing a bet. A bet isn't the same as a raise when it's been checked to you.

Like someone else said, if he folded would you make him call cuz check=call?

He can do whatever he wants.

Here's another way to look at this situation:

What if this happened on the flop. Minimum bet is 100. BB checks. UTG raises to 300. Neither MP nor CO raise (it doesn't actually matter if they fold or call). BB puts in 100. What's the ruling?

Presumably, someone would tell BB that the bet is actually 300. But, if BB had never said "call" or "raise" when he put out the T100 chip, would you allow BB to raise? If not, how is that different from the pre-flop situation?

Obviously, if he said "call," but only put out T100, you wouldn't allow BB to raise. Isn't that what happened here? His check was actually a call in the wrong amount.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, if he said "call," but only put out T100, you wouldn't allow BB to raise. Isn't that what happened here? His check was actually a call in the wrong amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

To play devil's advocate, in my home game the following situation has occurred:

Post flop: Hero bets T25. Villain wasn't paying attention and says check. Villain is told that he can't check because the bet is T25. Villain folds. We've allowed that fold every single time. If the check is a call in the wrong amount, should Villain be forced to call?