Home game ruling

[Worrots]

Home game tournament.

Late arriving player sits down in the BB. Folded to the CO who raises. BB calls. CO has BB covered. I’m sitting across the table with a good view of the action.

Flop comes K-9-8. BB bets out, CO raises, BB reraises, CO says “I’m all in” and gestures towards the pot. BB says “Okay”, turns over bottom two pair, and nods to the dealer seated between the two of them. CO turns over KK for top set and no one improves on the turn or river.

CO counts out his chips and announces the amount. BB gets a confused look on his face and claims that CO was all in when CO “called on the flop.” “You said you were all in; you didn’t say raise.” Claims that he couldn’t see CO’s stack on the other side of the dealer and thought that CO was just calling BB's reraise.

The tournament director & lovely hostess rules that BB called CO’s all-in raise and moves the chips over. BB pouts in front of the TV for the rest of the evening.

Correct ruling?

Should I have argued that by exposing his cards BB had actually killed his hand to try and keep him in the game? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Mackie]

BB has no case. Ruling clearly correct.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Should I have argued that by exposing his cards BB had actually killed his hand to try and keep him in the game? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The ruling was correct, but this might not have been a bad option depending on how friendly/informal the game was.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

Should I have argued that by exposing his cards BB had actually killed his hand to try and keep him in the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would exposing his hand after calling an all-in bet heads-up ever be grounds for killing his hand?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Should I have argued that by exposing his cards BB had actually killed his hand to try and keep him in the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would exposing his hand after calling an all-in bet heads-up ever be grounds for killing his hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what im thinking, you have a declared all in, and a declared "OK" which to me seems like a call, then the guy flips his cards over..... I dont see what the BBs argument was.

[jedi]

Dealer should have verified that "OK" meant that BB was calling the all in raise but since it didn't happen, and he a) said "OK" b) nodded to the dealer and c) didn't protest when the dealer revealed the turn, I don't think BB has a case.

[James Boston]

I'm confused. Is the BB arguing that he thought the CO had gone all-in with the initial raise?

[ QUOTE ]
BB gets a confused look on his face and claims that CO was all in when CO “called on the flop.”

[/ QUOTE ]

The CO raised on the flop. Then, against a re-raise, he went all-in. I don't see how this is an issue.

[lonn19]

The BB thought the CO was going all in just by calling BB's raise. He didn't know CO had more chips left. Interesting situation, but the right call was made.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
The BB thought the CO was going all in just by calling BB's raise. He didn't know CO had more chips left. Interesting situation, but the right call was made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand. But who says "all-in" when they're just calling all-in? The BB should have been paying attention.

[ QUOTE ]
Should I have argued that by exposing his cards BB had actually killed his hand to try and keep him in the game?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless BB is your collusion partner, then you would prefer her to be out of the tournament.