Small blind calls without seeing raise

[Som num na]

We are playing a SNG  with blinds at 200/400 and the villian is in the small blind. A player in mid position raises to 1200 and it folds around to the small blind who completes to 400 without realizing it was raised up. Now he hadnt said anything at all here and he knows if he had said call and made up to 400 because of the verbal call he would of been made to call the 1200. Now because he hasnt made any kind of verbal he says he shouldnt have to call the 1200. The table saw it as there were 2 options. 1) He can fold his hand but he loses the 400. He doesnt get to take the 200 back
2) He has to call the 1200
Personally i think he should be able to fold his hand and just lose the 400 because there was no verbal and it was an honest mistake but i would like to know the exact ruling if anyone could help please. Thanks in advance.

[tator2k]

Roberts Rules states: If a person makes a call  (even verbal) without a raise was made ahead of them, they are allowed to retract the incorrect action (and bet) and make a correct action.

[Dr. Neau]

I always love the threads that follow this format:

"Q: Player did this silly thing.  We all voted/decided that he had two options: A or B.  Which one is right?
A: Well, actually...C"

[Som num na]

and C is?

[Dr. Neau]

and C is?

Roberts Rules states: If a person makes a call  (even verbal) without a raise was made ahead of them, they are allowed to retract the incorrect action (and bet) and make a correct action.

In other words, the SB can say, "Oops" decide to fold and only forfeit their t200 blind.

[Som num na]

I am still non the wiser as to what the correct action is. Are you saying that you can say call  and then if you hadnt of realized it had been raised you can retract the 200 you made up and then decide what you want to do now you know it has been raised. Surely this leaves it open to saying call and seeing how the raiser likes your call based on his reaction  and if he seems ok with it you can then say you didnt realise it was raised

[holdemholmes]

I am still non the wiser as to what the correct action is. Are you saying that you can say call  and then if you hadnt of realized it had been raised you can retract the 200 you made up and then decide what you want to do now you know it has been raised. Surely this leaves it open to saying call and seeing how the raiser likes your call based on his reaction  and if he seems ok with it you can then say you didnt realise it was raised

Everything you need was stated right here:

Roberts Rules states: If a person makes a call  (even verbal) without a raise was made ahead of them, they are allowed to retract the incorrect action (and bet) and make a correct action.

[tator2k]

I am still non the wiser as to what the correct action is. Are you saying that you can say call  and then if you hadnt of realized it had been raised you can retract the 200 you made up and then decide what you want to do now you know it has been raised. Surely this leaves it open to saying call and seeing how the raiser likes your call based on his reaction  and if he seems ok with it you can then say you didnt realise it was raised

That is correct. (This is option 'C')

I will say it's pretty obvious when this happens and someone isn't paying attention and misses the raise.

[Dr. Neau]

I am still non the wiser as to what the correct action is. Are you saying that you can say call  and then if you hadnt of realized it had been raised you can retract the 200 you made up and then decide what you want to do now you know it has been raised. Surely this leaves it open to saying call and seeing how the raiser likes your call based on his reaction  and if he seems ok with it you can then say you didnt realise it was raised

That is correct. (This is option 'C')

I will say it's pretty obvious when this happens and someone isn't paying attention and misses the raise.

And it would also be obvious pretty quickly if someone was using this rule as an angle-shooting technique.

[Blaster]

 Yes, this probably falls under Robert's Rules "Gross misunderstanding" rule.  
   He is allowed to eiher call the 1200, OR pull back his extra 200 & fold his small blind.  
    He shouldn't have to both fold AND put some random incorect bet into the pot ($400. $500...) ...
    In the case of a true  'gross misunderstanding' (say, someone raised to 13x the BB),  .. even if he did say "call" & then just completed the SB in error,  he could still pull back & fold according to RRules... . (Although in this case of just a 3x BB raise, I would rule a verbal is binding, unless perhaps it puts him in / nearly all-in) ...

[William]

It's really easy.

SB says call, and puts out another 200 chips.
You tell him there has been a raise.
SB says he didn't notice.
You ask him what he wants to do: Call or fold?

Problem solved.

[stooks99]

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot? 

[Dr. Neau]

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot? 

Seen it called that way, but that don't mean it was right.

[Martini]

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot? 

Seen it called that way, but that don't mean it was right.

Yeah, I've seen people string bet too...

[stooks99]

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot? 

Seen it called that way, but that don't mean it was right.

doesn't?

[Dr. Neau]

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot? 

Seen it called that way, but that don't mean it was right.

doesn't?

Slang?!?

[R-Ho]

 

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot?  

If small blind adds to his obligatory bet the amount that he thought was needed to limp in, not realizing the bet has been raised, I will allow small blind to take back the difference, or call. No other options.

I think I understand William and Dr Neau here, and I agree with them.

[Nerre]

I just have to pop in here with that situations like this can mostly be avoided by the dealers doing their job: Announcing all bets and raises.

The topic says "without seeing raise", not "without realizing". If the dealer announces all bets and raises players don't have to look at the stacks to find out what the current bet is.

[Martini]

I just have to pop in here with that situations like this can mostly be avoided by the dealers doing their job: Announcing all bets and raises.

The topic says "without seeing raise", not "without realizing". If the dealer announces all bets and raises players don't have to look at the stacks to find out what the current bet is.

With all due respect, people who aren't paying attention to the game will ignore the dealer's announcements as well as the visual cue of someone putting chips out. Having the dealer verbalize the action will make it more inexcusable for them to miss it but it is in no way assurance that they will notice that a bet or raise has been made.

[holdemholmes]

I just have to pop in here with that situations like this can mostly be avoided by the dealers doing their job: Announcing all bets and raises.

The topic says "without seeing raise", not "without realizing". If the dealer announces all bets and raises players don't have to look at the stacks to find out what the current bet is.

With all due respect, people who aren't paying attention to the game will ignore the dealer's announcements as well as the visual cue of someone putting chips out. Having the dealer verbalize the action will make it more inexcusable for them to miss it but it is in no way assurance that they will notice that a bet or raise has been made.

This. This is just another rule to protect people from themselves, but the people that pay that little attention to raises tend to not hear the verbalizations either from what i've seen.

[Blaster]

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot? 

I play in some games where they generally make 'incorrect' lower bets forfeit to the pot, Someone raises to 1K, Player "B" doesn't realize & throws out 200, if he decides not to call the 1K , then his 200 "stays in") ...) .... I understand it, but it's against Robert's & most published rules ..
 A player should either Have To make the CORRECT bet & be in the hand, or Fold.. Not both fold AND still have to make an incorrect bet too ...

[Martini]

Am I the only one that's seen this mistake ruled as SB can call 1200 or fold, but folding leaves the full 400 in the pot? 

I play in some games where they generally make 'incorrect' lower bets forfeit to the pot, Someone raises to 1K, Player "B" doesn't realize & throws out 200, if he decides not to call the 1K , then his 200 "stays in") ...) .... I understand it, but it's against Robert's & most published rules ..
 A player should either Have To make the CORRECT bet & be in the hand, or Fold.. Not both fold AND still have to make an incorrect bet too ...

It it were a cash game I could see a house rule forcing the money to stay in the middle as a penalty after warnings to make the player pay more attention. I would object to that being done in a tourney setting though.