Hello, I have a rule question that I observed in a local card room today…the floor eventually had to rule on this one and I disagree with his ruling – even though I wasn’t involved in the hand, I want to see what the community thinks about it.
The game is NL hold’em and the blinds are 300 and 600.
Seat 2 is the BB, seat 4 raises to 2400. Seat 7 flat calls the 2400. Seat 2 pushed all in for 3600. Here is the question: Is seat 4 allowed to re-raise?
The floor ruled that, yes seat 4 can re-raise. According to the floor, since the all-in is greater than ˝ the amount needed for a complete raise (4200) – seat 4 can raise the bet again if desired.
I have two main problems with this ruling:
1. If this is the case, hypothetically speaking, what if seat 4 verbalized raise after the all-in? How much does he have to make it? Is it 4200, is it 6000, or is it 5400 (3600 + 1800)? This, I believe illustrates my point and shows the flaw in the floors ruling.
2. If you look at this hand from an overview it also looks funny. Seat 4 raised the bet by 1800 to 2400 total; we all know the next minimum raise is 4200. The all-in is only 3600, so if seat 4 is allowed to raise the hand plays out as follows: Seat 4 raise, seat 7 call, seat 2 all-in (for less than full bet), and seat 4 re-raise. The only two raises both came from seat 4, meaning that seat 4 re-raised himself, something we all know is illegal.
I know for a fact that on FTP seat 4 cannot raise. That being said, house rules are house rules – any thoughts?