ruling needed -- can two short raises reopen action?

[M.B.E.]

The river is dealt in a hand of NL holdem. P1 and P4 each have several thousand in front of them, P2 and P3 have $885 and $1035, respectively.

P1 bets $500. P2 raises all-in to $885. P3 then raises all-in, to $1035. P4 calls $1035. Now P1 purports to raise to $3000.

P4 objects, arguing that the actions of P2 and P3 were both short raises, and a short raise cannot reopen the action for the original bettor to reraise. P1 argues that if P2 had merely called, and then P3 raised, P1 would then have been able to reraise, and he cannot be deprived of that right just because P2 raised rather than calling.

What is the correct ruling?

[coltrane]

the amount P1 has to put in the pot when the action gets back to him is more than the amount of his bet, therefore I believe he is allowed to re-raise if he so chooses...

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
the amount P1 has to put in the pot when the action gets back to him is more than the amount of his bet, therefore I believe he is allowed to re-raise if he so chooses...

[/ QUOTE ]
If there had been only one short raise, P1 would not be allowed to reraise. The question is whether the second short raise makes a difference.

[Paul2432]

I don't know what the "official" ruling should be, but think P1's argument is weak. The ruling should be based on what actually happened, not what could have happened.

I also think both P1 and P4 could have anticipated this problem and discussed it before P4 acted.

If this was a home game with no rule in place to cover the situation, I think I would rule against P4, although I would consider giving him the option to take back his bet. P4 has a duty to clarify the situation before he acts but he did not, so the rule should be interpreted in the light least favorable to him.

What was the ruling?


Paul

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think both P1 and P4 could have anticipated this problem and discussed it before P4 acted.

[/ QUOTE ]
If P4's position is correct, then he certainly has no responsibility to "discuss" the rule with P1 during the course of the hand. To do so could reveal information about the strength of his holding. It also is not realistic for P1 to say "wait! before you do anything, let's discuss whether I would be allowed to reraise if you call that bet".

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think both P1 and P4 could have anticipated this problem and discussed it before P4 acted.

[/ QUOTE ]
If P4's position is correct, then he certainly has no responsibility to "discuss" the rule with P1 during the course of the hand. To do so could reveal information about the strength of his holding. It also is not realistic for P1 to say "wait! before you do anything, let's discuss whether I would be allowed to reraise if you call that bet".

[/ QUOTE ]

You say "if P4 is correct . . .", but there is no set rule, so the situation is undefined. The only way to make a ruling is to talk it out and reach a consensus. This is much more difficult after the money is in the pot. Surely P4 must have considered the possibility of a re-raise yet he said nothing figuring he could argue his way after the fact.

The damage to P4 is inherent to the situation whether he speaks up before acting or after acting. The fact that he waited to argue until after the fact looks like he is playing an angle to me.

BTW, P1 should have just bet 440 and none of this would have occurred.

Paul

[Ray Zee]

the original bet of 500 was raised to 1035. so he can reraise when it gets back to him. but many floormen will rule who knows what here.

[random]

Well what if P3 had 5000 behind, if he wanted to raise, the min he could put in is 1000 straight. It would be silly if him throwing in the extra 35 swings the ruling the other way.

[johnd192]

I thought the rule is that p1 can only call on this type of action. On the turn P1 can push.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Well what if P3 had 5000 behind, if he wanted to raise, the min he could put in is 1000 straight. It would be silly if him throwing in the extra 35 swings the ruling the other way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't the minimum be 1385 straight?