Some rooms have this policy. I choose not to play in those rooms.

Well actually, the rule in NL and PL is that it has to be a full raise to reopen the betting, although some floors (and rooms) do get this confused. But the question is still legitimate.

I have seen a floor rule that this question can not be answered during the hand. I disagree with it .... but I have seen that ruling made.

This would be a nonstandard rule. there are places that use this rule in NL (it is the standard in limit) but they are minority and if they use this rule they probably get a lot of other things wrong as well.

I can see a dealer not being able to answer in a specific case, but shouldn't you always be able to ask 'What size of raise relative to the original bet is required to reopen action?' I thought clarifications of rules were always allowed.

Others are telling you this is non-standard, and it is. I'll add that you (or the rooms in which you play) are probably confusing it with the rule that requires a full raise from a player who attempts to bet 50% or more on top of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise.

Everyone pretty much agrees on the main discussion. They know that we know what they are going to say

This is really the correct question.
And when you ask the question from the OP correctly, the dealer must tell you the answer (because he is obligated to) or at least the floor is.

But your question should be in the form of:
"How much was the original raise?"
"How much is the current raise?"

This will tell you your answer unless the room has really stupid rules where you don't need a full raise to re-open the action.

You could even throw in:
"In this room, does an incomplete raise re-open the betting?"
Can't see how a floor couldn't answer that question for you...

Related question, which I should probably know the answer to:

Does a set of multiple small raises, which in total would permit a raise, permit a raise?

In other words, say Player A bets $100; player B goes all-in for $140; player C calls; player D goes all-in for $210. Back to Player A. I presume he can now raise again, even though no individual intervening raise has been a full bet.

Related (and probably irrelevant) question -- what is the minimum raise that Player A could make at this point?

Yes and $110 more to make it $320

+1

But C can not if you were wondering

I like this line of questioning very much indeed.

This must have been at the B-Shoe. The first time this happened to me there, I asked "Has action re-opened?". I was told the same "I can't tell you", and asked for a supervisor, who told me the same. On asking the rules of the room, I was told "I'll explain it to you after the hand."

Now, in this room, the rules are fluid. I've seen dealers answer and refuse to answer. I've seen floors rule that half a raise reopens betting and not.

Got it in one, Drifter.

Hence why you should drive 15 more minutes down the pike.....

And did they? Cant wait to hear it if they did.

You've misunderstood the rule. In order to reopen the betting, it must be a full raise.
Haven't been online in a few days.

+1 to only the player the action is on asking these question.
+1 to the dealer/floor being ******ed for not answering UTG's question.

Can someone explain to me why it is that someone in a later seat is not able to ask a simple rules question? How can it influence the action to state the rules, unless the action was about to be based on a misunderstanding of the rules? Wouldn't it be good if clarifying the rules affects the action?

What if the dealer said "call or fold" on his own? That's not an OPTAH violation. It happens frequently. Therefore, how can a question from anyone that leads to that same info being stated be wrong? That rule can be on a plaque on the wall right next to the player whose turn it is to act.

IMO, it's not an OPTAH violation as such, but it is an etiquette breach to start asking rules questions when action's not on you. Perhaps the player whose action it is may misunderstand the rules, but it's up to him to ask (or not).

It is because the asking of the question carries withit certain implications...


Lets take out the rules question for a minute. Suppose their is no all in. Just a bet.

Player B is thinking about calling the bet. When all of a sudden player F says? Hey A just remember that if you call this bet Players C,D,E, or F might raise you.

Would you agree that is out of line? Does it somehow become acceptable by phrasing it as a question to the dealer? Hey Dealer, if player B calls the bet, Can Players C,D,E,F raise it?

I don't see why making it a question to the dealer suddenly would make this acceptable.

Now if Player F legitimately needs a rules question answered before he can act, then at least by waiting for his turn to act we minimize the influence his question has on the action. And clearly Player F has no need to have this information before he acts ... so if he insists on asking it before his turn ... it must be because he is trying to influence player B.

I think there's an obvious fundamental difference between my question and your example.

If the dealer chose to say "call or fold, no raise allowed" that'd be fine. So if that's the answer to any other player's or even bystander's question, it seems to be fair game too.

If the dealer said "remember that if you call, the other players can still raise..." that would be awful. So if that's the answer to the question, dealer has to stay quiet. Apples and oranges.

The second part of what you say assumes a lot, but is a much better reason. I think the best example of why it's not great is that we know the person who asked the question is a respected poster who probably didn't intend to influence player B. Therefore this question can be asked innocently.

It's the same basic reason you wouldn't ask "Hey, dealer, just to clarify the rules, I can go all in when it's my turn, right?" when action hasn't gotten to you yet.

You're just clarifying rules, right? What's the harm in that?


I don't think psand's assumption that the asker is trying to influence player B has much merit because we can't know, but we do know that it MAY influence player B, so it's kinda inappropriate.

I don't think this would be appropriate if the player has not asked.

I have never heard a dealer unsolicited say that.

I have heard and I have used "Check or Bet" as a prompt when a player seems to have no clue why I could possibly looking at them expecting them to do something .... but its a response to their nonverbal question.

Maybe if the player was clearly in the process of counting out a raise and the dealer was trying to speed this up by telling him the raise was not allowed to speed things up .....

Asking for rules can indicate to other players what may occur and influence the action, and it may be pertinent for a dealer to delay answering a question. But rather than saying "I can't answer", wouldn't it be better for the dealer to say something like "I'll explain when action is on you", or "Please wait till the action is completed before asking", or whatever variant works best, instead of implying that the rules themselves are somehow a secret?

Refusing to answer when the player making a decision asks for clarification is just silly and most likely a misunderstanding by the dealer/floor. Maybe, being charitable to them, they decide that the guy making a decision is now only asking because he was prompted, but that seems like a stretch.

I think it's important to remember here that we're not talking about what the next player can do. We're talking about the person whose action it's on. That person being told he can't raise doesn't influence anyone else's action, because the player still has yet to act.

I think this misunderstanding is perfectly demonstrated when the dealer doesn't answer the player's question either, when it's his turn to act. That's actually idiotic.

Not answering the player whose action it is is fairly stupid, I agree.

Another player asking questions could but doesn't necessarily signal to other players.

Fair