1/2 game, rules at this casino say English only at the table at all times. Action goes as follows: MP limps in, SB raise 15, BB raise 75, MP talks with his buddy who has folded in a language that is clearly not English, then calls. The dealer gives MP a penalty - no more aggressive actions this hand, MP can only check, call or fold from now on. SB raise 275, BB fold, MP puts all of his chips ~700 over the line. At this point the floor is called to help deal with the situation. What do you think the correct ruling should be ?

1. Dealer should, in general, not make rulings. If something like "no aggressive actions" needs to be done, a floor should do it. But in small rooms sometimes the dealer will make rulings like this.

2. "No aggressive actions" is a non-standard ruling in most cases. In a case where players spoke in a different language, no one else knows what was said, and it seems likely they were violating OPTAH it may be a reasonable "Rule 1" type ruling, though, to minimize the damage to all players.

3. A more traditional penalty for violating english only is a warning. Multiple warnings may be penalized by asking the player to leave.

4. If you somehow discover the players were discussing the hand, a more traditional penalty for violating OPTAH is the same as 3 - a warning, then being asked to leave if it doesn't stop.

5. Once the floor comes over, he has to decide what to do with the earlier dealer "ruling". If that ruling is a standard for the room, he should uphold it and limit MP to a call. As an alternative, give SB the opportunity to decide whether to rule it a call or an all-in, his choice, assuming they are heads up.

If that ruling is not standard, he has a lot of annoyance ahead of him. Option 1 is to rule that the ruling stands even though it was irregular, then proceed as above. Option 2 is to come up with something else (e.g. all options open to MP), play the hand out, then at the end of the hand give MP and his buddy a warning or ask them to leave. Either way, dealer gets a KITN afterwards.

Did the dealer have the authority to do that or not?

If there’s a floor around, why is the dealer making rulings?

“No more aggressive action in the hand” is kinda absurd. I’d be OK with holding him to passive action preflop, but not postflop.

As played, SB continued in the hand under the impression that MP wouldn’t be allowed to raise at any point. I think we have to protect him here and have the hand play out that way.

[If the dealer wasn’t allowed to make rulings and what he did differs from standard practice in that card room, he should be sent home for the day]

Yep, very strange ruling even aside from the fact that it was a dealer. This kind of things happen in small rooms when dealers/floors/supervisors can be the same person.
I agree the correct ruling is normally a warning, and if that is not enough, e.g. because of multiple prior warnings, they should declare the hand dead.
The ruling as is can even work out be an advantage to said player depending on the hand situation

The dealer made a terrible ruling and unless that is normal procedure there for a dealer to do that, he is not going to like what I have to say to him off the table. In this case the dealer has forced my hand, so I will only allow MP to call or fold here. And yes, I am giving him the option to take back his chips and fold if he wants to. After the flop I'm giving him all options again for the rest of this hand.

Floor ruling was - MP can call 275 and play the rest of the hand without aggressive actions or MP can fold and forfeit only the 75, despite putting his whole stack in.

Irrespective of the odd original decision, how does the floor justify this not being a call? I guess he is saying that his overcall did not constitute legitimate action, so his original options remain, but he was basically allowed to pump fake and get information, then retract his action. Not feeling this. This should be a call.

I'm guessing it is because the player did not understand what was happening with the dealers odd ruling (understandably).

No it should not be. The 75 yes. But the 275, 200 more, is obviously a misunderstanding. MP appears to believe he can still raise. His shove of 700ish shows that. He obviously did not understand the ruling the dealer made wrt no aggressive action. Since that r7ling is so nonstandard I can understand why he was confused.

Dealer should probably be fired. Floor should not try to enforce such a terrible ruling, and there is no fair way to roll it back.

For least harm i think giving the player who raised to 275 the option of treating it as all-in is fair, but he can also accept to play for the whole stack. Other player can not be held to non agressive actions ruling.

Killing the hand for violating one player per hand and having floor refund him whatever he put in also seems feasible.

I'm a softy when it comes to employees ... gotta know a lot more about this venue and the Dealer for this to be an axing event.

Did the Dealer get 'clear' understanding from MP when he applied the ruling/penalty ... and was this conveyed to the Floor who was eventually called over?

I would lean towards how the Floor ruled here ... And assume that this spot may be more common here than all of our rooms combined? A close second would be forcing the call, but allowing all options on future streets. GL