Message Board : Is this tournament ruling correct?

Hi,

In a tournament today in which I was the big stack with approximately 1/4 - 1/5 of the chips in play with seven players left at the final table this occured:

Blinds were 800 and 1600.  The big blind only had 1360 chips and was all-in.  The next player called the 1360, then two folds around to me.  I looked down to find K-K and grabbed a stack of big chips to run out the riff raff.  Before I could get the chips in the middle two people stopped me.  “Since the BB didn't have a full blind, you can't raise.” 

Well, I know more about the rules than the average player, but I didn't know this.  I argued the point: “This is no-limit hold'em isn't it?”  But they ganged up on me saying that is the way it is done in casions and on the internet too.  So, under duress I called for the 1360.

Two more called behind me, and I knew something bad had happened to my kings.  Instead of being a huge favorite against one caller, I ended up having my winning percentage decimated by being against five players.

Oh, I lost a chunk of chips, of course, to a guy that weasled in with J-9 and ended up with trip jacks.

I looked this up on Home Poker Tourney, and the rules there seem to support this decision.  Is this correct and fair?

Thanks,

Natcheztoo

HJ,

I was so hot that I was more than a little confused, but you got me back on track.  Actually what they quoted at this tournament is what you stipulate in paragraph two above:

It was a stuation in which a player, the big blind, put himself all-in for less than half the minimum raise.  Does the fact that the all-in BB raise was 1260 and the blinds were 1600 make any difference in he way you explain this?

Several of the playerswho vociferously batted down my objections play in casinos and online all the time, and they were adamant that the internet and casion rules backed them up.

I'd just like to know for my own edification how this is really supposed to work.  It won't do me any good if the same situaiton arises in this venue, however, as they have several other indiginous, quirky rules, e.g. when sending a player to another table they deal a card to everybody at the table, and they don't use the dead blind — the button moves to the next player even if it has to cross a just vacated seat, and the players on the left of the button put up the blinds just as if nothing happened (they maintain it will all even out eventually!).

I actually could have taken down the hand above anyway, I believe, if I had gone all-in on the flop, as the eventual winner had not hit his trips yet.  But I was too hot and flustered to think correctly.

After bleeding off even more chips to the winner of my K-K hand (above), I found myself heads up against the same guy.  I was still steaming and made an all-in bluff with Qc-10c on a board of 7-8-5 raibow and a 7 on the turn.  I was representing a set or straight or straight draw.  Unfortunately, in my “still steaming” condition I picked on the “current” huge chip leader who had two pair: wired 10s and the 7s.  My decimated all-in of 8,500 chips was a pittance.  After a long deliberation he called and I was knocked out.  All of his buddies cheered and congraulated him on an excellent call!  Yeah, for sure.  Following a dumb play against the tournament leader.  I'm a poker idiot sometimes.

Natcheztoo

Natcheztoo said:

It was a stuation in which a player, the big blind, put himself all-in for less than half the minimum raise.  Does the fact that the all-in BB raise was 1260 and the blinds were 1600 make any difference in he way you explain this?

No, in short there is no way to close out a player's action before they have made their initial act in the hand.  Other players may raise or call like normal, and if they call it is for 1600 and not the 1260 (unless of course they have less than 1600 themselves, in which case they merely call all in).

Just to carry the logic further in this hand, suppose UTG called for 1600, and the player to his left had 1650 and went all in.  You are the next player to act.  You can still raise; you have taken no action yet this turn, action is still open to you.  The only player whose action has been closed out is the UTG… if there is no reraise before he acts he may only call or fold.

In any case, Ed's said his piece so you can tell your group the Noted Poker Authority has ruled against them!

- HJ

AKQJ10 said:

The best explanation is that the insufficient raise doesn't reopen betting to someone who put in the last raise, but it also doesn't close it to someone who hasn't yet acted on the last bet or raise.  

(I wish I could find the thread where someone put it in those terms so I could credit them.)

Ya, that rule can get a little tricky sometimes I suppose. But there's no such rule for the blinds. Since the blinds are live, everyone is always given a chance to act preflop, no matter who is all-in in which blinds. Even if the small blind was $100 and the big blind had only $1, if someone else limped into the pot (for $200 mind you) then the small blind would get a chance to raise once it came around to him.

Maybe that's where the confusion came in. These guys seem to be treating the big blind like it's a regular old bet, and it's just not. Everyone doesn't just get to limp in for $1 or $100 this hand just because the player in the big blind happens to have only $1. It's still $200 to go.