[Under dog]

Thanks Kurn,
[ QUOTE ]
Plqayer A can raise whatever amount he wants, since he limped and player B raised. The lock situation would occur if player A were to call the 4200, then player B would not be able to do anything except call as he technically was not raised.

Since A limped and was legitimately raised by B, he is not locked by the under reraise by C.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I thought
and:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course Player A can reraise in this scenario.

Player A is reraising player B's raise, not C's underraise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Steeve to quote from the Ladbrokes link

[ QUOTE ]
If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round , the betting round is locked.

[/ QUOTE ]

The betting round in front of Player C was a 5 x BB raise, he of course can not double that (therefore locking Player B's options) but the betting round (from Player A's stance) is still a 5 x BB raise (obv greater now with the all in on top) but he has to react to the betting round [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I just reread that and it sounds very confusing but basically I dont think that defintion of Under raises states my friends agrument to be true.