[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
of course bill is committed to a raise, a he was acting in turn, and must at least raise the minimum. If I answer Bill in asking what will happen, he has way too big an advantage in knowing how he commit the BB's chips. This effectively gives him last action in the pot, and IMO is grossly unfair to the 2 other players in the pot.

If we treat poker as a game of information, then Bill really is not entitled to know what I will force the BB to do until he acts on his hand. The raise sizes were approxximately 8% of the stacks, so to commit a guy to a all in in that spot would be really an unfair thing to do.

Flame on.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Not letting Bill know what the ruling is is crazy. A player has the right to know what the rules of the game are.

If someone were to ask you "Hypothetically, what would happen if someone left to act behind me announced reraise after I said raise but before I declared an amount?", shouldn't they be able to get an answer? Shouldn't the rule in all such hypothetical cases be consistent and shouldn't players be able to ascertain what it is at any point during play?