Enforce rules when not in hand?

[Taso]

Is this the right thing to do? Proper ettiqutte?

For example, lets say I'm running a game, but not in the hand, and a player raises to 100 (100 chip raise), and then the next player makes it 150 to go, when the minimum should be 200. Should I say something?

Or, Player A raises to 300, played B goes all in for 400, Player C calls the all in, player A re-raises, which he cannot do - should I say something?

These kinds of situations, is it bad etiquette to speak up and get involved in someone elses pot? For example, in the 2nd example, maybe Player C was bursting with joy that Player A re-raised, and now he'll be upset at me for speaking up.

So, the poll

[pfapfap]

"It depends..."

In your game, if those are the rules you want to follow, then of course speak up. Be clear about it, too, and head these things off at the pass. When the person goes all-in, say right then and there that it doesn't re-open betting, and be clear about that when the action gets back around to those whom it affects.

[ QUOTE ]
a player raises to 100 (100 chip raise), and then the next player makes it 150 to go, when the minimum should be 200

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume the first person opened the betting (raise from 0 to 100). In someone else's game, you can say something like, "is the minimum raise to 200?" or the like and see if anyone else takes an interest. How far you go with it depends on your status in the game. If you're an old-time regular whom people trust and respect, you can insist on a bit more than if a buddy of a buddy gave you a call that afternoon for some game he just heard about. You should talk with the host away from the table (during a smoke break or something) and ask about house policies.

At the end of your life, whether someone re-raised properly or not at a particular point in one hand of poker isn't going to make much of a difference, so don't be too much of a nit if it's not your game.

[JacksonMassey]

I've seen this posted a couple of times the last couple of days and am wondering, why do you have a rule that after an initial all-in, the two remaining players are forced only to call? If two players are still in the pot after the initial all-in, and each have chips over the initial all-in, why can't they play for a side pot?

Luckily, the majority of the folks that play at my home game know the rules, and all of us jump in to correct a play for someone who is new. If some one reraises less than the minimum once, we explain the rule and give them one chance to release the pot or make the right raise. If it happens again, then they are forced to raise the right amount. This seems to be the most fair way to handle it.

[Albert Moulton]

I said yes in both places. The rules need to be uniformly enforced for the game to be fair. If you let somebody under raise because it's not your game and you're not in the hand, then the same guy does it to you later, you've now already allowed a precident to exist in the game where illegal under-raises are "OK."

Usually people make these mistakes because they're unfamiliar with the rules. Politely pointing out the rules is much better for everybody versus letting the game develop disfunctional and potentially unfair "home rules" over time.

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you have a rule that after an initial all-in, the two remaining players are forced only to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a special situation where the all-in is less than a legal raise of the previous bet. This is treated as a call. For players who haven't acted yet, they can call, raise, or fold. For players who have already bet or called the amount previous to the all-in, they can call the all-in or fold. They can't re-raise because the all-in itself wasn't a raise. They would be raising themselves, which of course is not allowed.

[JacksonMassey]

I see now. I wasn't considering the fact that the initial raise to 300 was an underbet. Read as is, without that consideration, it looks as though Player A still had the option to raise.

[Taso]

Also Jackson, that is only for the current roud of betting. Say, if that action happened on the flop, then a sidepot would be allowed to develop on the turn/river. Or, if it happened preflop, a sidepot would be allowed to develop on the flop/turn/river.

Thanks for the responses so far, sorta what I figured, just wanted to be sure I wasn't being an [censored].

[JacksonMassey]

Taso-

Am I wrong in assuming that you guys are playing limit, based on your last post? This would have changed my analysis, as well.

So far I'm apparently batting 0/2 on what I considered to be fairly standard procedures. I'm enjoying being able to discuss strategy and procedures with folks outside of my home game, as we may have been getting a few things wrong.

[Forbin]

"Enforcing" is perhaps the wrong word to use when you are at someone else's game. If you are new to the game, you should certainly speak up and can ask it as a question. Like, "I thought the minimum raise would be to 200? Is that not the rule you guys use?"

Maybe they do have their own non-standard rules, and you should certainly find out what they are. Asking it as a question gives them the opportunity to learn the standard rule (if they want), and it lets you clarify in your own mind what rules you are playing by (if they do it their own way).

[Taso]

Jackson, we're playing No limit. Apparently the rules are different for limit though, not sure about that, I've never really played it.