cash game ruling question

[teamonkey]

Wife went to theatre last night in sheffield so I went to the grosvenor for a little cash and the following happened;

9 handed 1 1 nlhe

Utg limps,  mp makes it 4, fold fold etc to bb who reraises to 17 , utg then goes all in for 15, back to mp who announces reraise and thinks about the amount.

The dealer then states that he cannot reraise but can only call or go all in due to utg making an under raise to the bb's action.

Ignoring lol stack sizes (and I'm on my phone so typos too) is this a correct ruling in a cash game?

To me the under raise shouldnt matter as the bb still had a stack to play and the mp had plenty of chips back too. But the dealer was very insistant and a couple of players agreed with him so it stood.

Thoughts?

Mick

[stato_1]

No, this is not the correct ruling. The raise facing MP is 4 -> 17, clearly not an under-raise.

[celtic]

No, this is not the correct ruling. The raise facing MP is 4 -> 17, clearly not an under-raise.

[david3103]

utg has called (nearly) so all options are open

[tikay]

utg has called (nearly) so all options are open

David, get your arse over to Fred, a lovely photo question awaits you there.

[EvilPie]

Wife went to theatre last night in sheffield so I went to the grosvenor for a little cash and the following happened;

9 handed 1 1 nlhe

Utg limps,  mp makes it 4, fold fold etc to bb who reraises to 17 , utg then goes all in for 15, back to mp who announces reraise and thinks about the amount.

The dealer then states that he cannot reraise but can only call or go all in due to utg making an under raise to the bb's action.

Ignoring lol stack sizes (and I'm on my phone so typos too) is this a correct ruling in a cash game?

To me the under raise shouldnt matter as the bb still had a stack to play and the mp had plenty of chips back too. But the dealer was very insistant and a couple of players agreed with him so it stood.

Thoughts?

Mick

Not realising it's a call instead of an under raise is bad.

Allowing the guy to go all in over what he thinks is an under raise is even worse.

[teamonkey]

plenty putting into words what i thought at the time, but as a very rare cash game player, and having never been there before AND not actually being in the hand i kept schtum

anyway, thanks for the input, i'll get back to my life again now

Mick

[relaedgc]

SB: £1
BB: £1
UTG: £1
.
.
MP: £4 (+3)
.
.
BB: £17 (+13)
UTG £15 (All-in)

As MP was legitimately raised by a legal amount by the BB, the fact that UTG has moved All In is irrelevant. He has his full options.

[I KNOW IT]

Why is it whenever I see a ruling thread and see Grosvenor in the opening post I seem to cringe   

[teamonkey]

Just to mix it up a little what should have happened if it went;

Utg limp

Mp raise to 4

Bb reraise to 15

Utg all in for 17  (now its an under raise)

Options for mp?   Can he now reraise or is it only call or all in?

[I KNOW IT]

Just to mix it up a little what should have happened if it went;

Utg limp

Mp raise to 4

Bb reraise to 15

Utg all in for 17  (now its an under raise)

Options for mp?   Can he now reraise or is it only call or all in?

All options open to MP

[dakky]

Just to mix it up a little what should have happened if it went;

Utg limp

Mp raise to 4

Bb reraise to 15

Utg all in for 17  (now its an under raise)

Options for mp?   Can he now reraise or is it only call or all in?

All options open to MP

Yes this; the only thing the "under raise" changes is if MP calls then BB can only call or fold. Full action is open to MP as all he has done is open to 4; a re-raise to 15 (now 17) has totally reopened all action to him