Happy Thanksgiving! First, I apologize for using the word “angle”, as that might have suggested that I, personally, feel strongly that the action we are debating should not be allowed. It is obvious to me from the tone of Jasper’s replies that he feels very strongly in his view, and I am not going to minimize that. Frankly, I don’t really care either way and am happy to enforce either interpretation. I would just prefer that the rule be clear – one way or the other. The fact that the rules are NOT clear as they stand, is something I believe there is agreement on. Second, I apologize for the long post. I had time off today. ☺
As Jasper noted, the current definition of “check” says the right to initiate the betting is waived, and the right to “act” is retained. I believe he is arguing that, based on the definition of “action”, all acts including raise must therefore be available. On the other hand, Rule 3 of Section 14 of RROP that deals specifically with No-Limit raising explicitly states that a player who has already acted and is not facing a full-size wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet. It is argued that the plain meaning of “acted” includes check, and in any event, the definition of “action” recites check.
Assuming that this correctly summarizes the viewpoints thus far, my point was that I doubt that when Rule 3 was codified, that the author took into account the definition of “action”, reconciled it with the definition of “check”, and then left it up to the readers to deduce that, specifically for Rule 3, a “check” should not count as an action or that the definition of “check” should override all other rules. I believe it is reasonable to assume that when Rule 3 was drafted, it was inserted as a standalone provision, and I feel that when the Rule is read in isolation, its meaning and intent are plainly clear.
Of course, we can't prove what was in the author’s mind when drafting the rules, and therein lies the ambiguity. The reason I brought up the “I bet zero” argument (
again apparently, I’m sorry for not having noticed) is that I verily believe that this has historical basis, and it is common when interpreting rules (or at least laws I suppose), to give some consideration to pre-rule history in trying to resolve ambiguity. But as I conceded, I can’t prove this, so I’m not willing to die by this sword.
That being said, I am very open to being persuaded to accept Jasper’s interpretation. If it is correct, I think Rule 3 has to be clarified because I am guessing that the “average” player reading that Rule would not immediately appreciate the nuances of “acted” not including a check. I’m not sure I am convinced yet though. For example, I’m not sure the analogy with the Limit Hold’em of Rule #7 is persuasive.
Take a look at RROP Betting & Raising #7. it says that an all in wager of less than half a bet does not open the betting to a player who has previously acted AND is all in for all previous bets. Granted, this particular rule says it is specific to limit play but I think it sort of demonstrates the concept I have been trying to argue. That is: the rule about not reopening the betting would only apply to a player that has already put chips in the pot BEFORE the short bet.
I agree that this excerpted part of Rule #7 regarding limit play does suggest that the betting is not reopened where a player has previously acted AND is all in for previous bets. But it wouldn't necessarily follow that the betting is not reopened
only under that specified circumstance, and not under any others. That reads the word “only” into the Rule where it does not appear. In fact, the next sentence of Rule #7 deals specifically with the situation when a player has not yet acted, and if it is being argued that “check”=”not yet acted”, then it is
this part of Rule #7 that is most analogous to our situation. It states that a player who has not yet acted… facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call or complete the wager. But if the all-in wager is more than a half bet, than a player may fold, call, or make a full raise.
I think it is instructive to note that in the short all-in situation, there is no mention of “full raise” being an option. The Rule could have been written as: “A player who has not yet acted… facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, complete the wager,
or make a full raise” – but that last option is clearly missing, despite it being recited explicitly as an option in the other case. Since there is no such thing as “complete” in NL, I think I would be more persuaded by an argument that Rule #7 would suggest that an analogous NL situation does not allow a full raise, only fold or call, since only those two options in the list make sense in NL.