An associate submitted the following suggestions on the topic of re-opening the betting:
[begin comments]....
... I need to point this out...someone with less experience than us may interpret [re-opening language] differently (literally) based on the way it is written…
37: Raises . A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips in Rule 39). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted
Ok, so the scenario again is: 1-2 blinds, no-limit game, Player A checks. Player B bets 25. Player C goes all-in for 40. The house rules (incorrectly), that Player A is not allowed to raise because "an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"
[To avoid this] might it be better if the rule read something to the effect that:… an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted on the last full bet or raise?
Anyway, my concern was, with the hundreds and hundreds of cardrooms out there and dozens more popping up, I have to believe this is not the only one that may find this translation confusing. But then again, maybe not. Just a heads up… KW
[ end comments ]