If I may jump back in here for a bit. It seems to me that Oddvark touched on the problem you may be having with the rule which seems to be the "player who has acted" language. Your concern being about the player who has acted by checking. I looked in the RROP glossary and this is the definition of a check: "to waive the right to initiate betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting" By this definition of a check, a player actually HAS NOT acted by checking (I know that we use checking as significant action in some situations but for the purpose of this rule...). He retains the right to act if there is betting behind him.
For the checker, he has simply waived his right to initiate the betting. The betting is actually still OPEN to him , it just may be that action never gets back to him because if everyone checks behind he has already waived the right to INITIATE betting.. For an initial bettor they CLOSE their action until someone OPENS it by raising. Yes, NOT REOPENING betting and CLOSING betting are quite different since you actually CLOSE your own betting by actually betting! Another player has to REOPEN betting to you by raising you.
Let's take a look at Rule 31 again. I am quoting the rule with my suggested changes here but I think we already agree that the 50% part is not relevant to this discussion.
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. 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. The exception is in the case of multiple all-in bets still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise.
I think this next illustration demonstrates how the proposed language could help make the action clear(with our definition of a check, of course). it should show how an all in bet establishes the next bet size but leaves the minimum raise amount unchanged.
So let's run through another example of play to illustrate
POST FLOP play (I want to illustrate a guy that checks!) 50/100 blinds
SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)
1 - calls 75 (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75. if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175 (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275. The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225 (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400 (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575. Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)
Now, all that said, I think that the small changes I've proposed (or something similar) would suffice to make it clear most all of the time and keep the main body of the rules concise. But perhaps some kind of appendix of examples or supplement as Oddvark suggested would be a great addition. I DON"T think an actual section in the rules for ALL-IN players is needed as these changes suggested here should actually address most all the issues
Can anyone give me a situation that couldn't be covered by this rule (theoretically, by Rule 31 and an understanding of RROP 14:1-4 but this was meant to clear it up in TDA rulse)?
NickC, does the definition of a check help with the understanding of the rule?