Wait wait wait ... ok:
CHET: they call at 3000 or fold & loose 2000!
MIKEB & SPENCE: they all call at 3000!
NICKC: they all call at 3000 or fold & loose nothing!
My favorite (and applied one) is the CHET's! This "chips on the table must stand" is a great modern rule that oblige the players to pay attention to the game! Remember that no one said really "CALL" wich would have me oblige them to put the 3000! It's a serie of short calls WITHOUT any official verbal call! Important deetail in my eyes (& ears). It also as a kind of logic that fits with Mike's 80% theory but WITHOUT numbering it: here they just have to put 1000 to call ... I think they will do it most of the time. If the real bet of P2 was 30,000 ... I'm sure they will release the 2000 with pleasure!
In fact you all seems not to use the "substantial action" after any short bet right? Even if it's a different kind? Like:
a) Short call followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?
b) Short open bet under the BB followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?
c) Short raise after a BB followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?
d) Short raise after a bet followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?
It's sure that whatever CHET, MIKE or NICK solution, if you ALLWAYS adjust the short bets as long as the betting round isn't over and NEVER apply the "substantial action behind" rule ... it's must simpliest than what we used to do here and I like it!
We could then conclude that substantial action behind a misdeal, a wrong board or a skipped player will freeze the action but not in the case of a serie of short bets!
Why not ... I love it ... but like many other examples ... WHO can definitly decide WHAT? THE TDA!