2015 rules #39 Undercall

[MikeB]

This takes us to your last point about not liking TD discretion... this is a murky area, and IF the rules are to accomodate an option where a player will be allowed to forfeit an undercall and fold you either say in EVERY case that is not heads-up or action following the opener the player has such option, or that the option is at TDs discretion. I personally like discretion because in most situations I'm inclined to require a full call unless there's a huge bet disparity and/or understandable circumstances where any reasonably attentive player might get the bet wrong.

Mike, I agree with most people that the ruling should be that calls and undercalls must be full calls with very few exceptions.  I think I may have mislead you with my failing attempt to use different words to describe the exceptional areas that 39B makes.  Again, my real objection to #39B is in these two phrases:

• In other situations, TD's discretion applies.
• This rule addresses when a player must make a full call and when, at TDs discretion, he may forfeit the underbet and fold.

Those statements contradict the well-known general rule as written in #49:  As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD's discretion.  

Does #39B say that Rule #1 can only be applied as described within?  

Because Rule 1 reads ".... takes priority over the technical rules", it can take precedence over ALL other written TDA rules.

But very interesting catch regarding the last line of #49. You'll note this is the only rule where Rule 1 is specifically referenced. The history of this is that in 2011 the delegates were locked in floor debate over Accepted Action. Some houses wanted strict accepted action with Rule 1 being implied while the other extreme wanted specific language as to how AA might be limited in extreme cases. The compromise was struck when a "mention" of Rule 1 was added to the rule. In practice some houses do have their own specific language that further modifies AA.

[BillM16]

This takes us to your last point about not liking TD discretion... this is a murky area, and IF the rules are to accomodate an option where a player will be allowed to forfeit an undercall and fold you either say in EVERY case that is not heads-up or action following the opener the player has such option, or that the option is at TDs discretion. I personally like discretion because in most situations I'm inclined to require a full call unless there's a huge bet disparity and/or understandable circumstances where any reasonably attentive player might get the bet wrong.

Does #39B say that Rule #1 can only be applied as described within? 

Because Rule 1 reads ".... takes priority over the technical rules", it can take precedence over ALL other written TDA rules.

Mike, I think we are pretty close.  I too prefer that we leave Rule #1 fully intact and ALWAYS allow the TD full discretion in all of these cases.  Let's compare the following wording with the current TDA 2015 version 1:

39: Binding Declarations / Undercalls in Turn
A: General verbal declarations in turn (such as “Call” or “Raise”) commit a player to the full current action. See Illustration Addendum

B: A player undercalls by declaring an amount or pushing out chips less than the call amount without first declaring “call”.  An undercall is a mandatory full call if made in turn.

C: As always, TD’s discretion applies.  For example, if convinced that an undercall was based on gross misunderstanding, the TD may offer the player the option to fold and forfeit the bet.

D: All-in buttons greatly reduce undercall frequency (See Recommended Procedure 1).

Here are the differences:

• A: Is the same.
• B: Is different by removing the qualifiers on heads-up and opening bet multi-way.  Also, "This rule addresses ... when at TD discretion ... etc." is removed. The rest is moved into C:
• C: Is consistent with other TDA rules and handles part of what 39B had said.
• D: Makes the point previously made in 39B.

What do you think?