Well, this one is certainly straight out of my latest soap box so I will try and help you out.
I fully agree with Chet on this one, the troublesome part is not the Full Bet or Raise part. That, in my opinion, is the easy part (even considering how difficult it can be for a newbie - I thought it interesting that the WSOPE France ignores the difference and just goes with double the last wager). The issue is "who has already acted". Well, sort of.
Our previous thread, all 6 pages of it, revolved around that very thing. The answer for me turned out not to be "who has already acted" so much as is anybody facing a 'legal" bet. If you recall, the outcome to the previous thread was that since the check raiser was not facing a "legal" (full, if you will) initial bet, then technically the betting was not "opened" and the checking player could not raise (he can just call). (after all that arguing, I can see it clearly now in RROP sec 14:3, go figure) But that whole discussion revolved around a short-all in "first" bet that was not even the size of the BB.
As I see it, #37 is specifically speaking of "Raises". So that a Raise has to be of "Full" or "Legal" size in order to open the betting to a previous player. The already acted part is easy here because, well, anybody that has checked can't be getting raised can they? And we finally all agree (well, I do anyway) that check is action for the purpose of counting who's turn it is so as far as rule #37 is concerned we shouldn't have a problem.
So if you think the disputation is about what constitutes a "full raise" then perhaps we could find some language that somehow makes it clear that the raise is only that portion over and above the initial "bet" (wager). But I would not be hopeful that you could find anything more clear than "full raise". Couldn't hurt trying I suppose.
The part that is not explicit in TDA rules that may help with some of the problems players have has to do with the multiple all-ins and that is dealt with in RROP Sec 14:4. I think it is one of those things that we are supposed to know and therefore it didn't end up in TDA rules. It could though, as that is probably the area that players have trouble with.
And just a note. You asked Chet why so many members where wrong on the most debated topic and without looking back at the thread, I will say that I was the most wrong but I was damned persuasive so don't hold it against anybody
. BTW, he was doing something constructive: he was trying to get you to lay off DC (though, Chet, I doubt DC needs the assist as I am sure he is fully entertained). Just my 2 cents, dude.
but to directly answer your question "It clearly needs something, does anybody agree?"
No.
