What rule changes should we bring to the table at the 2013 Summit?

[Nick C]

 I attended the last Summit in 2011. I don't know if I will be in attendance at the next one. I have a proposal that might help the TDA members address the more important issues first, as opposed to starting with TDA #1 and going through each rule. I am suggesting that we try to determine, based on participation from the Forum, which rules deserve special attention...before others.

The task that the Board of Director's face, at the Summit, can be overwhelming. Two days is not enough time to address every issue. I believe it would be beneficial if we compiled a list that will afford the most time for discussion to resolve the rules that attracted the most debate, and controversy.

I will list the current rules that I feel need the most attention:
                                                                          No. 1   TDA # 41 Accepted Action
                                                                                2   TDA # 37 Raises
                                                                                3   TDA # 11Face Up for All-In's  

[K-Lo]

It would almost be better if somehow a list of proposed rule changes could be circulated in advance.  Members are asked to reply/vote in advance.  At the live meeting, pass the rule changes that are non-contentious as a formality, and debate the ones that are the most contentious and considered important. 

This may not be practical, but certainly if many of these changes are debated from scratch at the Summit, the Summit would be a month long.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

Thanks for your reply. I'm sure there are other's that would agree.

[Nick C]

Hello to all:

About a week ago Ken suggested that we circulate a proposed list of rule changes that we can discuss prior to the next Summit. I have stated the current TDA rules that I feel should top the list. A response from all members will assure that the most contentious, and important, will be addressed.

What TDA rules would you like to debate?

[K-Lo]

Hey Nick:  I'm still thinking about this one.  I'll also put together a short list.  K

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

Okay, time's up

Food for thought: Consider this addition to Accepted Action: No calling player, following the bet of an all-in wager, is allowed to react until the chips are in the pot or the amount is confirmed by the bettor and the dealer!

                              OR

Verbal is binding. However, because of the higher risk of clarity, the amount must be repeated by the dealer with confirmation from the bettor before the next active player reacts!

Any calling player, reacting to a valid wager, pushed to the pot by the bettor, is committed to that exact total without reconsideration!