one reason to have the rule is to prevent player 2 "stealing" the first bet bluff IMO.
i consider that player 1 should be free to choose whatever option he likes, casue he has not done anything wrong, question is what to do with the bet that is in the pot from player 2.
Following the rules from tDA this is my idea.
I would give turn to act back to player 1, and the options is, check(bet from p2 stands, and resume normal rules when it comes back to players 1),he bet same amount as OOT bet(I.E 200 forcing player 2 to make the call of 200),Bet more then player2, and this gives the option back to player 2, he can Call. He can Fold and withdraw the bet he made in OOT(this is used to take away the first bluff bet i mentioned earlyer, or he can Reraise.
The only issues i see here is what if the player 2 bets 600, and player 1 bets 300, that make the 600 bet a reraise by force? or if its the in 50% raise rule. would we force the player 2 to make the raise or can he withdraw anything down to the call, this makes it kind of the "old" forced check/follow rule.
Or do we tell the player 1 the options he have is Check or bet same amount as player 2(thus making it a Call for player2) or if he wants to bet it have to be more then player2s bet This gets in conflict with "player that did nothing wrong should not be constrained in any way"
and it gets abit close to using another players error/misstake to gain a big advantage/unfair.
it could be handled like this also.
The out of turn bet is NEVER accepted, player will retract the bet, get a 1 hand sitout the hand afterwards, next time he does the same he gets a orbit.the third time he get 3-5 orbits.
(exceptions are All-ins that never can be retracted.
Im sorry if This is confusing