Hello Mike,
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your continued participation on the Forum. Without you, I'm afraid there would be nothing but the archives for advice!
Out of turn has always been a hot topic for discussion on our Forum. I always thought that there should be a separation, or perhaps a different set of rules, when action is head to head, as opposed to action with multiple players. Let's consider the scenario when only two players are involved and there is action out of turn. In a no limit game, the possibility of action changing to the OOT player, is if the proper (skipped) bettor, does anything different from the out of turn. If the OOT player checks, of course we would allow any action from the proper bettor. The only option that remains is for the OOT player to bet, (he can't raise). Once the OOT player bets, the proper bettor must call that exact amount or, the OOT player can retract his bet and have all options open to him.
Remember, the above scenario is for heads-up.
When we get to a pot with multiple players, we now have the possibility of the out of turn bettor skipping one (or more) proper bettors. In this scenario, it is possible that a bet has already been made. I mention this because; if the action were backed-up to the skipped player, this is when a raise could affect the ruling, and the options to the OOT.
Now lets consider the rule when applied to a fixed limit game. The game is 10 and 20. Heads-up action on the turn, Player B bets 20 (OOT). If the action is backed-up to Player A, what options does he have that would protect his right to act? If he checks, would the OOT Player be obligated to leave his 20 bet in the pot? How do we define action changing in a head to head situation? It is too confusing...at least that's how I see it. If the action were backed up to Player A, I assume, the only way Player B is obligated to leave his 20 in the pot, is if Player A decides to also bet 20? Is this correct? Because if it is, it needs to be fixed.
How does action change to the out of turn player, when he is only opposed by one other player? He has no right to bet out of turn. Because of his action, yes, I would consider his bet unretractable and even subject to a raise!
I wrote on this subject some time ago and I've been unable to locate it but, it went something like this: I was dealing in a house game. The game was 7 card stud and I believe it was a $5 and $10 limit. After dealing the river card to the two remaining players. I addressed the (high board) player to act. This is what he said: "I check but call!" He then tossed his $10 into the pot. The other player looked at me with a puzzled look and said, "what the hell is that?" I had never seen it before but I knew it wasn't right. I told him (the out of turn) that he couldn't do that. He said, "why not?" I said, "you already had your turn and you checked." If you try that again, you'll be subjected to a raise." What would you rule?