Very nice response, ew2484. You struck the heart of the matter that I'd like to discuss, which is: for what reasons should it be valid to apply rule #1? (Maybe some guidance on this could be created at next year's TDA summit.)
First, let's review the rule. Here it is verbatim.
41: Accepted Action
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all tournament situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion.
Secondly, for our purposes, let's define applying rule #1 as making the caller be responsible for only the dealer's stated amount (rather than for the full all-in amount).
Next, let's break down each reason. I'll list my thoughts for and against it being a valid reason to apply rule #1.
Reason 1: Extreme miscount.
This should be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because players rely on dealers to give a fairly accurate count, and players will sometimes decide whether or not to call based on the dealer's count. And when the dealer errs so egregiously, the remedy must be to make the player responsible for only the amount stated by the dealer.
This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because poker is a visual game, and "poker is a game of alert, continuous observation." And had the player been alertly observing, he would have seen for himself that the count was significantly off.
This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 also because rule 41 itself explicitly states, "It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount."
This also should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because it eliminates the possibility of the caller angleshooting a freeroll, as ew2484 described.
Reason 2: The all-in player did not correct the dealer's miscount.
This should be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because players have a duty speak up if they see the dealer about to commit an error.
This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because the bettor himself might not know how many chips he has, and per rule 41, the onus falls on the caller to know, not the bettor.
Reason 3: Enforcing the rule would result in the caller being eliminated from the tournament, or close to it.
This should be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because eliminating the player from the tournament is too severe a consequence for this scenario.
This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because the consequence of the ruling should have no bearing on whether or not to apply rule #1. Instead, the decision should be made solely on the validity of the reasons.
What do you think? Are any of the above reasons valid? If so, which ones? Please take the poll.