Personally I wouldn't say you can just consider the amount cut only, but rather the totality of A's actions.... besides the initial stack cut out was there any other gesturing or utterance that might reasonably have led B to believe that was A's bet?
either:
A: The TD will bind B to whatever A eventually declares
B: The TD will rule that B had reasonable expectation that the amount staged was A's bet and B thus calls OR
C: B has essentially "called" no bet OOT (similar to calling a check), thus B isn't obligated to call anything because there was no bet at the time he "called".I don't think we would have another scenario where the amount staged will be declared the prior action and A will have a chance to change it at which time B will be released.
There's at least one other tangent issue, that being whether it's fundamentally fair to allow A to have a "fish on the hook here"... i.e. to allow A to totally control B's action at whatever level A chooses, considering of course that B's statement may not be (strictly interpreted), an open-ended conditional offer to call anything. Is that punishment in excess of the crime, and a potential windfall for A beyond what he reasonably "deserves" in this situation.
Appreciate your thought process on the matter so I will offer up the details-
Yes there was a stacking and possibly a lifting of the cut chips and B obviously jumped the gun on the call. However, when the TD investigated, A angled that he 'intended to bet more, and B was liable for any amount he bet due to his statement "I call".' I believe the TD felt A's behavior exceeded B's offensive and released B from his statement.
The backlash to this led to my query on this thread to determine if there was a cut and dried rule in play (obviously there almost never is in these completely random circumstances that arise) in favor of holding B liable, or is there legitimate cause for the TD to release the call.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, since A is already admitting that wasn't the intended bet, could you personally apply option (C) ...since there was no bet at the time of the call, B wouldn't be obligated to call anything...or, until further debates are held, would you oblige B to call at least the cut out amount regardless of A's intent to harm B beyond what B reasonably "deserves."
Thx. Cant ramble on any longer, I have a flight in 7 hours.