K: I checked the 2011 Summit powerpoints. The day 2 powerpoint on pages 8 through 12 raises 8+ questions / clarifications on the issue of OOT Action. Page 11, item 7 most directly discusses your topic of interest by posing this question to the membership:
7: Should OOT Action Set Action Limit: Rule 29 [in the 2009 TDA Rules ] releases an OOT player & allows them to take any action if action to them changes. Should they be limited to only acting “up to their OOT declaration”? Example 1: Checked to Player A & B Bets 3k OOT. Back up to A who bets 1k, changing the action. Should B be limited to only raising up to 3k, calling, or folding, but not raising more than 3k? Example 2: Checked to Player A & B checks OOT. Back up to A who bets 1k. Should Player B be limited to a call or fold because he checked OOT?
From memory, several things happened here. First I don't recall much groundswell of interest in imposing these limits, but perhaps more importantly I recall that the wording of the then-current WSOP Rule language was presented as a clarifying framework for new TDA language. In the 2011 WSOP rules the language of Rule 83 read:
"Verbal declarations in turn regarding wagers are binding. Players must act in turn at all times. Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing. If a player acts out of turn and the action changes, the person who acted out of turn may change their action by calling, raising or folding and may have their chips returned. Players may not intentionally act out of turn to influence play before them. Violators will receive a penalty in accordance with Rule No. 96." This is essentially the same language of the current WSOP 2012 Rule 88...
You can see from the WSOP language that strictly interpreted the language refers to all action, not just betting by the OOT actor. Again, from memory I recall that the TDA membership in attendance liked the cliarification in the WSOP language which specifically spelled out that chips of an OOT bet can be returned if the action changes when it's backed up. This specific language about returning bet chips was not included in the 2009 TDA Rule 29: "Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Players are required to act in turn. Action out of turn is binding if the action to the player has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing." So the WSOP language was an important part of the lineage of the current 2011 TDA rule 35 b/c it spells out in unmistakable detail that all options are open including return of all bet chips.
Note also in TDA 35 that an out of turn caller is not held to a subsequent call if action changes (he "has all options including calling, raising, or folding"). I take from this that it also applies to the out of turn checker (which the WSOP language explicitly does, b/c it refers only to "acts out of turn", which would include checking). Why would we allow an OOT caller to subsequently raise but not an OOT checker?
Your point that this is in contrast to RROP is well noted. The RROP was part of the inspiration for having this clarification on the Agenda of the 2011 Summit in the first place. One consideration that must be included is manageability. It is just simply easier to have a blanket policy that if action changes the OOT actor is released and can take any action. Once we start imposing limitations we have more ruling variables to take into consideration and importantly more room to get it wrong... Leaving it that if action changes the player is released is very black and white: either action changes or it doesn't. If we decide that the OOT player needs limitations then we have to parse whether he checked, called, bet, or raised, and if so how much, etc... as the limitations may be different in every case.
As to your concern that an unethical player might use an OOT check as a ruse to invite an in-turn bet, note the WSOP language specifically prohibits this.
Undoubtedly this will all be brought up again at the next Summit. At the least it seems some clarification that the TDA language does include OOT checkers as well as bettors / raisers should be considered as well as including specific penalty language for OOT abusers. THanks for the post.