Hi Tristan:
As usual, I really like your reasoning.
I do understand not wanting to tie down the hands of the TD with rules that are too specific. In fact, I think the TDA rules are purposely more general in nature so as to accommodate minor variations in policy. But I do think there is some value in providing at least some discretionary language to show that the TD can consider various factors when applying Rule 1. E.g. rule 1 MAY apply at TD's discretion, particularly in situations where the opponent's bet is not in clear view, or where it is otherwise reasonable to conclude that the caller was deceived as to the nature or the amount of the wager. I don't think this ties the TD down in any way, and in fact, it makes the decisions that are exceptions to the general rule more transparent. I fear that without such a qualification, the rule seems to effeectively require too high of a standard in order for an exception to be made.
With respect to the two player example, I have mixed feelings about it. I see what you are saying, but I do feel there is a difference between sharing what is effectively the penalty at the end of the hand (if the caller wins, the all-in has no recourse and vice-versa), and sharing responsibility to prevent an irregularity from occurring. In your example, the caller only has an advantage in both cases IF when the dealer is asked for a count, the bettor does not intervene to confirm the amount. I do feel that all parties at the table, but especially the players involved in the pot, have a shared responsibility to confirm the accuracy of the dealer's count before the hand is played out. There is no incentive now for the bettor to correct an incorrect count from the dealer, and I think that responsibility should be shared. Now occasionally, there may be situations where the caller may get a break when an incorrect count of a dealer is relied upon and where the bettor, if he chooses not to help verify the count, may be liable for more; however, I am not so certain that this "premium" is unjustified - the caller may be at the mercy of the dealer to receive a correct count (the dealer is supposed to be impartial) and bears a risk when relying on that count... The bettor on the other hand bore no risk, as his bet did not depend in any way on misinformation from a dealer. In fact, I wonder if the result is any different from what happens when the caller asks the dealer for a count, it is given without correction from the bettor, the caller puts out the chips for the call, and the dealer scoops it all together into the main pot before continuing (which is often done)... If the call amount was actually short, isn't the result the same?
An interesting discussion, I must say. I doubt we'll be able to get broad-based support for the EPT-type wording anyways, but a nice compromise would be a little clarity on when rule 1 might apply.