IMO when action is backed up, the rightful action player has a right to know the ramifications of his action on the the OOT player.
In most OOT situations this is in fact spelled out in the rules; in the situation in the OP we have a vague situation not precisely set forth in the rules (as yet) because the OOT player interjected before the rightful player could establish the amount of his bet. In this situation also, I think the rightful player is entitled to know the ramifications of his betting options.
In fact I think it's the most important issue... however you are going to rule in this situation, the rightful bettor is entitled to know before he acts. If you min raise, this is what happens.... if you raise up to 70k, here's what happens, if you raise in excess of 70k total, here's what happens....
I agree with that. That is what made this decision more difficult imo.
Not meaning to sidetrack the OOT discussion of the original post, but I do want to challenge the thinking on this one. It's something that's come up a few times, but because it's really a procedural issue, we've left it alone. Maybe it should be the topic of a new thread.
I am pretty sure that the stance on this new issue -- whether or not the TD should explain all available options in detail if asked -- is not unanimous amongst TDs, one way or the other. Based on our previous discussions in other threads, I know that amongst the handful of the regular contributors to this Forum that I am in the minority on this one, but I've yet to be turned over to the dark side. :-)
As a procedural point, this is how I learned to deal with the OOT rulings at the table; I'm not 100% sure of the origin, but I do know that at least a couple of respectable "big tour" TDs approach the issue in the same way -- i.e. the 'missed' player whose turn it is, is simply to be directed to complete his or her action, before ruling on what options are available to subsequent players.
As I understand it, the most basic reasoning supporting this approach is that as TD, we should not be coaching players, particularly while a hand is in progress. Generally speaking, the players ought to know what the rules are.
If, as a TD, you were asked by a player: "If I have the Ace of Spades in my hand (the board is showing Ah-Kh-Qc-Jc-Td), would I win the pot?", how many of us would think that it is OK to answer that?
Some might say that the situation in our example is different, because it doesn't involve actions of another player. So, what if the question was instead: "If I bet X here, and player Y goes all-in, will I be able to re-raise when the action gets back to me?" Or, "if I call here, is that OOT raise binding, and if so, does the button have a chance to raise again, and if he calls, will I get to raise then"? At one point, we get on this slippery slope...
Back to our original example: if I am asked "what are my options, and what will happen to [the OOT player's] bet?", I have no problem telling the player that he must complete his raise (because he has announced "raise") and that what will happen to the OOT bet will depend on what he does. In the more general OOT scenario, if the skipped player has not yet acted, I may tell the player that he can do whatever he wants, and that the OOT bet may or may not be binding depending on what the action is. This is as far as I will go now. I know some TDs who will be even vaguer (and I took this approach myself for a long time): "Complete your action and then I'll tell you".
Mike, you mention that "however you are going to rule in this situation, the rightful bettor
is entitled to know before he acts". You are of the view that "the rightful action player
has a right to know the ramifications of his action on the the OOT player". Although this is certainly an understandable position because the missed bettor was not at fault, I am curious to know what you rely on as the basis for this "right" as there really isn't a basis for this level of protection for players explicitly or implicitly set out in the rules. I should note that educating the missed player so that he knows the effects of
each of his options actually goes one step further, and I think it is arguable that one can take this too far. I think it is wise to consider the possibility that even if such a "right" to an explanation exists, there must be some boundaries on that. Does the missed player really have a right to get each and every option, each and every branch of his potential decision tree, spelled out for him?
While it can be argued that the missed player should have some protection because the OOT player was at fault and the missed player was the innocent player, from the missed player's perspective with respect to everyone else at the table, he is and would still have only been obliged to complete his action in turn anyways... so why not let him complete his action as he would have, without creating potentially more damage to the situation by explaining every single option in detail and potentially further affecting what would have been the natural course of the hand, and then assess the probable damage done by the OOT action and penalize that OOT player accordingly at the end of the hand?
I could be swayed to the dark side, I suppose. ;-) But I just wanted to put it out there that I don't think all TDs think that the same "right" exists, so I certainly would welcome a discussion on this issue.
Oh, and p.s., Happy New Year, my friends!