Brian and Chet: We have had this discussion before, probably on numerous occasions. Example A, would commit Player A to the max that Player B has. That would be my rule because if Player B should call, I would give Player A no other option...win, or lose. This is because they are head to head...and yes, it does make a difference.
Example B: I have to agree with Chet when he says that "the dealer needs to instruct the player to state the amount of his wager." What else can you do without creating a completely unclear situation. If the dealer remains silent, and Player B folds, what then? TDA #37 B) Players should wait for clear bet amounts before acting. We can add all of the other TDA rules that tell players they must make their intentions clear. For those TD's that don't want the dealers to do their job, and control the action, you can always run over to the table, waste 10 or 20 minutes trying to sort out the mess, or let the dealer do the job he was trained to do.
That's how I see it. Another common sense answer solves the problem.
Brian was writing while I was posting. I'd handle it by having the dealer stop Player A's action and insist that he clarify his intent. If I were forced to commit him to an amount, the least it would be is the 300 that Player B had in front of him, even though he folded. This would be the most logical solution to Player A's poor choice of a verbal wager.
