First TY for your answer!
So we have the same goal on the situation: help the proper & initial bettor and forbid the second one to retract his chips ... but we use different ways!
- I use what I called "Way 1" (wrong bettor was "on turn") to PENALISE him while respecting the rules.
- You use what I called "Way 2 - Solution 1" (wrong bettor was "out of turn" and proper bettor can change) to PENALISE the wrong bettor ...
... but where comes your rules from (with respect)?
OK you can answer me: "That's our home rules!" wich I respect with all my heart.
Because to allow the initial bettor to CHANGE his decision (he actually bet 15000) is a strange decision written NOWHERE right

And even if you do it: what would be a "changed" situation for player B ?
If Player A change to "check": it's a change for player B in a way because the 15000 are not there anymore ... !!?
If player A let the 15000: it's also a change of the betting situation for player B who originaly thought he was first to speak etc ... !!?
That's why it's easier for me to explain to my players:
PLAYER "B" PLAYED WRONG AND TOO FAST BUT IN TURN BECAUSE PLAYER "A" ACTUALLY ACTED!
LET'S SEE NOW THE RESULT: HO, HERE WE HAVE A SHORT CALL WICH SOLUTION IS ... (etc)!
With my best regards,