we want to stay away from requiring an assessment of intention, and try and find rules that are black and white: if this happens then that, if something else happens, then something else. What in general I think we want to stay away from is writing intent into the rule, so for example a rule like this would cause problems: 'Chips in turn must stay in the pot if the player intended to angle shoot'. Specifically to the point of intent, certainly that's something a TD can consider. Also to remember: TDA Rule 36 which is one of the few rules that's underlined: 'It's the players responsibility to make his intentions clear', not the TDs responsibility to read the guy's mind. Players accept the rule of the floorperson, per Rule 1, when they buy in. Obviously different TDs may deem certain factors more important than others. Under Rule 1 you can consider all facts that you deem relevant. Your rule, (and the majority) will not consider the intent of the rrect?

As I mentioned in previous post, I'm more inclined to consider it in this situation than if the guy declares 'call' first. Whether to force a call or allow the guy to fold and forfeit the 2000 here, IMO, is a TD decision. There is a TDA rule that says the 2000 put in the pot in turn must stay in. Nick I don't think there's a TDA rule that specifically says he's only liable for the 2000. If Player C just pushed, (and said nothing) he would be liable for 2000 only.