[TomCowley]

I don't mind you not telling the player what your ruling will be, since your future ruling is not necessary for him to take his action. And the player is entitled to know the RULE at any time (a gross misunderstanding can be undone), not whether or not you considered it a gross misunderstanding.

However, I do have two problems with the way you handled this (and I've judged another card game that has even more ambiguous situations come up frequently), and they're related.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a common rule that if a player grossly misunderstands the amount of the bet, he is allowed to take back his action. This is only in obvious cases. Had Bill min raised, I probably make BB reriase at least the min. Had bill moved all-in (which he did) I allowed the BB to take back his action.

[/ QUOTE ]

The BB either understood there was a pending raise or he didn't. The amount of the raise *CANNOT* change this answer, so it shouldn't change your ruling. If he didn't realize there was a pending raise, he has a clear misunderstanding of the bet coming to him (minimum 50% on a minraise- robert's rules say 80%, so 20% misunderstanding, so we're minimum 2.5x that threshold). Saying "oh, it's only 8% more of stacks" is completely arbitrary and can't be applied consistently (unless you actually create an exact threshold in a rule, which just lets the missed-raiser exploit it, which is pointless).

So when you are called over, you should have decided if you're going to compel a raise or not. To avoid the appearance of arbtrariness or impropriety, writing down the ruling before the raise amount is announced is a great idea. That provides the minimum external influence on the hand while making it clear that your ruling doesn't depend on anything but your judgment of whether or not the player knew that he was facing that raise.