[JohnnyGroomsTD]

I really dont care for the "shady" feeling people are getting. More shady would be to explain to bill that he raises to x, then BB must reraise to Y, If I set a minimum raise that must be reraised, then i definitely control the outcome of the hand. As there is no previous rule that dictates exactly what would happen in his situation, I felt the lesser of 2 evils would be to have bill act on his hand, then make the ruling.

Is Bill entitled to know EXACTLY waht action will happen if the guy never says reraise? No
When making a decision, I want to get a close as possible to the natural outcome of the hand. By giving Bill the information on what I was going to do, I would be giving him strategic advice on how to play his hand.

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.

Had I told Bill this before I made my decision, then I basically tell Bill "here's the way to get maximum value out of your hand", or "heres how to get away with the smallest loss" or "This is exactly the limit you can raise and commit his chips to the pot".

As a player playing out of position in the pot, it is my feeling that he is not entitled to that information until he acts on his hand.

By the way Greg, in hindsight, the written choices on paper was an excellent suggestion.