Hostile Takeover

Hello,
I have a question about Hostile Takeover. As per this old ruling groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/013b71234a2760f4 , the bidding is conducted in open format.
What I want to know is can a Methuselah make a bid exceeding his/her current pool?
And is this handled any differently for owner of the minion being bid for, who only loses half of the bid amount?

Hostile Takeover
Master
[Ventrue] Ventrue
[1 Pool]
Master.
Choose a vampire with capacity of 6 or less. Each Methuselah bids pool for control of that vampire. The highest bid goes to the vampire's controller; that bidder then takes control of the vampire. If the controller wins, half the winning bid (rounded up) goes to the blood bank.

Ankha wrote:

LSJ wrote: Each Methuselah can bid up to what she can fund. For the controller, that means she can bid up to twice her current pool amount.

Treat this with mild caution. The overall principle is correct - you can bid as much as you can fund - but in the light of [FZD 20140113] , self-ousting yourself with a Hostile Takeover bid that would use up all your pool is probably going to violate Pascal's modification of the interaction between play-to-win and self-ousting:

Pascal wrote: There is only two situations where a player is allowed to self-oust. That's when that player has the won the game already, or when he can't get more VPs. In any other scenario, that play is invalid and should be fixed by the Judge (recommendation: rollback).

Strictly, that thread was in relation to playing of cards - such as being able to play a .44 Magnum when on 2 pool, whether accidentally or otherwise - but it would be weirdly inconsistent if you could self-oust with a Hostile Takeover bid but not with a card play.

A self-oust bid can be used as an attempt to force someone (cross table, for example) to bid even higher, so the meta doesn't collapse. Just as viable a play as tapping out with 1 pool left to attempt a lunge.

All or nothing plays are not illegal.

kpram wrote: A self-oust bid can be used as an attempt to force someone (cross table, for example) to bid even higher, so the meta doesn't collapse.

Along the same lines, then, playing .44 Magnum when on 2 pool would be legal to force someone else to block you, or play DI. Except that explicitly isn't legal, per Pascal's change to the play-to-win and self-oust rulings.

kpram wrote: Just as viable a play as tapping out with 1 pool left to attempt a lunge.

That's surely quite different. That doesn't self-oust you. Nothing that you say or do would result in you being ousted by your own action, supposing no-one else intervenes.

kpram wrote: All or nothing plays are not illegal.

You're confusing the difference between risky plays that leave you in a precarious position but still in the game, and plays that - as declared - will self-oust you. The latter have been ruled to be illegal by Pascal, the former haven't (unless you were violating the rules some other way, obviously).