oversized turn bet and 5th street chicken

Not sure where the best place to post this is but this seems to be a psychology question more than anything.

Let say were in some turn situation.
The pot is 40, and each player has 70 behind.
Player A is deciding how much to bet. Lets say 22 is geometric. The size Player A should bet to maximize value across 2 streets from MDF.
But Player A decides to bet 30. This size is less efficient from a game theory perspective, (unless he has equity denial reasons but lets ignore that for now)
Im more interested in the psychology of this bet size. It seems to put player B in an awkward situation with a bluff catcher. If they call this 30, and then face a river jam, they will be getting 40:140 and will have such good pot odds that they almost cant fold (on the surface).
So now player B is in a situation where they seemingly cant call the 30 unless they also plan to call off the last 40 as well. But this is amazing news for player A, since he can risk 30 and and force player B to risk his whole stack. Since player B will always call river after calling turn it also allows player A to play perfectly: he cant just never bluff river and always jam for value (since he knows player B will always call river for those pot odds).

Is this a hack to poker??

Of course the solution is for player B to sometimes fold his bluff catchers on the river so that this doesnt work, but I just DONT SEE THIS HAPPENING especially not for your average fish in a live poker game.
They would have to play 5th street chicken with you. That means that they would have to call a bluff catcher OTT with the intention of folding it to a small river jam. I just dont see fish making this play, especially on a dry board with a seemingly brick river. If they call turn, they will always call river.

What are your thoughts? I find it interesting from both player A and player B's perspectives.