What is the correct ruling?

Here is the situation. A player in first position (seat 9) calls. The player in second position raises allin (seat 1). Three players muck their hand as a result of this raise. It is then brought to light that the raiser has no cards. No one has yet called his raise. When I left they were reviewing the videotape to see what happened. What is the correct decision?

The initial decision was to make the bet stand. After reviewing the videotape it was determened that the dealer had mucked this unprotected hand. This player was given his initial bet back and allowed to continue after about 25 minutes had transpired. From a public relations standpoint this second decision may make sense. However it does not make poker sense. There are two fundamental elements that apply to poker. 1) A player may act once on his hand. This gentleman raised. This is action. He caused three people to act on their hand. 2)A player is responsible for proctecting his own hand. Maybe this is just an anomaly. I have seen this twice before. Both times the player was SOL. I think that's the way it should be.

The "correct" ruling is going to vary depending on where you play, the current floor person and a variety of other factors. This is why we need a unified set of rules and a governing body to implement them.


That being said, as a long time player and dealer, I would think that the 2nd ruling was correct. True, it is a player's responsibility to protect his/her hand but it is not reasonable or fair to make this person raise and effectively "give away" the money with no cards and therefore, no chance of winning. If the chips were forced to stay in the pot, then any big stck could re-raise and probably pick them up for free.


If the raise was made and someone called, then the cards were mucked, this would be a different story. That money is part of equal action and then you can place more blame on the player. But with no one yet calling the raise, I'd have to agree with the decision to return the chips to the player as it was primarily the dealers error and no one is being "cheated" out of those chips since no one else had yet called.


It is unfortunate that the raise caused players to fold, which is significant action, but I'd be willing to bet that they might have folded anyway.


I'd be happy to listen to arguments to the contrary, butI think this ruling is fair.