If verbal declarations are binding...

[Wingnut]

Presume that you are playing in a game (tournament or otherwise) in which verbal declarations are binding.

What would be the ruling on a player who declared "raise", then mucked his cards?

My thoughts would be that the verbal "raise" declaration is at least a comittment to call, so the raise-folder should be forced to call the bet to him, but then forfeits his right to the pot because his cards are dead in the muck. Others thoughts?

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Presume that you are playing in a game (tournament or otherwise) in which verbal declarations are binding.

What would be the ruling on a player who declared "raise", then mucked his cards?

My thoughts would be that the verbal "raise" declaration is at least a comittment to call, so the raise-folder should be forced to call the bet to him, but then forfeits his right to the pot because his cards are dead in the muck. Others thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Home Tournament I run uses the verbal declarations are binding rule. I don't know why if you are saying the player said, "Raise" that you would hold him bound to anything less than the minimum raise possible. Why just hold him to a "Call" rather than the minimum raise? He said raise, so he is bound to making the minumum raise. If, after stating raise, he mucks his cards, then he must place in the pot the amount of the minimum raise. If, in the process of mucking his cards they became dead by touching any other dead/mucked cards, then his hand is declared dead and he is ineligible for anything in the pot. However, if his hand was not deadened by this process, then I would give him his cards back and let him play on (in other words if his cards did not touch any other dead cards or the muck and were easily identified by the table dealer.)