Stu: I think we have two evils here:
1: Allow Player A who hasn't yet called 1.3 million to declare "call" after she sees that her opponent (Player B) has no hand to play... hmmm, I don't like that very much...
2: Allow Player B to raise Player A's 60,000 bet to him all-in for a total of 1.3MM, then muck his cards (intentionally or otherwise, we cannot 100% know), before he can be called. That also seems real wrong.
So how to resolve this? We do have a vaguely-related rule (TDA Rule 48) that if the dealer erroneously snatches and mucks Player B's hand before Player A can call, then Player B only owes the amount of his call, not his uncalled raise. But that isn't exactly what we have here b/c Player B has mucked his hand, it wasn't initially snatched by the dealer.
Some considerations:
A: I don't like allowing Player A to win nearly 1.3 million without having anywhere near 1.3 million at risk herself... that just totally stinks to me...
B: I don't like allowing Player B to raise and then avoid honoring his raise by self-mucking.
C: I don't like the idea that someone can "call" a non-existent hand
D: Is the hand not over by definition once only one hand remains? In that case, how can you call (i.e. have betting action) when the hand is over?
Further, I presume that the dealer had some role in pulling the discards into the muck. The ideal reaction by the dealer would have been to preserve Player B's cards so indirectly there is some, if little, relationship to our existing rule regarding cards mucked by the dealer and therefore a return of any uncalled bet or raise. Also, I note that the house made every reasonable effort to identify the mucked cards, which would have been the ideal solution, to retrieve them and deal the hand out, but that couldn't be done to 100% certainty...
Thus, at the end of the day, I agree with the ruling as made... I think in this case some warning to Player B is also in order. Ultimately it seems like two bad choices and this is clearly the lesser of two evils, IMO. By memory of the tape, I recall the Floorman saying that a ruling must be made in the best interest of the game. I think it was in this case b/c I can't justify allowing a player to win 1.3 million that she never had at risk, to call a hand that didn't exist, or to make a betting action once she is the lone surviving hand.
Thanks alot for the post and video-link. This may be reviewed at the next Summit.