Robert's Rules says that (in a tournament) an absent player is dealt a hand but that hand is mucked as soon as the deal is completed. Wouldn't it be more proper to keep the hand live until a decision is put to the hand (e.g. a raise) that an absent player can't make? Let me back up: let's assume the absent player is one who paid but had to leave. The chips aren't removed from the table because the player paid for the right to have their chips on the table and the chips will simply be blinded off and the player's position (including ending in the money) will be advanced accordingly. If that's the case and the chips are kept in play doesn't it also make sense that the hand would stay in play until a raise forces the hand to be mucked? I know this would be a rare case but let's say the player to the right of the absent player's chip stack is down to just one bet and they're the SB. Everybody else folds to the SB and that player completes the minimum bet (basically a forced "all-in" given the blinds vs. the live player's tiny stack). According to Robert's Rules the BB's (absent player's) hand is mucked and the SB would win the blinds by default. But it seems like if the absent player paid to have his chips in play then in that spirit the player also paid to have a live hand (as long as it completes any action that round that an absent player can complete, which is the case in this example since the absent player is the BB). I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind mucking the absent player's hand right after the deal is completed vs. keeping the hand live until a decision is brought to it. Thoughts?