I think we agree that if the player is not at his seat when all the cards are initially dealt, his hand is dead, even if he is all-in.
The tricky question is - if for some reason the all-in player leaves the table after the initial deal, under what circumstances will we rule the hand dead? Are we permitted to turn the cards over? Are there any situations where we remove chips from play? We have the At Your Seat rule, but it doesn't go as far to say what should happen if the rule is broken mid-hand. Here are my thoughts on these topics:
When is a hand dead?First, I think that it is very important that the dealer and TD step-in when it looks like the all-in player wants to leave mid-hand, and ensure that the all-in player remains at the table until the hand is concluded, whenever possible. We do this to protect others in the tournament by making sure the hand plays out "normally", and that the best hand wins the pot, whoever might hold it.
If, however, the player still manages to leave the table (e.g. he ignores your warnings and just leaves, or he leaves so quickly before you have a chance to stop him), he has surrendered the hand and rights to the pot, and his hand should be declared dead.
Turning cards overIn tournament play, we have a rule that an all-in hand must be turned face up at showdown. If a player is not at his seat during the initial deal, his hand is dead and in my view, the cards can be mucked right away - they do not need to be saved to be turned up at showdown, although some TDs will prefer to save the cards and show them later anyways. If, on the other hand, the player leaves his seat after the initial deal, his hand is still dead, but the cards should be opened at the end of the hand, to ensure that there was no chip dumping. Note that if the all-in player is not at his seat at the initial deal, it is highly unlikely that he is chip dumping, at least not to a specific individual since the action has yet to begin. If he leaves mid-hand, however, the possibility of chip dumping becomes more real, and thus it becomes more important for the hand to be shown.
It is true that, in general, in accordance with standard dealing procedure, the dealer should never turn over a hand for a player. We are taught this as dealers and TDs from an early age.
However, I feel that this is a red herring, and a lot of TDs get bogged down by this procedural point and allow it to muddy their decision making.
If the hand is already dead, and we are in an all-in situation, the TD should have every right to expose the hand! If we were to think about 'first principles' or back to the historical basis for some of these customs, such as not tabling a hand for a player, I think things becomes clearer. In my view, dealers should not table a
live hand for a player, not only because the player must be 'in' the hand to compete for the pot, but it is also for game security - you do not want the dealer to be accused of swapping out a card by either the player (e.g. "I know I had pocket Aces, but after you turned it over, now it is A-3!") or the opponent (e.g. "how do I know that the dealer didn't just plant his friend the winning hand?"). If a hand is already dead, avoiding these accusations of impropriety is no longer an issue, so we should not feel like we are breaking some sort of law by exposing dead cards if and when we are required to do so by the rules.
Removing chips from playWhile I appreciate the intent behind the original post, I do not think that it is necessary to take the chips out of play in the circumstance described. If the player is not at his seat during the initial deal, his hand is dead, it goes into muck, and the chips (which will be equal or less than the BB) are brought into the centre of the table (e.g. with the antes). All players at the table have an equal chance of winning this dead money - there is no unfairness here.
If, on the other hand, the player leaves mid-deal with others having already acted, his hand is still dead, and the dead cards will be turned over at the end of the hand. The primary purpose should be to see if the hand was abandoned intentionally in order to dump chips to the remaining opponent. If chip dumping does not appear likely (this may require assessing the state of the board at the point where the player left the table), the remaining opponent wins the pot even if the all-in player's hand would ultimately have won. Only if it appears that there was an attempt at chip dumping, would the chips come out of play (essentially the absent player is disqualified for chip dumping), and the remaining opponent could potentially be disqualified as well if there is evidence or history to suggest that he was a knowing participant in a chip dumping scheme.
In general, I think that chips should only be taken out of play under exceptional circumstances. I feel that when you take chips out of play, you potentially put players at the table at a disadvantage relative to other players in the tournament because those chips are no longer up for grabs at that table, which limits the amount of chips that any one player can win and take with them when the table breaks.