[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
So I can understand the idea that verbal statements are binding such as saying "I am all in" means all the chips are at risk. But I don't see how his statement of "all in for less" although binding doesn't change the rules of how a hand is resolved. Is this normally the case that a verbal declaration overrides a rule?

Again even if the guy agrees that he is out, let him walk away and post the extra chips in his absent SB and play the pot like a tournament should play. The declaration shouldn't change the rules in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the player said he was all-in already affected the way the hand was determined. If had not climed to be all-in for less then the SB would have had the opportunity to bet agin after the flop (I assumed this all happened pre-flop but unless it was on the river the SB would have had another opportunity to bet).

Because of BB's declaration and the fact that no one notic4ed the error the SB was denied the chance to bet again. Imagine that SB had AA, BB had KK and the flop came AK7 no would you think it was fair that SB doesn't get all the chips?