Now I see where this happened in the hand. Okay, it's preflop, blinds are posted (assume 100-200) and the BB declares all-in. The dealer says nothing, apparently allowing the action to stand, and after the downcards are dealt, the UTG folds, presuming that the BB's all-in is a rightful bet... and action proceeds around the table. That's my current understanding of what's happened.
Okay, there's several issues here. first, what should have happened. IMO right when the BB declares the all-in, the dealer should have told him that's an out-of-turn bet. O-O-T action should always be flagged as soon as it happens, in order to place the action on the proper player.... THEN the dealer should have informed the rest of the table of what the implications are. "Folks this is out-of-turn... at the time he was facing no action... if you just call the BB (200), he's bound to leave the all-in at risk. If you bet beyond the BB at all, you change the action and he can reconsider the all-in...". That, IMO, is what should always happen in an out-of-turn situation. The rest of the table has a right to know what the implications of their betting action is, and this clears up any confusion when it gets back to the out-of-turn player.
BUT... the above didn't happen. Instead apparently play progressed with everyone, including the dealer, treating the BB all-in as the bet in play. So, 2nd issue, what should happen after this error has occured? FIVE PLAYERS ACTED dramatically on this... either folding or going all-in themselves. Then the action gets back to the BB and he wants to change his mind. While a case can be made for this, I prefer leaving the bet committed. 1) He knew what he was doing, insisting on betting all-in completely in the dark and blind; 2) While he might technically have the right to retract, it's a much bigger injury to the remaining players to be put in the untenable situation of acting in good faith on the guy's bet with no house dealer instructions otherwise, then only being called once he decides he likes his cards and has seen all of their intended action. That's way too much information to provide this BB. What's the course of least harm? I feel it's to leave the bet standing in the best interest of the game. Last issue, whether to penalize, this house says he has the right to retract, then they punish him for electing to do so. That's like punishing someone in court for asserting their 5th amendment rights. Either he has the right to retract or not, and whichever it is becomes the ruling... either way there's really no basis for a penalty here for a first offense. Interesting post, thanks for sharing it.