[blml] SF NABC #9

[Guthrie]

[San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 9]
Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals
West (Lew Stansby): S:AT2 H:853 D:AK97 C:J42
-- -- -- 1S
_P 2S .P _P
3D AP
East's .P Agreed break in tempo (BIT) of 8-15 seconds.

The Facts: The director was called after the play. The deal occurred 
near the end of the session. Two players were consulted as to their 
actions with the West hand. Both said they would double.

The Ruling: The director deemed that pass was not a logical 
alternative (LA); therefore, the table result of 3D making three, E/W 
plus 110 was allowed to stand.

The Appeal: Only North and South were present. N/S explained that they 
believed that they considered pass extremely logical, and they had 
asked many top players about the hand and they agreed. The appeals 
committee asked why the director was called only after the end of play 
and N/S explained that they were not sure when would have been the
appropriate time to call.

The Decision: We were not concerned about the timing of the tournament 
director (TD) call. It is best to call immediately after the UI, in 
order to allow the TD ascertain the facts, but calling later does not 
waive a pair's rights when the facts can be determined. Here the facts 
were not in question. The committee discounted the N/S testimony
regarding players they had consulted because of the many impairments 
to credibility of this type of evidence. To paraphrase Kaplan, pass 
would not be an egregious error, in  fact, it would be right quite 
often. By the numbers: Was there UI? Yes. Did the UI demonstrably 
suggest the action chosen  (double) over a less successful alternative 
(Pass)? Yes. Would the less successful action have been logical? Yes. 
We then moved on to 12C2 to adjust the score. It looked to us as
though 2S should be held to two for NS +110 on routine defense. We 
weren't certain, though, that the defense would be found, and we 
wouldn't want to give the offenders the benefit of the doubt so we 
asked a TD to look up the frequencies that occurred in the Blue
Ribbon sessions. We were surprised to learn that N/S went +140 
substantially more often than they went +110. We thus judged that N/S 
+140 was both the most favorable result that was likely for N/S absent 
the illegal double and also the most unfavorable result for E/W that 
was at all probable. Therefore, the committee adjusted the result to 
2S making three, N/S plus 140 and E/W minus 140.
The appeal was judged to have merit.
The committee did not issue a procedural penalty against E/W. West 
must have considered balancing automatic. Had he thought it was at all 
close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, knowing 
that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of any 
good result.

The Committee: Adam Wildavsky (Chair), Laurie Kranyak and Bob White.

[nige1]
1. Notice that in appeal 9, both the director and committee judge that 
balancing is normal; but in appeal 8, on the same board with the same 
auction, the committee judge it to be most unlikely.

2. Here, The the committee seems to have ruled correctly; but the 
committee's argument against issuing a PP is a bit pathetic:
"West must have considered balancing automatic. Had he thought it was 
at all close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, 
knowing that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of 
any good result."
In so far as it goes, surely that statement should always be true for 
players at this level?