[blml] SF NABC #9

[Jerry Fusselman]

> [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?
>

As for Nigel's point 1, the committee screwed up appeal 8, but I don't
think balancing is the only LA.

"The appeal was judged to have merit."  Uh, obviously.

"Had [West] 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."  Is the committee
asserting that the probability of a director call was close to 100% if
EW gets a good result?  A naively high estimate.  I prefer a PP.  Does
West really think he can argue that forcing to the three level is
automatic with the flattest shape on earth and three trump?  I think
it gets clobbered in simulations, except when partner has the kinds of
hands that pause for 8--15 seconds over 2S.

Jerry Fusselman