Respond to what? The burden of proof lies upon the party to have committed the forfeiture, Problems, and as shrang and Fireburn both have analyzed and outlined, there exist multiple scenarios in which March Fires could have won from the point at which the game had been terminated. In fact, Fireburn's counter-argument to shrang's hypothetical stands erroneous because for said BW2 mechanics to prove it false, March Fires must have stayed in one full turn with his sleeping Giratina-O to demonstrate that the sleep counter for the first turn was for it to sleep, which never happened; henceforth, the opportunity for March Fires to have awoken the first turn was still possible with a 1/3 probability. Therefore, the chance for March Fires to have came back via shrang's scenario would have been lesser than that of the statistics presented in his original post but the fact of the matter stands that March Fires indeed possessed a chance to come back nonetheless. Such explorations of hypotheticals prove that there prevails definite ambiguity concerning the fate of what would have happened had Problems not forfeited; and yet, the fact that Problems was the one to have forfeited remains as well. In the end, the tournament directors have ruled in favor of the party that was forfeited against, and again, I agree with said ruling.
Of course, I do not deny that Problems had an overwhelming advantage, but to take into consideration all of the information and evidence we've been provided with and to grant Problems the automatic win would objectively be an outright violation of common sense and decency is all I'm saying.
