Board 58  Dealer: E         Both Vul	Joe Grue KT852 KJ962 76 J
Franco Baseggio A4 5 AQJ42 QT532		Andy Stark J93 A KT85 K9876
	Curtis Cheek Q97 QT8743 93 A4

This appeal results from a ruling on Board 58. The issue was misinformation (MI) when W did not alert South to the 3C bid, which by partnership agreement showed a good D raise.
The Auction with E as dealer with both vul was:
W        N          E           S
                        P           P
1     2*   3#     4
4     P        5       6
X all pass  
* Michaels
# E to N "good D raise, I think" W did not alert S.
The contract was defeated by 3 tricks for +800 for E/W. S contended that if that had he been alerted that E was not showing Cs, he would not have bid 6H. The TD ruled that there was MI in the failure to alert 3C, and even though the TD felt that S was somewhat disadvantaged, that after consulting with 7 experts giving them the bidding with and without the alert, none of the experts bid 6H, ruled that the table result stands.

N/S appealed.

The Appeals Committee agreed that there was MI, but that it did not damage S as it was clear from the bidding that from the information available to S he concluded that his partner had a 5521 distribution and therefore no matter what the minor suit distribution was in the E/W hands they had 10 Cs. S contended that he was concerned that if W ended up playing in 6Ds, that N might not lead a singleton C; however, he could have bid 6C rather than 6H to insure a C lead.

Considering the fact that all 7 experts consulted did not bid 6H with or without an alert of 3C, this S's decision to bid 6H was not the result of the MI.

The AC considered the possibility of assessing a procedural penalty against E/W for the failure to alert, but declined to issue one.

Jeffrey Polisner, Chairman
John Sutherlin, Member
Barry Rigal, Member