Join Bridge Winners
USBC Appeal #1

Baseggio
A4
5
AQJ42
Q10532
Grue
K10852
KJ962
76
J
Stark
J93
A
K1085
K9876
Cheek
Q76
Q108743
93
A4
D

This appeal results from a ruling on Board 58. The issue was misinformation (MI) when West did not alert South to the 3 bid, which by partnership agreement showed a good diamond raise.


The auction with East as dealer with both vul was:

W
N
E
S
P
P
1
2
3
4
4
P
5
6
X
P
P
P

3 was alerted by East to North as "good D raise, I think." West did not alert South.

The contract was defeated by 3 tricks for +800 for E/W. South contended that if that had he been alerted that East was not showing clubs, he would not have bid 6. The TD ruled that there was MI in the failure to alert 3, and even though the TD felt that South was somewhat disadvantaged, that after consulting with 7 experts giving them the bidding with and without the alert, none of the experts bid 6, ruled that the table result stands.

N/S appealed.

The Appeals Committee agreed that there was MI, but that it did not damage South as it was clear from the bidding that from the information available to South 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 clubs. South contended that he was concerned that if West ended up playing in 6, that North might not lead a singleton club; however, he could have bid 6 rather than 6 to ensure a club lead.

Considering the fact that all 7 experts consulted did not bid 6 with or without an alert of 3, this South's decision to bid 6 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

40 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top