Bd 3                          N: Zur Campanile
Vul: EW                     Foot in mouth K105
Dealer: S                   Embarassed 843
                                 Cry Q873
                                 Cool K94
W. Glasson                                                 E. Sprung
Foot in mouth Q42                                                      Foot in mouth AJ86
Embarassed AQ92                                                    Embarassed 7
Cry J1065                                                   Cry 942
Cool 105                                                      Cool AJ862
                              S. Stansby
                              Foot in mouth 973
                              Embarassed KJ1065
                              Cry AK
                              Cool Q73

S        W      N        E
1Embarassed    P      2Embarassed*    DBL
P       3Cry   All pass

Statement of Facts

North alerted East that 2Embarassed was "constructive, usually 8 to 10."  South did not alert West.  West thought she was in a lebensohl-type auction and bid what she intended as a forward-going 3Cry, hoping to be able to reach 3NT.  (In fact, West had misconstrued her system and 3Cry carried no strength implications.)  West stated that had she been alerted as East had been, she would not have thought game was possible and would probably have bid 2Foot in mouth (again, thinking that 3Cry would show values.)
South stated that she did not think an alert was required to 2Embarassed when playing forcing notrump.  N/S said that their "constructive" raises could be 8 to 10 balanced or less if distributional.  E/W said that even playing forcing notrump constructive raises are not necessarily standard, since they play one without the other.  South contended that 2Foot in mouth was more likely to get East excited than 3Cry so that even given her system confusion West had misjudged.

Table result was 3Cry-1, 100 to NS.

Directors' Ruling

The director ruled that South's failure to alert constituted misinformation that caused West damage.  The result was adjusted to 2Foot in mouth making 3, based on the fact that there were only 4 top losers and the Deep Finesse analysis.

Appeals Committee Ruling

The committee asked the director why she felt an alert was required, and she stated that she thought it was information that E/W were entitled to and could not necessarily assume on their own.  At the committee's request, the director consulted with the other directors and reported that they did not feel an alert was required.  Therefore, she stated that her ruling had been in error and no adjustment should have been made. The committee agreed that single raises do not require an alert, whether encouraging or not, and restored the table result. They also instructed N/S to be more specific if asked to explain their single raises, since "constructive" is a historical misnomer and "usually 8 to 10" does not convey the lesser distributional possibility.  A subsequent reference to the ACBL convention chart indicated that a single raise is not alertable, being a natural bid where neither common treatment is unusual.

Appeals Committee

Ron Gerard, Chair
Gail Greenberg
Jeff Polisner