[pigpenz]

I am sort of suprised that there has not been any discussion of the ruling giving the BRibbon to Grue Levin here.
I was just curious, it has been flogged to death on bridgewinners.

[rhm]

pigpenz, on 2018-December-05, 12:43, said:

I am sort of suprised that there has not been any discussion of the ruling giving the BRibbon to Grue Levin here.
I was just curious, it has been flogged to death on bridgewinners.

So if it has been flogged to death already on another site we should do likewise?

Rainer Herrmann

[sacto123]

pigpenz, on 2018-December-05, 12:43, said:

I am sort of suprised that there has not been any discussion of the ruling giving the BRibbon to Grue Levin here.
I was just curious, it has been flogged to death on bridgewinners.

I have not been able to find a detailed description of the appeal. Just one site said you should read the appeal record. But it did not offer a link to where to find it.

[The_Badger]

http://live.acbl.org...ABC183/11291301 (board 23)

The gist of it is that E/W reached 7NT(!) on the cards, but there was a (not in tempo) hesitation in the bidding and North found the killing lead from ♦KJ843. This resulted in an appeal.

(The ACBL link has been copied, I acknowledge, from Phil Clayton's comment on Bridgewinners.)

Edited: And this is the whole hand, with the decision of the appeal (Acknowledgements to Mickie Kivel on Bridgewinners)

https://cdn.acbl.org...lletins/db9.pdf (page 9)

[The_Badger]

Not being a tournament director I'm not going to get involved with the implications of the break in tempo (BIT) and the jurisdiction thereafter, but all I can say is that if South had doubled 7NT it would have indicated to me as North, who had doubled the 4♦ cue bid, to lead my suit. (That is how I would have interpreted it in a conventional sense.)

It is interesting that a player of the calibre of Bobby Levin didn't have in his armoury a bid (Redouble maybe?) to indicate the void after the 4♦ cue is doubled, and chose a 4NT RKCB bid instead. That way they would have ended up easily in 7♠ without even 7NT entering the equation.

[PeterAlan]

The_Badger, on 2018-December-05, 17:53, said:

It is interesting that a player of the calibre of Bobby Levin didn't have in his armoury a bid (Redouble maybe?) to indicate the void after the 4♦ cue is doubled, and chose a 4NT RKCB bid instead.

Joe Grue's Pass of 4♦ doubled had denied the Ace, so Bobby Levin could bid normal RKCB and get the same information as from Exclusion. Joe Grue recognised this possibility, but it seems he may not have done so before bidding 7NT over 7♠.

[The_Badger]

PeterAlan, on 2018-December-05, 22:06, said:

Joe Grue's Pass of 4♦ doubled had denied the Ace, so Bobby Levin could bid normal RKCB and get the same information as from Exclusion. Joe Grue recognised this possibility, but it seems he may not have done so before bidding 7NT over 7♠.

That's where it all went wrong, I feel, PeterAlan. Obviously there was the option of bidding 5♦ exclusion instead of 4NT, but technically 4NT is where a partnership want to establish the presence of all the keycards to make sure slam is good. That's probably why Joe Grue thought Bobby Levin had ♦A and went the extra mile and bid 7NT.

I'm not getting into the other pro's and con's of the bidding sequence to reach the final contract as Levin and Grue have played this game at a far, far higher professional level for many, many years than me, and I am not privy to the agreements that they have in place, but for me personally if I were bidding with a regular partner I would be using a Soloway jump shift of 2♠ over 1♥ with the East cards.

[pescetom]

The_Badger, on 2018-December-06, 01:10, said:

I'm not getting into the other pro's and con's of the bidding sequence to reach the final contract as Levin and Grue have played this game at a far, far higher professional level for many, many years than me, and I am not privy to the agreements that they have in place, but for me personally if I were bidding with a regular partner I would be using a Soloway jump shift of 2♠ over 1♥ with the East cards.

I'm near the bottom of the bridge ladder but still feel qualified to marvel at Levin's 3♠ bid if natural and non-forcing, as the apparent lack of an alert would suggest.

[johnu]

The_Badger, on 2018-December-05, 17:53, said:

Not being a tournament director I'm not going to get involved with the implications of the break in tempo (BIT) and the jurisdiction thereafter, but all I can say is that if South had doubled 7NT it would have indicated to me as North, who had doubled the 4♦ cue bid, to lead my suit. (That is how I would have interpreted it in a conventional sense.)

I see a number of likes for this post. Much of the time the doubler will have a clearcut diamond lead. What if partner had ♣A? How do you get partner to lead a club?

The_Badger, on 2018-December-05, 17:53, said:

It is interesting that a player of the calibre of Bobby Levin didn't have in his armoury a bid (Redouble maybe?) to indicate the void after the 4♦ cue is doubled, and chose a 4NT RKCB bid instead. That way they would have ended up easily in 7♠ without even 7NT entering the equation.

According to Bridgewinners, this was an infrequent partnership so I'm sure showing a void would be undiscussed. If Levin was looking for something extra to bid 7NT, he could have bid 5NT and Levin knows this is matchpoints. 7♠ has to be a signoff bid.

[pescetom]

The_Badger, on 2018-December-05, 17:53, said:

but all I can say is that if South had doubled 7NT it would have indicated to me as North, who had doubled the 4♦ cue bid, to lead my suit. (That is how I would have interpreted it in a conventional sense.)

johnu, on 2018-December-07, 05:58, said:

I see a number of likes for this post. Much of the time the doubler will have a clearcut diamond lead. What if partner had ♣A? How do you get partner to lead a club?

I liked this post because it raised a vital question (not because I would interpret like the poster) - what would a double by Antonson mean? Because a double is clearly what he was thinking about, and probably not an easy decision in an infrequent partnership. It might mean lead your suit (diamonds), it might mean do not lead your suit (so clubs), it might mean first suit of dummy (spades). FWIW I would take it like you, but I'm not sure there is a consensus even at top level - and if not, then it is hard to see why the BIT should indicate diamonds, let alone do so more clearly than Grue's comment that Levin "might be void" (given that Levin has cuebid only diamonds).

[pescetom]

Reading the Page 9 summary, it is interesting that the appeal decided that Grue's comment was "irrelevant as per the pollees", even though 3 of 6 them said that with that comment they would lead a diamond. And when the appeal made a second poll they did not ask about the comment again, only about the hesitation.

[Gerardo]

I agree the comment was irrelevant, because the auction told that story already..
Based on this, no LA to a ♦ for me.

[pescetom]

Gerardo, on 2018-December-07, 13:30, said:

I agree the comment was irrelevant, because the auction told that story already..

If opponents understand EW bidding correctly then so it would seem. And yet when 5 players of equivalent level were walked through the auction, only 2 and a half chose a diamond lead, another mystery. Top level US bridge comes out of this episode looking rather shabby all round, except perhaps Glubok and the Directors who (ironically) seem to be the only ones considered at fault.