[awm]

---

North's 2NT was alerted, as was south's 3♦ bid. West asked about both calls at her turn (after 3♦, prior to the end of the auction). South explained north's 2NT as a game-forcing spade raise. North explained south's 3♦ as showing a singleton diamond. The auction then proceeded to 4♠.

West lead the ♦A at trick one, and was surprised when south ruffed. Trumps were pulled and clubs established for a final result of making four. Of course, a club lead or a heart lead followed by a club switch could easily set the contract.

After the hand, East called the director. East claimed that if West knew that South's "singleton diamond" might be a void, she would never have lead the diamond ace. The director adjusted to 4♠-1.

Correct ruling? Does it depend on West's level/experience?

[Bbradley62]

The correctness of the ruling probably depends on what NS's actual agreement is. Either there was a misexplanation, which might merit an adjustment, or there was a misbid or misleading bid, in which case there shouldn't be an adjustment.

I don't see why the answer should depend on West's level/experience; she was given a very specific (and reasonable) answer and believed it. Once upon a time, many people played exactly as this auction was described, with 4♦ showing a void over 2NT. But, I also don't see why East is allowed to say what West would have done under theoretical conditions.

[blackshoe]

One might ask what 4♦ would show, in their methods. Some play it as a void, others (more, I think) play it as a good side suit. But if their agreement is (as is common) that 3♦ shows a singleton, then there's been no MI, and will be no adjustment. And no, East doesn't get to say what West would have done. Still, is West going to disagree with her partner, now that he's shot off his mouth?

[barmar]

How did East determine what West would have done? Maybe West mentioned it during the post mortem, and East was simply acting as spokesperson for the partnership when the TD came. In that case, I don't think there's anything wrong with East saying what West would have done.

[blackshoe]

I see no indication there was any post-mortem before the TD was called.

[nige1]

Prior to the opening lead, South should correct North's explanation, disclosing that 3♦ shows a singleton or void, if that is the actual NS agreement. Of course, South may have psyched or misbid. In any case, the director should ask North-South, what is South's proper systemic bid with a diamond void.

[bluejak]

When a player in England describes a bid as showing a singleton it nearly always means a singleton or void. Is it normal in the ACBL for a description of a singleton to mean a singleton but not a void?

I think the player's experience and ability is very relevant: I do not believe a good, experienced player who believes the possibility of a void makes a difference would fail to ask. But if an inexperienced player believes it makes a difference I can imagine such a player assuming singleton meant not void and failing to ask.

Even so, I am loath to believe there really is damage. If the technically correct explanation is singleton or void, and this West thinks that the ♦A is correct if it is a singleton [I find this a very curious notion ] he probably would lead it anyway since a singleton is considerably more likely than a void. This does look to me like someone who is trying to get back a result after a bad lead.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-April-24, 17:21, said:

When a player in England describes a bid as showing a singleton it nearly always means a singleton or void. Is it normal in the ACBL for a description of a singleton to mean a singleton but not a void?

Over here, the term usually used to refer to a singleton or void is "shortness" or "shortage". I can't recall anyone ever saying just "singleton" when they meant "or void".

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-April-25, 21:18, said:

Over here, the term usually used to refer to a singleton or void is "shortness" or "shortage". I can't recall anyone ever saying just "singleton" when they meant "or void".

In Norway we have the word "shortness" or "shortage" defined in a regulation which as far as I know we have inherited from WBF. According to this regulation "Shortness" is two or less (and "length" is three or more).

And it is generally understood that when explaining a call the word "singleton" implies singleton or void.

I would expect the same to apply thorough at least EBL.

[bluejak]

Of course we have the terms shortage and shortness. But players often use the wrong terms.

[nige1]

In Scotland, we use the term splinter for a bid that sets/agrees a suit and shows a singleton or void. (Many partnerships attempt to distinguish singletons from voids. For example, by jumping in a suit with the former but to 3N with the latter).

[aguahombre]

Singleton, means "one". It is not ambiguous. But it might be misinformation, if they have no way to show a void. If they have no way to show a void, South must correct the misinformation, whether he actually has a void or not.

If South has misbid, and could have shown the void, then no misinformation and result stands. Otherwise, I am with the TD.

It doesn't matter how horrible some experts think leading the Ace was, it only matters whether he had an expectation that the ace would cash based of what he was told, and whether not leading the ace with different (correct) information would lead to a better result.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-26, 20:56, said:

Singleton, means "one". It is not ambiguous. But it might be misinformation, if they have no way to show a void. If they have no way to show a void, South must correct the misinformation, whether he actually has a void or not.

"Five card" suit means five, It is not ambiguous. But it might be misinformtion if a "five card majors" partnership also open 1M with six or more.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-26, 20:56, said:

Singleton, means "one". It is not ambiguous. But it might be misinformation, if they have no way to show a void. If they have no way to show a void, South must correct the misinformation, whether he actually has a void or not. If South has misbid, and could have shown the void, then no misinformation and result stands. Otherwise, I am with the TD. It doesn't matter how horrible some experts think leading the Ace was, it only matters whether he had an expectation that the ace would cash based of what he was told, and whether not leading the ace with different (correct) information would lead to a better result.

Agree with Aquahombre.I think the onus should be on the discloser to tell the truth, carefully. If the actual agreement is "singleton or void" then The director should protect the gullible diamond-leader, whether he deems him to be a tyro or an expert.

RMB1, on 2011-April-27, 00:35, said:

"Five card" suit means five, It is not ambiguous. But it might be misinformtion if a "five card majors" partnership also open 1M with six or more.

In Bridge idiom "five-cards majors" means five cards or more. If you open 1♥ with a ♥-void, partner may be surprised. But IMO, "singleton" means singleton, precisely. It would be a pity for such a useful descriptive term to lose its normal meaning in a Bridge-law context.

[barmar]

Many of the phrases we use are not precise, but most players know what they really mean from experience and context. This is part of human nature -- we don't often talk like pedants.

For instance, if partner raises your major, you might explain that he has 3-card support, and everyone know that this means "at least 3". But when explaining a support double, you might describe it the same way; the context makes it clear that this isn't an "at least" situation (although a more thoughtful player would say "exactly 3" to make it clear).

We also have the term "splinter" here, but I've always considered that the name of a convention, not a description of the hand. As such, it's not an appropriate answer to an explanation request.