Kit,
In the followup asks, might you ever get tangled up if responder has, say, the singleton King of Diamonds or Hearts? That would be one of his controls, but it wouldn't show up where you'd expect it to.
Clear 4♠ bid. Vul games are where the money is. There's not much point in inviting when you have shortness you can't show (especially a void.) Partner's evaluation may be wrong, if you do invite, since he won't know which cards are good.
John,
A pretty defense, indeed. But, might there be a higher percentage plan?
What about the plan of cashing the Ace of Diamonds and exiting a Spade?
Doesn't that succeed when declarer has a singleton Diamond (or a void) and many possible Heart holdings including: Kxx(x), QJx(x ...
Adam P,
One of the primary reasons we hold the USBC Team Trials every year, even in Rosenblum years, can be gleaned from many of the comments in this thread. It is a great event, that most attendees love to compete in. It would be a loss to US bridge ...
Jdonn,
That could be a topic for another interesting thread: If your opponent revokes, but it doesn't cost you any tricks in the play, do you call the director to get the available penalty trick? I know there are some who have famously written that they don't accept ...
I agree, that I would not accept extra tricks that had accrued to my side as a result of my side's revoke. That's different than voluntarily incurring a penalty.
To me, the laws seem pretty clear. You should make no effort to conceal the revoke. Included in that would be to face your remaining cards if the opponents claim or concede, and not just "bury the evidence." And, the laws say you must correct your revoke (thus making it ...