[Wackojack]

The daily unibridge tourney like to keep its reputation as a top BBO tourney and thus for many years has stopped admitting new members unless they were stars. I like to keep my membership going and play in this tourney once or twice a year. Looking at a list of players looking for a partner I asked an "expert" who had helpfully provided a good list of conventions on her profile and she accepted my invitaion.

The is hand came up very early:

---

South led the 2♠. North took with the Ace and switched to the A♥ and J♥ which partner took with the King. She then led the K♦, South playing the 2 and North the 10 and then the 9♦and South played the 4. With no hesitation she played the Ace and the Jack dropped. Equally as quickly she then played the Q♦and then the 5 to her 7. Next she played the 8♠ South rose with the King , returned a heart and then North took his remaining 5 heart tricks and thus the contract was off by 3.


This is a record of the chat:
….: syp
….: i should take my ace KQ so sy
W: 2-2 its easy
….: i could only take 8 top tricks without letting them in on !! or !c or any suit
W->: you have 9 tricks when !ds break 2-2
W->: 9 is good so not blocked
….: but i couldnt take your 5.
….: see my hand i couldnt get rid on my higer !d
….: higher*
W->: 9 is good easy
….: not when they get in
W: !ds 2-2
….: yes but how did i get back to your low one
W->: 5 top !ds they are NOT blocked +3!cs + 1!!h
….: there is not please look my higher ones
….: lets just agree to disagree
….: I'm a nice person

What shocks me is that she evidently could not see how to make her contract even in the post mortem. Even an intermediate who might not look at the spots in the play, I would expect to see immediately after how the contract could be made.

Rant over.

Interestingly, a few other declarers played their K♦ first and when North dropped the Jack then proceeded to take the losing finesse into North's 10.

[wank]

Wackojack, on 2015-August-06, 03:45, said:

Interestingly, a few other declarers played their K♦ first and when North dropped the Jack then proceeded to take the losing finesse into North's 10.

those would be the good ones.

[billw55]

I am shocked that this shocks you

[helene_t]

Maybe she didn't look at the diagram and was only reflecting on memory? In that case it isn't shocking.

[johnu]

What is shocking to me is that there is a BBO tourney with only experts or better.

[manudude03]

Well, given that the "test" to be an expert is whether or not "Bridge" starts with a consonant or a vowel, it doesn't limit the field much.

[GrahamJson]

Having watched numerous "experts" on BBO I'm not sure that I have seen a single one who wouldn't struggle to get 50% at any decent club.

[Trinidad]

Perhaps the suit wasn't blocked, but East's mind was.

I am arrogant enough to think that my bridge level is higher than that of a BBO expert (aren't we all?), but my mind can block too and then I don't see things that I would normally never miss.

Just this week, I made sure to give up a trick I had to lose anyway early in the play. I did it to rectify the count for a squeeze. Then I ran off my long trump suit. With 3 or 4 cards left to play, I found out I had 12 top tricks from the beginning...

Does it mean that I can't count to 12? No.
Does it mean that I am a novice? I don't think so.
Was I perhaps a little bit tired? Most likely.

Rik

[diana_eva]

Trinidad, on 2015-August-07, 06:17, said:

Does it mean that I can't count to 12? No.
Does it mean that I am a novice? I don't think so.
Was I perhaps a little bit tired? Most likely.

Rik

Agree, everyone has blind spots. One hand is no proof, but perhaps there were more hands crowned by this one Either way, I'd hate to make the news on some silly hand like this.

[Wackojack]

diana_eva, on 2015-August-07, 06:45, said:

Agree, everyone has blind spots. One hand is no proof, but perhaps there were more hands crowned by this one Either way, I'd hate to make the news on some silly hand like this.

Agree too. It is still a shock to me that I could not persuade her in the later chat that when the opps 4 cards were found to break 2-2 that the suit was not blocked and she could make 9 tricks.

[GreenMan]

No opinion on the specific hand or player, but I'll note that I consider myself "Advanced" by BBO's guidelines but have "Intermediate" in my profile because when I play online I'm often tired or distracted, so when I play below my (self-estimated) potential it doesn't come as a shock to my partner. Perhaps this player simply takes the more optimistic view in that regard.

[diana_eva]

Wackojack, on 2015-August-07, 10:08, said:

Agree too. It is still a shock to me that I could not persuade her in the later chat that when the opps 4 cards were found to break 2-2 that the suit was not blocked and she could make 9 tricks.

She probably didn't realize that all opps high cards were out and was fixed on the idea that she messed her transportation with 5 cards out, not 4.

[nige1]

AFAIR, Victor Mollo's Walrus experienced no problems with hands like this. After defenders followed to a top ♦, he announced "I won't waste your time, Gentlemen", and claimed

---

[benlessard]

You should just have tell her that the QD need to be played on the 4th round of the suit not on the 3rd round. Saying stuff like D are 22 or its "easy" or cold will just confused a player who made a mistake.

[rmnka447]

I am neither shocked nor surprised by Wackojack's tale. I've seen enough variation in people's self rating to understand they are somewhat meaningless.

Personally, I adhere to a policy of never commenting on my partner's play unless specifically asked a question by them about it. It often doesn't help them play any better and may affect their play adversely on remaining hands in any session.

I've certainly noticed a tendency by more than a few BBO players to tell their partners what they should have done in bidding and play. The classic I recall is when I made a safety play at IMPs that insured a game contract against adverse breaks and got excoriated by my pickup partner for not playing my honors from the top and making an additional trick when the suit broke 3-2. I remember thinking this person thinks he/she knows, but really has no clue.

[neilkaz]

rmnka447, on 2015-August-10, 14:35, said:

I am neither shocked nor surprised by Wackojack's tale. I've seen enough variation in people's self rating to understand they are somewhat meaningless.

Personally, I adhere to a policy of never commenting on my partner's play unless specifically asked a question by them about it. It often doesn't help them play any better and may affect their play adversely on remaining hands in any session.

I've certainly noticed a tendency by more than a few BBO players to tell their partners what they should have done in bidding and play. The classic I recall is when I made a safety play at IMPs that insured a game contract against adverse breaks and got excoriated by my pickup partner for not playing my honors from the top and making an additional trick when the suit broke 3-2. I remember thinking this person thinks he/she knows, but really has no clue.

About 2 years ago in MBC I did similar, making a safety play guarding against a 4-1 split and finessing into the non-danger hand. I just managed to see the finesse lose as I was called "Idiot" by my PD host and booted from the table. Oh well, a new member of my enemy list.

[billw55]

I actually had a case a while back of a partner who listened. I was declaring 4♠, and the lead was a possible singleton, if the suit was 5-1. Seeing that ten tricks were cold, I played the trump AK from the top instead of trying to hook the queen. As it happened, the hook would have worked, and my indignant partner demanded to know why I didn't play for the overtrick. I explained that it was not matchpoints, and that safety against ruffs was more valuable than a chance at an overtrick. To my surprise, he acknowledged this as correct. So it isn't all bad.

[ggwhiz]

I really am an expert (by BBO standards) and you should see some of the things I have perpetrated!

My best was probably leading K from KQx against 1nt, partner overtook and fired back the J. I overtook and fired back another one. Partner showed out.

No, I'm positive I've done worse than that.