[kuhchung]

 cherdano, on 2015-June-19, 06:00, said:

My new favourite phrase found on BBF.

I heard this one from a friend, which is the same idea but differently phrased.

"He's had 1 year of experience 10 times."

[glen]

My pickup partner held:

♠ AKQT54
♥ A3
♦ ---
♣ AKJ93

2♥-3♥-P-3NT-All Pass

Said she passed 3NT since she "trusts her partners", and that all experts play 3♥ as Michaels

[blackshoe]

 glen, on 2015-July-04, 17:18, said:

My pickup partner held:

♠ AKQT54
♥ A3
♦ ---
♣ AKJ93

2♥-3♥-P-3NT-All Pass

Said she passed 3NT since she "trusts her partners", and that all experts play 3♥ as Michaels

If 3♥ is Michaels then surely 3NT asks for the minor.

[Trinidad]

Nice that she had an extra stopper in hearts.

Rik

[diana_eva]

"I trusted you!" - I'm gonna use this from now on.

[Zelandakh]

 diana_eva, on 2015-July-05, 02:43, said:

"I trusted you!" - I'm gonna use this from now on.

It makes quite a good apology in reverse - "Sorry partner, I should have trusted you more."

[Cyberyeti]

 kuhchung, on 2015-June-19, 10:59, said:

I heard this one from a friend, which is the same idea but differently phrased.

"He's had 1 year of experience 10 times."

This basic remark was used of English spin bowler Monty panesar by Australian legend Shane Warne who said something like: Monty hasn't played 33 tests, he's played the same test 33 times.

[ggwhiz]

A local self styled bridge teacher had a lesson booked at his house and with -25 (centigrade) and a howling wind his students arrived.

He looked at them, looked at his watch and said "you're 10 minutes early" and shut the door in their freezing faces. He's no longer in business for even funnier reasons.

[keylime]

Larry and I were a relatively new partnership playing canapé club, and the auction went:

1D* (could have longer major, alerted) (1H) 1S (only promises 4 spades) (2C)

<lots of bids later>

.... (3D) P (3H) X by Larry, all pass.

Larry somehow derives that I have a heart canapé. Still to this day I dunno how he did it. He leads the QH at 3HX vul at Swiss...and hits my AKJxx side suit of hearts. They took exactly 2 tricks for -2000. Afterwards the conversation:

P1: Pard, 3H confused me.
P2: 1H confused me, I thought you had five.
P1: Well I had five of his diamonds (true) and 4 hearts (to the 9), what do I do?
P2: Against these two guys, pass. They know the red card. They embraced the red card. And, thankfully Dwayne's O+ and knows where the nearest hospital is.
P1 looks at me: Oh, are you a doctor? If so I have a question about this illness I've read about...

[helene_t]

Not clueless at all but I wanted to post it somewhere:

Dummy puts her cards down and declarer exclaims: "Ach, mein lieber Gott."

Dummy replies: "You don't have to call me God. My name is Marijke".

[glen]

Playing with a BBO expert, auction by opponents with 1NT-2♣-2♦-3NT

I led a fourth best ♥, dummy has KQT. Declarer wins K, and then on some winners discards T and Q of hearts. At the end expert discards all his hearts, keeping a winner and a loser. Discussion:

me: with my discards and declarer discarding heart QT, clear i have heart ace
expert: it was his three of diamonds that threw me and you also discarded the three of clubs - both were the lowest I saw

[eagles123]

"experts never underlead aces at trick 1"

from an "expert" bbo opp

[barmar]

 eagles123, on 2016-January-18, 15:48, said:

"experts never underlead aces at trick 1"

While there are no unbreakable rules in bridge, this is one of the closer ones (assuming he's talking about non-trump leads in suit contracts). If you read Lawrence's book on opening leads, he takes every opportunity he can to tell the reader to find some other alternative. And when you're playing third hand, if your choice of plays depends on whether partner or declarer has the ace, assume it's declarer (unless the only way to defeat the contract is if partner made the unusual lead of underleading his ace).

Of course, one of the hallmarks of being an expert is knowing when to bend or break the rules.

[manudude03]

 barmar, on 2016-January-19, 09:46, said:

While there are no unbreakable rules in bridge, this is one of the closer ones (assuming he's talking about non-trump leads in suit contracts). If you read Lawrence's book on opening leads, he takes every opportunity he can to tell the reader to find some other alternative. And when you're playing third hand, if your choice of plays depends on whether partner or declarer has the ace, assume it's declarer (unless the only way to defeat the contract is if partner made the unusual lead of underleading his ace).

Of course, one of the hallmarks of being an expert is knowing when to bend or break the rules.

Assuming he was replying to glen's post, the point is if dummy has KQT and declarer the ace, they would not have been discarding them.

[barmar]

 manudude03, on 2016-January-19, 12:50, said:

Assuming he was replying to glen's post, the point is if dummy has KQT and declarer the ace, they would not have been discarding them.

I thought he said it came from an opponent, not a forum post. If it's from a post, it's in a thread I haven't read, so I don't know the context.

In a situation like you describe, we can think of the quote from Sherlock Holmes: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Since it's presumably impossible that declarer would discard from that suit if he had the ace, partner must have underled it.

[gwnn]

Glen's post is the right above that of eagles123.

[glen]

 barmar, on 2016-January-20, 11:30, said:

I thought he said it came from an opponent, not a forum post. If it's from a post, it's in a thread I haven't read, so I don't know the context.

In a situation like you describe, we can think of the quote from Sherlock Holmes: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Since it's presumably impossible that declarer would discard from that suit if he had the ace, partner must have underled it.

I don't think underleading an ace against 3NT is improbable

[blackshoe]

 glen, on 2016-January-20, 18:22, said:

I don't think underleading an ace against 3NT is improbable

It is for me. I don't usually have any.

[barmar]

 glen, on 2016-January-20, 18:22, said:

I don't think underleading an ace against 3NT is improbable

I did say "assuming he's talking about non-trump leads in suit contracts". It's very common to underlead an ace in no-trump or in the trump suit (you later expect to win a trick in a side suit so you can draw all of dummy's trumps.

[barmar]

 gwnn, on 2016-January-20, 13:58, said:

Glen's post is the right above that of eagles123.

I never thought the context might be from 5 months ago.