Poetic justice

I played that other card game again last night, and was hugely amused by the following sequence of events at one particular table (poker analogy follows). We had just arrived, to play the next hand (in duplicate bridge one set of players moves around the room) and were treated to the following conversation from the pair seated at the table:

TC: On that last hand, you shouldn't have taken the king with your ace when hearts were led from dummy.
NP: But we learned that “Aces are for taking kings”
TC: Yes, but not when the dummy has QJT9 as well, and no outside entry.
NP: (Looks confused)
TC: Blah blah blah (translation: I'm a much better player than you are and am doing you a favour by playing as your partner; aren't I a wonderful and clever person?)

Meanwhile, in the hand we were playing, TC had become declarer at 3NT, requiring nine tricks to fulfill the contract. My partner, god bless him, found the only troublesome lead, in fact the only lead that could restrict declarer to exactly those nine tricks (sometimes, virtue has to be its own reward). But a funny thing happened. Despite it being clear to everyone at the table (and even the family next door watching “Prison Break”) that the contract would be defeated if he lost the lead before cashing his nine top tricks, TC cashed precisely eight, and then lost the next one.

The poker analogy:

TC: In that last hand, you should have over-limped from late position with 64s.
NP: But we learned that hand selection is important, and the cutoff, button or one of the blinds might have raised.
TC: Yes, but the table's been passive so that's not very likely, and you have great implied odds if you hit the flop.
NP: (Looks confused)
TC: Blah blah blah ...

To be followed immediately by a hand where TC holds the mortal nuts on the river, last to act, and simply calls.