David Babcock wrote
>
>> After all, who wants to allow beginners and novices to spoil our
>> bridge game, right?
>
>Since nothing so far has mentioned beginners and novices, I infer that
>your mention of these folks is intended to suggest that acting on my
>concerns would impact them especially. OK, let's go there. I
>certainly do not want discourage such players -- just the opposite --
>which is why I sup****t the notion of the Laws' allowing relaxed rules
>in some club games. But novices are already are told, or should be,
>not to use tools they aren't ready for; going another step and saying
>that (for example) if your auction goes off the rails because you
>don't know your agreements, you cannot get more than A- on the board,
>merely underlines this lesson. This can scare off only people who
>were very fragile to begin with, and in my experience, any newbie who
>survives the first couple of weeks in the (to him) totally foreign
>duplicate environment after some years of social bridge is not
>fragile, or at least not *that* fragile.
>
>If there is a practical reason why this cannot be done, let's talk
>about that, but the general idea that the outcome of a bridge game
>should reflect skill as much as possible and random events as little
>as possible -- the more so the higher the level -- is something I hope
>we are all agreed on. If we are discussing what is and what is not
>reasonable along those lines, fine.
You seem to have an amazing approach ot learning: you suggest that
people should learn by only using things they already know? How on
earth can that work?
People learn by experience: you want to spoil the experience for them.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webjak666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
|
