David Babcock wrote
>
>> 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?
>
>Huh? I said nothing against trying new things (nor could anyone even
>mildly acquainted with my offerings in other threads possibly imagine
>that I would). I merely suggested that in a tournament setting, the
>Laws should not allow a pair to profit from the odd instance where
>their failure to have done their homework adequately would work in
>their favor by happenstance. They already survive the more numerous
>bad results from their systemic slips, and, as you say, they learn
>from experience; I am not suggesting interfering with this in any
>way. Not allowing them to benefit from the odd favorable outcome
>should sup****t this learning if it has any effect at all.
How far are you going to disallow people to play normal bridge? If
they forget their system, you will penalise them, ok. If they lead out
of turn, and it happens to work, now you penalise them? If they forget
their leads? If they false-card by accident? On purpose?
Soon you will stop them getting good results by playing five-card
majors when the field plays four [or vice versa], and strong club, and
so on. C'mon, we have got a game full of mistakes: it's a good game:
let's not spoil it.
I just think that you are trying to reduce bridge to a computer game,
a very boring one. That is not good for bridge.
--
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
|
