| |
BGonline.org Forums
Chouette Debate
Posted By: Phil Simborg
Date: Saturday, 22 August 2009, at 1:13 p.m.
There is a debate in our Chicago Chouette (we had 12 people in two games yesterday by the way). Some of us prefer no consulting until there is a 4 cube (beavers and automatics do not qualify to allow consulting). Others prefer the our traditional rule of allowing consulting once your cube has turned.
The main reason I am for the non-consulting rule is that we have several people in our game who are consistently adamant about their plays, and there are often long arguments and debates that not only drag out the game, but cause hard feelings.
Those who argue for consulting say they don't want to watch someone throw away their money without having input (and they are just used to it).
No one disagrees with me that non-consulting does speed up the game and eliminate arguing.
The real disagreement is who benefits or loses the most in terms of equity by non-consulting. I maintain that the better player will actually win more in the long run, as the worse players won't have the benefit of the better players help. Particularly since we have independent cube and cube action, better players can drop or hold off on doubling if they don't like who is playing their side, and they can be more selective in their cubing when they are in the box.
Assuming you play the cube intelligently, am I right? Will the better players make more money in a non-consulting chou when there are several worse players in the game? Or will the better player get hurt too often because he can't provide his input into the checker plays (assuming, of course, that the captain or box partner listens to his input)?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.