| |
BGonline.org Forums
Chouette order rule - has anyone played this way? How common/uncommon is it?
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Chouette order rule - has anyone played this way? How common/uncommon is it? (Joe Russell)
Date: Sunday, 28 April 2013, at 2:47 p.m.
I find this comment most interesting: "Most of the rules are designed to make if more fair for the weaker players."
The chouette rules in Chicago certainly do not do this, and as a result, we truly have lost most of the weaker players and the chouetee has grown smaller and tougher. So it was short-sighted to have the rules we have in that respect. The rules were made in the pre-bot era where there were plenty of fish who didn't really know they were fish and thought that even though they played differently from Neil Kazaross, that didn't mean they were necessarily worse than Neil and less likely to win. Now, THEY KNOW. And they simply don't play in the higher priced chouettes with the better players.
So I do think the concept of being easier on the weaker players is needed if you want them in the game (who doesn't?). Not being able to pick and choose who you double and who you take is a major protection for the weaker player. Being able to take a partner, and being able to consult with the partner, is a major aid for the weaker player.
But your chouette is NON-CONSULTING and I believe that is a huge advantage to be better players...one of the most significant advantages possible.
Now, I agree with Malcolm, who states that non-consulting is the only really good chouette, and I won't go into all of his and my reasons, but when you have a couple of weaker players and they are always going to be completely on their own when they play, and every time they play they are facing a better player, they are clearly at a huge disadvantage and at the end of the day will lose a lot more than if they can get help from a teammate.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.