An attribute I value (for bridge and otherwise) is recognizing what you do not know: ask more questions, state fewer conclusions. Only sometimes do I act as I say one should act.
Wish that master points award system would motivate players to continue to challenge themselves to improve: need to better align awards with the achievements producing the awards.
Wish that club directors would (politely) instruct players about Unauthorized Information and Logical Alternatives; that is, Fair Play. Not a crime (but then, not an accolade, either) to take too much or too little time to think about a call or play, but is unethical for partner to take winning inferences from the pace of the call or play.
Am deeply involved in developing and teaching after school bridge programs. Teach play before bidding (mini-bridge), teach declarer play before defensive play, teach notrump play before suit play. But, first, ensure kids are safe, have fun, allow other kids to learn, and respect each other, the teachers, and the school. See www.newenglandyouthbridge.org.
Loved bridge from the moments I learned to play, but placed bridge behind other matters such as career and family. Took a 15 year hiatus from significant play.
Still improving as a player. Do not look forward to the time when my skills will plateau.
Best skill as a bridge player: envisaging during the auction how the play might proceed. Poorest skill as a bridge player: perhaps too many to mention.
An aside, but perhaps a relevant aside ...
I wonder how the ACBL documents the duties of directors. Is there a user's manual (I am not talking about Laws of Bridge; I am talking about standards, such as that for documenting a defense to a pre-alert convention)? Or is knowledge ...
+1 to Ed Reppert's comment reproduced below:
" (Ed quoting Carl Hudecek in this first paragraph) "Due to systems complexity of the modern game, kids are not interested in learning it. That's why I think the rules of bridge should mandate extreme simplicity, so that bridge can be an ...
Well, "mollycoddling" is standard for the ACBL -- I actually prefer the term "pandering". "Protecting" players from having to compete against better players and "protecting" players from having to play against unfamiliar conventions is all part of this standard of pandering to players ... all done, to my chagrin, without much cost ...
Yes, issues of understandability can be sourced both to severity of detail and to severity of explanatory language. Both need to be addressed. Is, for example, Option 1 to Multi really the simplest option that is at all acceptable, or can something simpler, even though less complete, be provided? (Here ...
Thank you for that, Andrew.
Upthread, I raised the issue about whether the problems that JoAnn was mentioning might be caused by: (1) the difficulty of understanding the written ACBL defenses; or (2) the fact that ANY written defense had to be presented.
Having reviewed Andrew's cite, I do ...