An old joke distorts a common saying so that it reads "Ok, that's all very well in practice but how does it work in theory?"
I enjoy thinking through hands after the play, thinking what would have worked, thinking whether it was plausible to play it that way before seeing it as double-dummy. Sometimes, maybe often, this leads to a line of play that is very reasonable without any peeking but is not one that I expect myself to think of at the table. I have written up these thoughts for two hands from the iac/acol match, bd 4 of the first half and bd 3 of the second half.
I do this for fun. I am curious if anyone else enjoys such fun.
I took a very good geometry course when I was 14. Sure, c^2=a^2+b^2, but what interested me was that you need the parallel postulate to prove it. An early indication of a weird sense of fun.
So, on a lazy morning, I am just speaking of fun. But sometimes fun is useful fun. Any thoughts?
