A rule that I find strange in curling is this one:

Player A has the last stone in the first end, but looses 0-1.

But then he still has the last stone in the second end!

I find this a Little unfair. Because in that way the player who wins the first end 1-0 gets a sort of penalty buy not having the last stone in the second end. What he WOULD have had, if he had lost the first end 0-1.

The thing that I find strange is, that in a way sometimes it´s better to loose 0-1 when you don´t have the last stone that it is to steal a stone and win 1-0 when the opponent has the last stone.

Especially in the 9th end it´s almost always better to Loose 0-1 than to win 1-0 when you don´t have the last stone, because then you have the last stone in the last and often decisive end.

Overall I find that it would be most fair if both players had the same number of last stones. For example five ends with the last stone in a match with ten ends.

I just had a game, where I lost 6-5 after six ends. But the interesting thing was that my opponent had the last stone in four out of six ends. So in a way it was easier for him, I would say. It´s much more difficult to win an end 2-0 or 3-0 if you don´t have the last stone.....

It´s almost as if in tennis you had a rule that said that if you break the opponentes serve, then the opponent has the serve again. It doesn´t seam fair to me.