"Focusing with higher-order rules" What makes Andreoli's notion of focusing proofs so robust? In this talk, I will try to argue for the naturality of focusing by giving a new presentation that makes very explicit the duality between focus and inversion, and between positive and negative polarity. Loosely inspired by Girard's ludics, the idea is to stratify the definition of a focusing sequent calculus into two stages: first define a form of "pattern-typing", and then define the focusing judgments by quantifying over patterns. Focus quantifies existentially, while inversion quantifies universally---positive connectives quantify over constructor patterns, negative connectives over destructor patterns. Besides giving a simple account of evaluation order and pattern-matching, this style of presentation has the benefit of being amenable to modular extension, since we potentially can encode many features into pattern-typing without affecting the overall structure of focusing proofs, or the meta-proofs of identity and cut. I will describe a few of these extensions, which are still preliminary -- audience feedback appreciated!