Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

Steve Foster wrote
>David Stevenson wrote:
>
>>  wrote
>> > Oh I see - no wonder the director didn't spot it - I think page 44
>> > should be updated
>>
>> Thankyou: you are not the first to criticise the layout.  Perhaps you
>> will be the first to suggest a better one.  I do not mean others have
>> suggested poorer ones: no-one who has criticised the layout has so
>> far suggested any alternative.
>
>How about:
>
>"11 C 1 Minimum opening bid strength
>
>The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 11 HCP, or Rule of
>19 with at least 8 HCP.
>
>At levels 3 and 4 this is relaxed to Rule of 18 with at least 8 HCP in
>first and second seat, and 8 HCP in third and fourth seat.
>
>11 C 2 1C openings - basic
>
>A 1C opening may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long
>as this does
>not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Diamonds or 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades
>(unless
>there is a Club suit of equal length or longer).
>
>At levels 3 and 4 this is relaxed to be equivalent to the 1D opening
>rule (see 11 C 4)."
>
>11 C 9 - 11 are then redundant.
>
>Another possibility would be to convert the layout to a grid, something
>like this:
>
>                               +------------+------------+------------+
>                               |  Level 2   |  Level 3   |  Level 4   |
>+------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
>| Minimum opening strength     | 11 HCP, or | 1st/2nd Seat: Ro18+8HCP |
>|                              | Ro18+8HCP  | 3rd/4th Seat: 8HCP      |
>+------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
>| 1C openings                  |            |                         |
>+------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
>| Strong Club                  |            |                         |
>+------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
>|                              |            |                         |
>| etc.                         |            |                         |
>
>With the lower level spaces lightly hatched over or marked "not
>permitted" for the more advanced meanings. Where the rules are the same
>for multiple levels, the description would span the appropriate levels.

   Remember that any suggestions for changing the layout should not just 
be for 11C: It will be *considerably* more difficult to find your way 
around the whole of Section 11 if it is not a consistent format.  You 
just try changing section 11 to a grid throughout: it does not work. Far 
too much white stuff [wasted space].

   The same problem applies to your suggested 11C1: fine, but what does 
that do to the rest of section 11?

   Incidentally, why would 11C11 be redundant?

-- 
David Stevenson           Bridge      RTFLB       Cats       Railways
Liverpool, England, UK    Fax: +44 870 055 7697        ICQ:  20039682
<webjak666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                             bluejak on OKB
                           Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm