Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

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.

I had a good read-through the Orange Book yesterday for the first time
in a while, and thought it was very clearly-written and comprehensible.

The layout of the 'agreements' section is confusing *as you start
reading* but then makes sense.  The problem is, as we have seen in this
thread, it will tend to trip up those trying to look up a specific rule
who have forgotten about the layout.  It's especially unfortunate if
that happens to a director trying to decide if an agreement is legal and
the player doesn't realise.

The obvious solution is to replace "Allowed at levels 2, 3 and 4" with
"Allowed at level 2", and likewise have "Allowed at level 3" and
"Allowed at level 4".

I'm sure you must have thought of this and decided that either some
sections would contain logical contortions or would become much more
verbose.  But there is already repetition, and some logical confusion
with reading that at level 2, 3 and 4 a 1NT bid must have a minimum of
at least 10 points, then at levels 3 and 4 that it must have a minimum
of at least 9 points :-)

-- 
Rob Morris
arr emm four four five (at) cam dot ac dot uk