Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

David Stevenson wrote:

> 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].

White stuff in do***entation isn't usually considered a problem, as it
enhances readability (providing it's not truly excessive).

Would there really be that much?

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

How many other instances are there where a subsection is repeated for
more than one of "all levels", "level 3/4" and "level 4 only"? I can
only see a few cases. They could receive the same treatment (ie include
differences between levels in a single subsection that is located under
"all levels").


>   Incidentally, why would 11C11 be redundant?

Because I combined it into a revised 11C2 (see I was already thinking
about your "consistent style" without even realising it).

A 3rd solution would be to split the chapter into subchapters and
explicitly cover each level separately in full (doing away with "all
levels" and "3/4"), and duplicating the common information. Yes, I know
duplication isn't a good thing, but it would be worth it for the
clarity. It'd make it easier to avoid situations like the one that
started this thread.

-- 
Steve Foster