Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

David Stevenson wrote:

> Steve Foster wrote
> >>  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).
> 
> So now you are making it even less consistent.  I really dislike
> that. People who know how it is laid out - hardly rocket science -
> may now miss it.

Huh? All discussion of the 1C opening would be in one subsection (just
as with the minimum strength data). It would be impossible to "miss"
anything, since there'd be no separation of information.

There is precedent for being specific about levels already - look at
the "mixing types" subsections 11J2, 11J5 and 11J7. These are clear as
to which level they really mean (and by corollary force a reader to
keep looking for a relevant statement above level 2, since the "all
levels" statement then self-limits to only level 2). 11J7 even has a
completely redundant "at level 4" in it.

They are not consistent with the style of 11C1/9/10 and 11C2/11.

> > 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.
> 
> This was suggested and turned down very quickly.  Much longer, and
> often very unhelpful, when people want ot know when they may play
> something: you are back ot the bad old days of having  to look in
> many different places.

Huh? This is exactly the problem we have now. Information on what's
allowed at level 3 (and 4) is not in one place. It is spread out
between the "all levels" sections, and the more specific 3/4 and 4 only
sections.

Laying the section out as Level 2 allowed openings, Level 3 allowed
openings and Level 4 allowed openings, detailing *all* allowed bids in
each, solves that, at the expense of increased length (as I said).
However, a TD (or other interested party) would thus *only* need read
the sections for whichever level they were concerned with, unlike now,
where they must read multiple sections (for other than level 2).

-- 
Steve Foster