Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

David Stevenson wrote:

>  wrote
> > Hi David - the director at the county event did have an orange book.
> > 
> > The problem as I see it is if you read 11C1:
> > 
> > Allowed at Levels 2, 3 and 4
> > 11 C 1 Minimum opening bid strength
> > The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 19, or 11
> > HCP. However a
> > partner****p may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the
> > hand is at least
> > Rule of 19.
> > 
> > This implies that the Rule of 19 applies at levels 3 and 4 - there
> > is no indication that two rules on the next page (11C9 & 11C10)
> > supercede it.
> > 
> > I think a minimum to add a reference i.e (See 11C9) at the end, or
> > better still to incor****ate the wording from 11C9 & 11C10 into 11C1.
> > 
> > Same applies to rules 11C2 and 11C11.
> 
>   Sounds fine, until you do it.
> 
> The problem is consistency: it must be consistent otherwise it will
> be too confusing.  Now, through section 11, you start with minimum
> allowances, for Levels 2, 3 and 4, follow with more allowed at Levels
> 3 and 4, and finish with more for Level 4.
> 
> If you think there is a better method of making this clearer, fine,
> but you should not be considering section 11C: you must consider
> sections 11C, 11D, 11F, 11G, 11H, 11J, 11K, 11L, 11N and 11P.  And I
> do not think your suggestion helps for all these sections.

I understand that any amended style would need to work for all of
section 11.

I think the layout change I've suggested can do that - it's just a
little different than the current, and would obviously mean some
additional rework (where needed) of the later sections to match.

But there simply aren't all that many cases where the rules for a
specific "permitted" change depending on the level - mostly something
is either in or out, and therefore would not be duplicated across more
than one level subsection.

For example (as per my other post), the "mixing types" subsections in
11J are clearly a case that would need rework to match this "composite"
subsection style.

In some cases, it might even make the overall flow "cleaner". eg 11F2
and 11F3 would merge down quite nicely, instead of looking somewhat odd
as they do now.

-- 
Steve Foster