Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

Steve Foster wrote
>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.

  That's not true.  It is "impossible" to miss the minimum permitted
strength now because it is all in one section - but someone has.

>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.

  I do not think this is helpful.  You are trying to bare things down
but then people will misunderstand them.

>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.

  It is exactly ***not*** the problem we have now.  1C openings are
***together***.

-- 
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