Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

David Stevenson wrote:

> > 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.

So would that be the one section labelled 11C1, or the one labelled
11C9, or the one labelled 11C10?

> > 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.

No, I'm trying to ensure that information is presented once only, and
in a clear and precise way. Labelling a subsection "Level 4" and then
specifically wording the subsection text to limit the applicibality to
level 4 is redundant and adds unnecessary complexity to the definition.

I highlighted that particular example as being one that has an
inconsistent style with the minimum strength subsections, while at the
same time the overly precise (within the context given for two out of
three subsections) wording does suggest to the reader that there will
be other subsections that outline the rules for other levels.

> > 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.

So how did a TD make an erroneous ruling then? 
Why does this entire thread exist?
If all the 1C openings are "together", why are there multiple
subsections for them?

-- 
Steve Foster