|
| ||||||||||||||||
You may have noticed that Nack changed my 32U to 32. It was on the third roll, where two checkers are entered from the bar. After the roll is given, no Nactation symbol is required, although is it not a mistake to use ">" or "U."
Correct. For these cases, I usually (though not always) omit the post-roll character only to shorten the sequence; some people prefer to leave it in and that's perfectly fine. It is worth noting, though, that when just one checker enters, two characters can be saved (e.g., one may record just half the roll of "2" for entering one checker with a deuce).
Do you prefer F or fan? C or cub? R or rcb/rdb? There are no wrong answers.
Incidentally, 21$-64K-32 could be a caption for the position before or after the 32 above is played. That is arguably a shortcoming for omitting the end character, though in practice one would never pose 21$-64K-32 as a problem (there is only one legal play!). Even so, for this one situation, when the sequence ends on this roll (doesn't continue beyond that) and I'm describing the after-position, I include the character (as shown on the right).
|
| ||||||||||||||||
I agree it's not a big deal (either way), but I'm interested to know your thinking. When you say, "This is a case...," are you referring to something specific about this position or speaking more generally? For example, would you like that the opening play of 13/8 24/23 be nactated only 51Z (with 51S not being a permissible option)? If so, it's not an unreasonable point of view, though you might find this thread worth reviewing.
Finally, I tend to change lengthy Nactation headers only when there is an error (or clear inferiority IMO) in choice of character or the format is non-standard. (You made no such error, and I made no such change.) In diagram captions or text, though, I generally go with my own preference.
Nack