16.09.2019, 13:34
Yes exactly.
"Normal" rules for the type allow both ends to be the same. Here there's the extra rule that both ends must be different.
This extra rule should ideally be shown in the example. That is, there (a) should be at least one bridge where the ends are in different rows and columns, and (b) the puzzle should have more than one solution without the extra rule.
Without such an example, it could easily happen to solvers who are familiar with the type that they miss this extra rule, and then run into the situation during the competition that the puzzle has multiple solutions.
However I understand that making examples is quite a bit of work, and you might not want to replace the example this shortly before the competition.
Thus the suggestion to put an emhasis on the extra rule, so that solvers are drawn to it, both while working through the example puzzle, and when rereading the instructions in the event of insecurity during the competition.
"Normal" rules for the type allow both ends to be the same. Here there's the extra rule that both ends must be different.
This extra rule should ideally be shown in the example. That is, there (a) should be at least one bridge where the ends are in different rows and columns, and (b) the puzzle should have more than one solution without the extra rule.
Without such an example, it could easily happen to solvers who are familiar with the type that they miss this extra rule, and then run into the situation during the competition that the puzzle has multiple solutions.
However I understand that making examples is quite a bit of work, and you might not want to replace the example this shortly before the competition.
Thus the suggestion to put an emhasis on the extra rule, so that solvers are drawn to it, both while working through the example puzzle, and when rereading the instructions in the event of insecurity during the competition.