[blackshoe]

Hypothetical or constructed situations can be useful in exploring how we administer the laws and regulations of our game. Sometimes, though, they go deeply into minutiae of the rules and while they may provide interesting discussion for some of the folks here, they don't provide much practical help to those who are mostly unfamiliar with the rules, and trying to learn the basics. So the question arises, to what extent do we want to allow these kinds of topics to be started here?

If you answer "other", or you want to add anything to another answer, please explain your thoughts in this topic.

[Vampyr]

Please allow more than one vote per person.

Are there really people who think that all threads on the laws should be about something we have seen with our own eyes? No questions about meanings, no practical guidance to help in future rulings? I am pretty sure that most people here do not, as we do, have telephone access to top-level directors and referees when they need assistance.

So the "no" is pretty strange.

Anyway obviously these threads interest some people. Maybe they are a minority, who knows. Does that mean that they cannot have the discussions they find instructive and constructive?

If some people don't like chocolate ice cream, should Sainsbury's offer only vanilla?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-18, 19:12, said:

Please allow more than one vote per person.

Why? Not saying no, I just don't understand the reason for the request.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-18, 22:19, said:

Why? Not saying no, I just don't understand the reason for the request.

For example, I voted "yes, in their own subforum", because I think that is the best solution, but would much prefer to allow them without restriction than to disallow them. I would be happy with any of the first three options, and unhappy with any of the others.

[gnasher]

I don't think there's anything wrong with artificial or constructed problems in themselves. I do think there's a need to distinguish between practical problems and threads that are intended to highlight a flaw in the Laws, argue for a reinterpretation or the Laws, or initiate some other theoretical discussion.

Hence I suggest adding a forum called "Theoretical discussions", and that Ed should freely use his powers to move threads into that forum.

(I voted "Other")

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-18, 19:12, said:

If some people don't like chocolate ice cream, should Sainsbury's offer only vanilla?

You would still have the option to go to Tesco, Waitrose or Asda, or your local corner shop or Italian icemaker. There are far less sensible - at least most of the time - bridge laws forums.

Joost

It's of course rather provincial to name just UK supermarkets, but most of you wouldn't know say AH (Dutch) and i'm not acquainted with US equivalents.

[sanst]

campboy, on 2015-May-19, 01:51, said:

For example, I voted "yes, in their own subforum", because I think that is the best solution, but would much prefer to allow them without restriction than to disallow them. I would be happy with any of the first three options, and unhappy with any of the others.

I do agree with that.

Joost

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-18, 19:12, said:

If some people don't like chocolate ice cream, should Sainsbury's offer only vanilla?

It's entirely a matter for Sainsbury's to determine their product range, just as it's entirely a matter for BBO to determine the scope of their forums.

[helene_t]

I enjoy some of lamford's posts and anyway I don't want things that are reasonably on topic an not flammable to be censored.

But I do think that chocolate Icecream should be labeled as such just in case some people don't like it.

A separate forum I could live with but I don't see the advantage. Some hypothetical cases may be simple rulings so it is better to put them in the appropriate subforum and put "hypothetical" in the subtititle.

[aguahombre]

When you go for a target, consider collateral damage. When a thread regarding a real-life happening has run and then branches into "but, what if...?" --- do you then split it, shut it down, re-label it?

Oops, my question is a hypothetical.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-19, 03:34, said:

When you go for a target, consider collateral damage. When a thread regarding a real-life happening has run and then branches into "but, what if...?" --- do you then split it, shut it down, re-label it?

Oops, my question is a hypothetical.

Yes, I was thinking about this in regard to the "no" option above. Under these conditions, would the thread be locked when discussion started to touch on the law itself? Could real-life threads ever have more than one answer, since a different answer might be based on a different interpretation of the law, a forbidden topic?

[gwnn]

Unsolicited advice from a non-regular contributor but a frequent reader of the Laws forum: The SB scenarios were definitely my favourite group of posts in this subforums and among the favourites in all of the forums. I would hate to have them go, so I voted "yes, unconditionally." Even new members can IMO identify that these are constructed posts ("looks and behaves exactly like the Secretary Bird"), but if people want a separate subforum for constructed scenarios, I suppose that can't hurt.

All that said, the tone of said SB threads got slowly preachier in the past few months, with the opening poster (OK who are we kidding I am talking about lamford) often becoming quite short-tempered and going into mockery mode, even insulting the whole country of a particular dissenting poster at one point, and calling ambiguous laws unambiguous because that is what his interpretation is. I hope we can have more SB posts from a more amiable lamford, but I know that I am not writing any of these invariably creative, educational, and entertaining cases, so perhaps I'm not in a position to complain about the tone of their creator. But I think this recent shift in tone towards hostility and caricature of disagreeing opinions is one reason why some people complain about these threads and they are misidentifying the reason somewhat. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[helene_t]

Btw they sorta are marked already, Lamford's signature says that they are fictive.

[nige1]

In every forum, posters

• Start topics that should be in a different forum.
• Digress from the topic subject.
• Attack other posters in an insolent way.

Moderators have their work cut out, addressing such issues, without worrying about occasional stimulating and humorous posts.

[billw55]

I vote to just identify them somehow.

Quote

Sometimes, though, they go deeply into minutiae of the rules and while they may provide interesting discussion for some of the folks here, they don't provide much practical help to those who are mostly unfamiliar with the rules, and trying to learn the basics.

This logic does not make sense to me. It is manifestly impossible for every thread to be of interest to every forum reader. Why would we even want that?

[mycroft]

I also think two things:

"yes, but they should be marked" - not because they're fictional, but because they're usually constructed to explore holes in the Laws, and it's good to know we don't have to worry about "so, you tell the players this and they'll go away content, and it's 'correct' (for non-theoretical/non-perverse meanings of correct)" and go straight into the "hole in the Laws/not really/better reading/here's what we need to fix" conversations.

"yes, but the depth should be limited" - there seems to be an irritation between those who want a practical answer and those who want the legal minutiae, and frequently between the "this means this" and "oh no it doesn't - even though you wouldn't notice for 50 years if it did" camps. Perhaps a stronger "on-topic" hand (by which I mean "maybe we could take that rabbithole to another thread and work assuming the WBFLC note means what it says" strength of hand, not "we're done with this digression and will ban anyone who continues it" strength) would help.

But I'm almost disappointed when I see a lamford post that is real!

Your Fellow Pedant.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps if the intention of these hypothetical situations is to explore "holes" in the laws, they might do better in the "changing laws" forum. Does that make sense?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-19, 15:46, said:

Perhaps if the intention of these hypothetical situations is to explore "holes" in the laws, they might do better in the "changing laws" forum. Does that make sense?

+1

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-19, 15:46, said:

Perhaps if the intention of these hypothetical situations is to explore "holes" in the laws, they might do better in the "changing laws" forum. Does that make sense?

No.

[nige1]

If a legal-forum were restricted to case-topics, where directors agreed on the ruling, it would contain few posts. Even in simple basic cases, with agreed facts, several Bridge-rules are usually relevant. Few players or directors understand the rules. Different directors interpret rules in different ways. Hence posters rarely agree a ruling. Not much guidance there.

Lamford's posts isolate and focus on a particular aspect of the law -- not to point out its flaws -- but to elucidate it and to try to obtain agreement over its interpretation. His posts help players and directors, alike.