Unalerted double (EBU)

[blackshoe]

If you're discussing the original case, fine. But the first two posts after my notice that I split the thread seemed to be about 'what should the regulation be?' :(

[Vampyr]

What else do you suggest, when everybody at the match is in one team or the other (including VixTD)?

 

Probably a telephone consultation.

[Trinidad]

For what possible reason?

I feel that the laws forums are overmoderated in this respect. These are not business meetings where we have an agenda that tells us what we discuss and nothing more (and even in business meetings it doesn't work like that). The discussions in the forums are discussions at a party or over a cup of coffee: They start about one subject and can morph into an interesting discussion about an other subject.

 

IMO the moderators should appreciate that a discussion about how -in the context of the topic at hand- the laws should be or how they should be interpreted is completely different from a proposal to change the laws. There is no reason to split a thread as soon as someone writes: "I think the law should mean..." or "I think the law should be". The fact that -in the opinion of the moderator- such a post could also have been written in the Changing Laws forum doesn't mean that it can't be written in the current discussion when it is relevant for both. Splitting threads has a very negative effect: it leaves us with two threads without context.

 

What I see here looks like a cooking forum with subforum about -among others- potatoes, pasta, rice, beef, porc, and ground beef. When someone starts a topic in the pasta forum asking for recipes for spaghetti I could post a nice recipe for spaghetti with meat balls. At that point the moderator interferes. The meat ball part belongs in the ground beef forum. The result is one thread that says: "Put the spaghetti in boiling water and take it out when the package says you need to take it out." and a thread in the ground beef forum about meat balls in tomato sauce (which IMO is about the worst way to serve meat balls - unless they are served with spaghetti - and I would never in my life post a recipe for meatballs in tomato sauce in a ground beef forum).

 

There is a reason why this discussion board is divided in a range of forums. And it is important that when a topic is started it is started in the appropriate forum. But there is a reason for that: It is done to ensure that those who are potentially interested in the subject will see the topic and a nice discussion can start. If you want recipes for spaghetti, don't start a topic in the ground beef forum. And if you want a recipe for meat balls don't start a topic in the pasta forum.

 

In the case at hand we are not dealing with the start of a topic. We have a lively discussion with interested participants. This discussion is running its natural course and at some points touches on what the laws/regulations should be, rather than on what they are, all within the context of the original topic subject. That should be perfectly fine.

 

The fact that there also is a forum for changes to the laws is irrelevant. The topic wasn't started in that forum. The comments were not made with the aim to petition for a change in the regulations. (The posters are smart enough to find that forum if they want to.) They were written in the context of the discussion at hand. The effect of splitting the thread and moving some posts to another forum is that their context is removed, killing the meeaning of these posts. That should not be the aim of moderation.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

If you're discussing the original case, fine. But the first two posts after my notice that I split the thread seemed to be about 'what should the regulation be?' :(

Mine was one of those 2 posts. Nowhere does it suggest changing the EBU regulation. It is not even asking what the regulation should be. It was asking what the regulation actually is in a specific case that has come up during the discussion. It may have escaped your attention but this is a discussion forum. It is natural that there is some degree of drift in long threads and also that sub-discussions start. This is generally a positive thing for forums and many of the most entertaining discussions have begun with very mundane OPs.

 

Obviously, as a moderator it is important for you to make sure that threads are begun in an appropriate forum. Also, that a thread does not become hijacked due to malevolence or weighed down with flames or any other violations of the ToS. But it does not feel right to me to moderate sub-discussions that branch off from the original issue/question once the OP has been answered. Or do you really think it is necessary to start a new thread for every question?

[aguahombre]

Zel's view above is well presented ---to a point.

 

When a particular offshoot, rather than many small offshoots, becomes the main subject of discussion I believe the mod should indeed create a new thread for it.

 

The focus turned to whether the regs should be different in this case, and moving it was appropriate. After doing so, IMO two things should happen:

 

1) A bit of tolerance from the mod and posters when things continue to overlap.

2) A link and reference in the first post (created by the mod) to begin the new thread.

[blackshoe]

Interesting posts. I'll be thinking about them, and discussing things with David, in the next few days or weeks.

 

The link and reference suggestion by Aquahombre is a good one. The problem is that if you're in forum A and want to split off posts in thread A1 and move them to a new topic in forum B, you have to make a new thread, post your link and reference message, split off the messages from A1 to a temporary topic, and then merge them with your new topic, instead of just splitting off the messages to the new topic (which is what I did recently). Maybe there's a better way; I'll have to do some research.

[aguahombre]

Just a question. Can you lock your new thread after making the OP, to allow the time required to transfer posts at your convenience and then unlock it?

 

This would avoid us jumping in with new stuff before you are finished.

[blackshoe]

That I can do, yes. I may even be able to transfer posts into a locked thread - I'll have to experiment.

[Trinidad]

I think that splitting threads should only be done in real exceptional situations. In normal situations the "cost" of losing the context of the posts doesn't justify the gains.

 

Rik

[jallerton]

Moderator: please can you move the last seven off-topic posts into a new thread called "thread splitting"? Thanks.

[blackshoe]

Heh. No. Not right now, anyway.

[barmar]

Moderator: please can you move the last seven off-topic posts into a new thread called "thread splitting"? Thanks.

And move that one into a new thread called "discussion about which posts should be split". :)

[bluejak]

Just out of curiosity: If 2♥ were not a 2-suited convention, but merely a mundane weak two, would EBU TD's entertain an adjustment at all?

 

True, the EBU rules on alerting doubles are what they are. But opposite a one-suited preempt with an intervening bid, double is penalty, rather than asking opener to bid a suit he doesn't have; and it would be a joke for the NOS to claim damage on a failure to alert.

We are considering playing double as a game try. See relevant comments in another thread.

 

What I dislike is the suggestion as always that we should see if we can avoid giving an adjustment because the non-offenders should do better.

 

If I open a fairly minimum hand, overcall, double, and I have 9x in the suit doubled, I have a fairly strong idea partner meant it as penalties before I pass. And if I have a strong idea it is penalties then I see no reason for sympathy for me if I do not alert.