Hypothetical or Constructed Posts

[Lanor Fow]

In most cases though on the forums we're asked to assume the facts given in the original post. IN this way real situations don't differ from the hypothetical

[barmar]

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.

Have they ever succeeded in doing that?

 

What they generally do is pinpoint places where the Laws really are ambiguous or insufficient, and no amount of discussion will resolve it. In some cases this is inherent in the nature of our game, because we have rules that depend on what a player does or even could know.

 

It was suggested that they should be in the Changing Laws forum. And in some cases, threads derived from them are created there. But there's a reason why these ambiguous Laws have been around for so long: it almost never matters. That's why Lamford has to construct these threads around hypotheticals, because in real life you don't fall into these holes in the Laws.

 

I know that some people enjoy these debates, but it seems to me like the amount of traffic they generate is disproportionate to how important they are. But I suppose it's like celebrity gossip: just because it's unimportant, it doesn't mean we have to do without it, it can still be fun.

[sanst]

I know that some people enjoy these debates, but it seems to me like the amount of traffic they generate is disproportionate to how important they are. But I suppose it's like celebrity gossip: just because it's unimportant, it doesn't mean we have to do without it, it can still be fun.

That's utter nonsense. Because quite a few people partake in these discussions, which proves that these are popular, they generate a disproportionate ammount of traffic. So, a topic should generate hardly any debate at all, to be of interest. I thought that a forum is a place for debates, the more the merrier. But it's obvious, we are taking up to much bandwith, gigabytes and/or time. If you want us to stop having debates, please say so and we might collectively decide to leave and you'll have a very quiet, but hardly interresting forum.

 

Joost

[Vampyr]

So, a topic should generate hardly any debate at all, to be of interest.

 

ROFLMAO

[aguahombre]

In most cases though on the forums we're asked to assume the facts given in the original post. IN this way real situations don't differ from the hypothetical

You are right about that. And threads about real situations don't differ from threads about hypothetical situations either. We are asked to assume the facts given in the OP; then, we don't. :rolleyes:

[billw55]

I still want to know what the actual problem was that prompted this situation. Blackshoe said in the other thread that BBO initiated the call to eliminate these fictional law postings. Why?

[mycroft]

1) I don't care if it's in a different thread or if it's marked, as I don't thread-read, I "new content" read (which is why I get fed up with the times that "new content" breaks on me, and I find I can't search on "all posts since X" without a search term instead. But I've raised that one before, and we're stuck with it). In fact, because I do "new content" read, if it's in a different sub-forum, I probably wouldn't notice, in the way I would were it marked.

 

2) I do realize that lamford, like nigel1, tend to bring up "the law is an ass" scenarios. But I think for different reasons, in different ways, and intending different results. While I think neither of them are useful in "practical education for directors on the floor" - which is *also* a prime and valid reason for these forums; and while I think that the minutiae, the solutions-that-aren't-actually-law-yet(or ever), and the pedantry can be actively harmful to said "practical education" (this is the "well, no, it's not, but in 50 years of directing, you'd probably not notice" bit), both are actually a very important subject to discuss, and there are no other places for it (tell me we'd get anything sensible at The Other Site, for instance. Useful and practical maybe, but the first thing they'd do is suggest how it would be handwaved in practise and that's a good thing).

 

3) A lot of our issue with "assume facts in OP are the facts" is that they're incomplete. And that is one of the issues with "practical education" - "how do you rule" can't be answered; "well, the first thing I would do is ask..." and what we're training is "ask the right questions". It certainly is something I keep being reminded of in the field when I miss "the right question", even now (hopefully not too often, but it does sting every time it does happen, so I know it's still happening). There are also those who assume something not in evidence, as well; we try to suggest that that's not the question even if it's an interesting case with that assumption as well. Seems to work, adequately if not well.

[barmar]

I still want to know what the actual problem was that prompted this situation. Blackshoe said in the other thread that BBO initiated the call to eliminate these fictional law postings. Why?

I prompted it. Not BBO as an organization, just me as an individual who participates in the Laws forum, and also serves as a forum moderator.

 

The SB threads seem to me to be like the IBLF equivalents of religious threads in the Water Cooler. They produce lots of discussion, but go nowhere. They virtually always just rehash the same issues that previously came up as a tangent in another thread. He takes a "but what if?" that someone came up with as a borderline in a real situation, and concocts these totally implausible hypotheticals that seem to serve little purpose except to show off his ability to concoct them.

 

We tolerate stuff like this in the WC because it's intended to be a dumping ground, and is moderated less aggressively. I didn't feel they were so appropriate in a serious forum. I consulted with blackshoe, and he said that esoteric discussions like these were what turned lots of people away from BLML.

 

But if I'm in the minority, and the concensus is that they're worthwhile (as the poll seems to show), I'll back down.

[billw55]

I prompted it. Not BBO as an organization, just me as an individual who participates in the Laws forum, and also serves as a forum moderator.

 

The SB threads seem to me to be like the IBLF equivalents of religious threads in the Water Cooler. They produce lots of discussion, but go nowhere. They virtually always just rehash the same issues that previously came up as a tangent in another thread. He takes a "but what if?" that someone came up with as a borderline in a real situation, and concocts these totally implausible hypotheticals that seem to serve little purpose except to show off his ability to concoct them.

 

We tolerate stuff like this in the WC because it's intended to be a dumping ground, and is moderated less aggressively. I didn't feel they were so appropriate in a serious forum. I consulted with blackshoe, and he said that esoteric discussions like these were what turned lots of people away from BLML.

 

But if I'm in the minority, and the concensus is that they're worthwhile (as the poll seems to show), I'll back down.

OK, thanks barmar! I understand better now.

 

My first thought is to observe the major functional difference between a mailing list and a forum/bulletin board. A mailing list delivers all content by default, and requires a user action to remove undesired content. Whereas a forum delivers no content by default, and requires a user action to view desired content. I would think that this difference alone would go a long way to mitigating the condition that doomed the BLML. In short, didn't blackshoe and bluejak already solve that problem - by using a forum format? Wasn't that (part of) the purpose?

 

Of course, there is always a grey area between on-topic content and off-topic (i.e. water cooler) content. Did lamford cross that blurry line? Personally I think not. To me his threads would seem more out of place in WC than in IBLF.

[axman]

Have they ever succeeded in doing that?

 

 

Yes. Very much so.

 

For the law to serve its true use- provide solutions- there is great value from knowing empirically that the solutions satisfy the notion of justice. Lamford's hypotheticals test via examination; raising to consciousness the multitude of issues that can occur. And thus by bringing issues to the surface, creating understanding with regards (a) how the words operate and (b) whether we like the outcome of how the words operate.

[aguahombre]

Somewhere along the line, Barry used the word "important" Mr. Lamford's threads might be unimportant in some respects. They are probably less than helpful in the development/education of directors; they probably won't convince anybody "important" that a law should be changed or re-worded.

 

But, they are important to me. They provide annoyance, some humor, and challenges to figure out the flaws in Lamford's logic. These things do their small part fending off the inevitable old-age dementia in my future.

[Vampyr]

1) I don't care if it's in a different thread or if it's marked, as I don't thread-read, I "new content" read (which is why I get fed up with the times that "new content" breaks on me, and I find I can't search on "all posts since X" without a search term instead. But I've raised that one before, and we're stuck with it). In fact, because I do "new content" read, if it's in a different sub-forum, I probably wouldn't notice, in the way I would were it marked.

 

I have raised it too. It is really too bad "new content" refreshes at random times and doesn't allow the user to change that.

 

I prompted it. Not BBO as an organization, just me as an individual who participates in the Laws forum, and also serves as a forum moderator.

 

LOL I was wondering who "we" were.

[bixby]

I generally dislike Lamford's hypothetical postings (with occasional exceptions) because (1) I feel they are a misappropriation of the Mollo SB character, who had a good understanding of the laws but invoked them inopportunely, as opposed to Lamford's SB, who frequently comes up with completely absurd interpretations of the laws that IMHO no director would agree with, and (2) I disagree with Lamford's methods of interpreting the Laws. But I don't think it's a good idea to ban such posts. Yes, some people, myself included, dislike them, but other people clearly enjoy them. It's the Internet. No one forces anyone to read anyone's post. People can read what they like. I think the downsides of censoring hypothetical posts would outweigh the benefits.

[lamford]

He takes a "but what if?" that someone came up with as a borderline in a real situation, and concocts these totally implausible hypotheticals that seem to serve little purpose except to show off his ability to concoct them.

Assuming that the "He" in the above refers to me, I would like to make a few observations. Every deal in bridge is equally likely, although the most probable hand appears to be when all four players get a complete suit, judging by the number of such occasions reported throughout history, so no hand can ever be an "implausible hypothetical". Every hand I have constructed on here has been based on some aspect of a real situation usually embellished and changed to isolate the point of law at issue, uncluttered by other aspects. If you really want an example of an "implausible hypothetical" then I suggest you turn to:

 

http://blakjak.org/telltale.htm

 

Curiously, this "implausible hypothetical" was deemed suitable for a general advice site run by David Stevenson, who was one of the founders of this forum, and sadly not a regular contributor here now. If it had appeared on here, then there would be some validity to your argument.

 

The last three constructions I made have dealt with important issues which are clearly handled differently (and seemingly wrongly) by TDs worldwide with the Laws potentially having major faults. Namely, major penalty cards, insufficient bids and mechanical errors. How anyone can classify these as minutiae (or minutia) is beyond me. The posts have, if anything, become more pertinent to everyday practical decisions. You argue that any defects in the Laws have stood for many years and are therefore unimportant. That does not justify the failings of the WBFLC; directors have to interpret the Laws and the threads are intended to assist in that regard.

[Vampyr]

It was well put by bixby above: "I don 't like them but I don't have to read them".

 

It reminded me of what I used to say about someone who, sadly, has not been on here for a long time: 32519.

 

People wanted him banned not for his oddball bridge opinions, but for his creepy homegrown religion and his extreme anti-science position. "He won't listen to anything anybody says" "he doesn't respond to others' posts, just says the same things over and over" etc. In the Water Cooler. I never understood why people couldn't simply choose not to read or respond,

[aguahombre]

Let's bring back Kayuga.

[gnasher]

Yes. Very much so.

 

For the law to serve its true use- provide solutions- there is great value from knowing empirically that the solutions satisfy the notion of justice. Lamford's hypotheticals test via examination; raising to consciousness the multitude of issues that can occur. And thus by bringing issues to the surface, creating understanding with regards (a) how the words operate and (b) whether we like the outcome of how the words operate.

After which, if we have any sense, we disregard the literal meaning of the Laws, and continue to play and rule exactly as we did before.

 

Has anyone here actually done something different, either as a player or as a director, as a result of reading one of Lamford's constructed threads?

[lamford]

Has anyone here actually done something different, either as a player or as a director, as a result of reading one of Lamford's constructed threads?

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

[ArtK78]

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

Is this North London club a hypothetical club?

 

Really? 85 "deliberate" insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call? That is absurd.

 

Deliberate insufficient bids are an issue for your Conduct & Ethics Committee. Players who make deliberate insufficient bids should receive a procedural penalty and perhaps a suspension.

 

If this North London club is real, then it most likely holds the record for insufficient bids, penalty cards and attempts to change unintended calls over a 7 day period.

[lamford]

Deliberate insufficient bids are an issue for your Conduct & Ethics Committee.

Under which Law are they an infraction?

 

That is absurd.

As was taking the post seriously.

[pran]

Deliberate insufficient bids are an issue for your Conduct & Ethics Committee.

Under which Law are they an infraction?

Try Law 72B1 for a starter

 

That is absurd.

As was taking the post seriously.

As has in my opinion most of this forum grown.

[aguahombre]

Well, at a North London club this week we had 85 deliberate insufficient bids, 46 accidental penalty cards and 71 attempts to change an unintended call, all exploiting their new knowledge of the Laws and the fact that I was a playing director.

Under which Law are they an infraction?

Bravo, Paul. Two shots -- first at yourself, then at ******** (reference censored).

[lamford]

Try Law 72B1 for a starter

Law 72B1 makes no mention of insufficient bids being an infraction. Is the Norwegian translation different to the English version?

[mycroft]

Law 72B1 of course.

 

And yes, I don't think the "North London" (would that be Newcastle, or slightly less north London?) club exists. However, for a game or two, it would be as fun to play at as the Griffins, the CryptoClub, or Punkydoodle's Corners - though it is equally unlikely I would wish to be a regular at any.

[lamford]

Law 72B1 of course.

The question was which Law makes an insufficient bid an infraction, not which Law prevents one committing a deliberate infraction. And this issue has been discussed on another thread already.