[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-16, 07:48, said:

We don't split threads or move them often, but we are always on the lookout for situations where that is appropriate - by our standards. I asked for opinions because I wasn't sure this one was appropriate. What I seem to be getting in response is "go away, we're talking here". Fair enough. For now.

I think your question probably came across as rhetorical rather than a simple request for opinions.

Since you ask for opinions, I think that the problem is that the Laws and Rulings forum has too wide a scope. It would be better if we had:
- A Rulings forum for discussing real-life rulings. This would be the clean, unintimidating forum that I think you and David are keen to see.
- A Laws forum for discussing the meaning, application and shortcomings of the rules. Some conversations in this would naturally lead to discussions of how to improve the Laws. Lamford's imaginary scenarios would naturally belong in this forum.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-16, 07:20, said:

You've lost me. How does that conflict with what I said?

Because you can play Lorenzo Two Bids as long as there is some hand without values which will Pass. Lorenzo Two Bids are not allowed, effectively, if they include any hands from 0 to any upper range. They are allowed if they include any hands from 1 to any upper range. Assuming that "shows values" means "shows any values at all". If you define "Lorenzo Two Bids" as "all hands from 0-9", then you are right.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-16, 09:20, said:

Lamford's imaginary scenarios would naturally belong in this forum.

The criterion for including a scenario in one or other forum should not be whether it is real or imaginary (that seems irrelevant), but whether the main aim is to draw attention to faulty law or how to implement correct law.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2013-April-16, 10:18, said:

The criterion for including a scenario in one or other forum should not be whether it is real or imaginary (that seems irrelevant), but whether the main aim is to draw attention to faulty law or how to implement correct law the law in practice.

FYP.

[campboy]

PeterAlan, on 2013-April-15, 17:58, said:

It seems to me that it is in the interests of the game and its players that regulators should apply Occam's Razor and (try to) limit regulation as much as is sensible and possible. This suggests that regulations should be confined to matters that either are, or could be likely to become, real-world problems. It also suggests that we do not seek to vary and complicate regulations in order to address arcane and possibly hypothetical loopholes that are extremely unlikely to be exploited in practice. Hard cases make bad law.

In general there is no reason why loopholes in system regulations are unlikely to get exploited (and I don't mean either "loophole" or "exploited" pejoratively, but can't think of a suitable neutral phrase). The fert 2♣ that some people were playing at congresses a few years ago caused no end of trouble; so did Groove in the Heart (although that wasn't really an exploit since everything in it was deliberately permitted). Especially while the Orange book is being completely rewritten, closing a loophole now is much better than being forced to close it in the future.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-16, 07:48, said:

I asked for opinions because I wasn't sure this one was appropriate.

I didn't interpret your post as asking for opinions. I interpreted it as stating your own opinion.

But I can give you my opinion. When it comes to moving or splitting threads, simply follow how the other moderators at BBF have been doing that successfully for years now (and long before the Bridge Laws forums started on BBF). Roughly sketched, they seem to abide by the following:

• A thread can be moved if it is started in the wrong forum. In that case, it should be moved sooner rather than later.
  
• Once a thread is started in the correct forum, it should never be moved.
  
• If a separate, easily identifiable discussion is started within a thread (such as this one), it is possible to split the thread, but again only at the start of the spin-off discussion. This should be very rare but it should certainly be considered when the original discussion is suffering from the off-topic spin-off. If the original discussion does not suffer, there is no reason to split.

I am sure that those other moderators can tell you better what guidelines they follow than I can. I can only add that they discuss their guidelines with the community from time to time.

Rik