[effervesce]

Tola18, on Jan 3 2009, 06:35 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 1 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

If we say a bid has "a range of" 3 HCP then we mean that the maximum HCP is 3 HCP greater than the minimum HCP e.g. 15-18 HCP (since 15+3 =18).

Are you sure?


Im thinking on our usual 15-17 as a typical 3-points ranger. 15, 16, 17.


Not mentioning at all some also do upgrade good 14 points or downgrade bad 18-points...





Btw. Do we have a Watercooler or OT-forum?? The bigger half of this thread belongs there, I think.
Rofl.

Aussies and New Zealanders have range drilled in as max-min during junior high school.

[cherdano]

effervesce, on Jan 3 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

Aussies and New Zealanders have range drilled in as max-min during junior high school.

That might explain why Wayne thinks "range" is a precise mathematical term that has also become used more widely, rather than a common term to which statisticians have given a precise technical meaning for their own use.

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Jan 3 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

effervesce, on Jan 3 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

Aussies and New Zealanders have range drilled in as max-min during junior high school.

That might explain why Wayne thinks "range" is a precise mathematical term that has also become used more widely, rather than a common term to which statisticians have given a precise technical meaning for their own use.

For what its worth, junior high school students in New York are taught just the same as Aussies and Kiwis...

If you use the word "range" in the context of a measure of dispersion,

range = the maximum observed value minus the minimum observed value

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Jan 3 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

effervesce, on Jan 3 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

Aussies and New Zealanders have range drilled in as max-min during junior high school.

That might explain why Wayne thinks "range" is a precise mathematical term that has also become used more widely, rather than a common term to which statisticians have given a precise technical meaning for their own use.

I certainly agree that the word range has a wide variety of meanings:

A mountain range
The domain and range of a function
yada, yada, yada

However, this is a case where bridge players are using the word "range" to describe precisely the same type of measure as statisticians: Range as a measure of dispersions. AND for whatever reason, bridge players seem to be using the word in a non-standard manner.

I consider this regretable because it actively hinders communication.

[RMB1]

I think strictly a range is a set (of possible values), it is often an interval (a set without gaps). A range is not strictly a number. An interval may have a number associated with it, for examle the number of possible values or (alternatively) its length. The number associated with a range may also be called the "range" but it depends on context.

Statistics usually deals with real-valued quantities, for example heights, weights.
A range of such values (an interval) has a length which is max-min.

Other quantities are integer-valued, for example number of cards, number of oranges.
A range of such values has a "number of possible values" which is max-min+1.

Naively, HCP are integer-valued and 13-15 is a range of 3 values or a 3-point range.

[If HCP are regarded as real-valued then the 2-point range 13.0-15.0 excludes half the 13HCP and half the 15HCP hands (or excludes almost all the 15HCP hands). The integer-valued range 13-15 probably corresponds to 12.5-15.5 (or 13.0-15.99), again a 3-point range.]

Robin

[1eyedjack]

So far, to my mind the strongest non-bridge related argument that 15-17 should be described as a 3 point range, not 2, is barmar's post that a size of a single composite range which embraces several contiguous ranges should be equal to the sum of the sizes of those contiguous subranges. That may not concord with any standard definition, but it has an elegance to the logic which would be attractive if starting out from scratch to define a standard in a vacuum of standardised definition.

This is consistent with the concept that one or other (but not both) of the maximum and minimum of a range should be inclusive, the other exclusive, of the defined limit. Thus, in UK tax, when we calculate the taxable benefit on the employee for the availability for private use of a car owned by the employer, we refer to a range of engine capacity of say 1400 to 2000 cc, but ensure that it is greater than or equal to 1400 cc but less than (and not equal to) 2000 cc. Or in determining eligibility for tax credits by reference to a claimant's hours worked, we refer to someone working at least 16 but less than 30 hours per week, contrasted with one who works at least 30 hours (or less than 16). These terms are of course carefully defined in the legislation, contrasted with bridge.

Desirable or not, when we refer to a range 15-17 HCP in bridge it is not generally accepted that one extreme limit is excluded and the other included. That distinction would be desirable if the range were intended for mathematical or statistical manipulation, but it never is in bridge and so the ambiguity is allowed to fester.

But there are precedents outside bridge that use the inclusive definition when defining each extreme. An accounting period for a company may typically be referred to as the period 01 January to 31 December, and everyone understands that this is a range of 365 days, not 364 (non-leap-year of course).

To those in hallowed circles of academia it may make more sense to describe an accounting period as from 31 December to the following 31 December, the earlier limit being exclusive and the later inclusive. Certainly it would make my Excel spreadsheets easier to write, as I would not have to keep entering "+1" in my formulae all the time. When defining a term the value of which is intended for mathematical manipulation it makes sense to choose between two definitions the one which is more useful in its raw state without further tinkering.

[naresh301]

Agree that this should probably be in the water cooler, since no one is talking about the OP any more.

I think the basic assumption that bridge players use a statistical definition of range is flawed. I think of the usage here just as "the set of allowed values" - I'm not a statistician(?), and this definition is more intuitive to me. The bridge usage is not really a measure of dispersion, it is more a measure of cardinality. "A 3-HCP range", to me, is just shorthand for "A range with 3 HCP (value)s" - just as "a pumpkin pie" is "a pie made from pumpkins".

[FrancesHinden]

naresh301, on Jan 4 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

just as "a pumpkin pie" is "a pie made from pumpkins".

...and spotted Dick?

[mycroft]

Cascade, on Jan 2 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

mycroft, on Jan 3 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

4) However, as it has come up, 'weak 2 bids that by partnership agreement are not "within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit"' is a perfectly acceptable reading of that text, and not only that, the only reasonable one.  The GCC has its faults - many of them - but arguing ambiguity in that one is stretching it, I think.

The negation of "within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit"
is
"not within a range of 7 HCP" or "shows at least five cards in the suit"

I doubt that this is a sensible interpretation.

You're right, it's not. Yours, I mean.

It's not the expression that's being negated, it's the agreement.

Is the agreement about this weak 2 "within a range of 7 HCP and minimum 5 cards"? No? Then conventions after that call are disallowed. Yes? Then we can ignore this rule.

Frankly, as I said before, while they could have been clearer in their writing, any other interpretation of the sentence is nonsensical, so (in English, not Logic) it is sensible to read it the sensible way.

I bet you're one of those people who respond to the question "would you like Chinese or Mexican tonight?" with "Yes" (So do I. It's a mathie/computer thing). So you know how annoying it is to the mundanes, because we're deliberately using the rules of logic to interpret an English expression that has its own, accepted, interpretation rules :-)

[ehhh]

I'm surprised that someone didn't address this situation as a 'very light overcall' and if they hadn't prealerted their competetive style at the start of the round, then a procedural warning would be in order. An adjustment is a possibility but not likely. Destructive bidding is not an issue here.

[Cascade]

mycroft, on Jan 6 2009, 07:22 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 2 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

mycroft, on Jan 3 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

4) However, as it has come up, 'weak 2 bids that by partnership agreement are not "within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit"' is a perfectly acceptable reading of that text, and not only that, the only reasonable one.  The GCC has its faults - many of them - but arguing ambiguity in that one is stretching it, I think.

The negation of "within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit"
is
"not within a range of 7 HCP" or "shows at least five cards in the suit"

I doubt that this is a sensible interpretation.

You're right, it's not. Yours, I mean.

It's not the expression that's being negated, it's the agreement.

Is the agreement about this weak 2 "within a range of 7 HCP and minimum 5 cards"? No? Then conventions after that call are disallowed. Yes? Then we can ignore this rule.

Frankly, as I said before, while they could have been clearer in their writing, any other interpretation of the sentence is nonsensical, so (in English, not Logic) it is sensible to read it the sensible way.

I bet you're one of those people who respond to the question "would you like Chinese or Mexican tonight?" with "Yes" (So do I. It's a mathie/computer thing). So you know how annoying it is to the mundanes, because we're deliberately using the rules of logic to interpret an English expression that has its own, accepted, interpretation rules :-)

There are no "accepted, interpretation rules" out side of logic.

The rule says "...not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit".

You write this should be interpreted as 'not "within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit"'. Which seems to me to be clearly a negation of everything with the double quotes. When I show that a negation of that means something that is non-sensicle in context.

Now you change your interpretation to not (an answer of no a question) "within a range of 7 HCP and minimum 5 cards".

This is not what the legislators chose to write. I hope you would agree that:

1. not "within a range of 7 HCP and does show at least five cards in the suit"

2. not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit

3. not "within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit"

and various other combinations all mean different things. If not we are more or less wasting our time writing any regulations since they will all mean what you (or someone else who thinks they know what they mean) independent of what is actually written.

Similarly swapping "and" for "or" in the above examples would change their meanings.

Its much simpler to assume that the chosen words mean what they say rather than assume there is some privileged group that are in the know and therefore know that they mean something different than what is actually written.

With regard to what is written and your arguments: The legislators did not write the equivalent of 1. above - there is plainly a "not" in the second clause. Which leaves a choice between 2. and 3. above. Since there is no punctuation separating the first "not" from the remainder of the phrase I think we are stuck with 2.

If I write (avoiding the range of 7HCP controversy and substituting "6-9 HCP" for simplicity - the logic is the same with the actual wording):

"6-9 HCP and at least five cards" we all know that this means both clauses must be satisfied so e.g. an 8 HCP with a six-card suit is ok.

"6-9 HCP and not at least five cards" then we would think e.g. 8 HCP and a three-card suit is ok (to satisfy the clause)

"not 6-9 HCP and at least five cards" then we would think e.g. 4 HCP and a six-card suit is ok

which leaves

"not 6-9 HCP and not at least five cards" which would mean e.g. 4HCP and a three-card suit is ok. That is both clauses must not be satisfied.

The regulation uses the later language. This clearly means in English and in logic - they are entwined, English is the language we are using to convey our logic and logic is the way we interpret our English - we need both a range in excess of 7HCP and fewer than 5-cards in a suit in order for the restrictions to be imposed.

Any other interpretation means that it is impossible for anyone (not in the know) to know what is intended by what is written.

I have searched and cannot find any validity to your claim that English "has its own, accepted, interpretation rules" that are any different than standard logic for simple "and" and "not" (and "or") statements.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Jan 5 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

I have searched and cannot find any validity to your claim that English "has its own, accepted, interpretation rules" that are any different than standard logic for simple "and" and "not" (and "or") statements.

As an interesting note, French was long deemed the "Language of Diplomacy" because its (supposedly) much easier to draft unambiguous text in French rather than English...

[blackshoe]

Hm. I knew that French had long been known as the language of diplomacy, but I never heard that the reason was as stated here. See lingua franca, particularly the entries for Latin, Spanish, and French.

Seems to me that the best language, other than symbolic logic, for unambiguity is Loglan.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Jan 6 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

Hm. I knew that French had long been known as the language of diplomacy, but I never heard that the reason was as stated here.

Quote

French was for centuries the language of diplomacy both for its precision of expression and because it was the second language favored by the educated classes.

http://web.wm.edu/modlang/french/

Quote

French was widely used in international diplomacy for two main reasons: first, because France used to be a huge political power. It was commonly used in the whole of Europe from the 18th century, with the reign of Louis XIV. Later, Napoleon "helped" the language spread even further. The use of French in international treaties started declining with the emergence of the USA after the First World War; in fact, the Treaty of Versailles was written both in English and in French.

The second main reason is that it is the language of clarity and precision: it uses a lot more determiners, adverbs, conjunctions and the like to link parts of sentences together and clarify their relationships. This links very well with the "foisonnement" (expansion) phenomenon in translation from English to French, with the French translation being on average 15% longer than the source text. Conversely, English is more likely to create ambiguity and its concision can be seen as bluntness, which was described in the programme as "the enemy of polite discourse". Nowadays, despite the French language losing much of its prestige, the English diplomatic vocabulary is still haunted by a few French ghosts, here and there: regime, coup, etiquette, rapprochement.

http://www.nakedtran...4/05/000146.php