[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Jan 1 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

You are referring to definitions for data with a continuous set of values. It is not clear how to extrapolate from this to a discrete set of values. (If it was clear, computer programs would be free of off-by-one values. )

The definition applies to both discrete and individual cases...

http://en.wikipedia....rquartile_range

[blackshoe]

Off the general "range" page I linked above is a link to a page about "interval". That's what we're talking about here - in mathematical terms the cardinality of an interval. For example, the cardinality of the closed integer interval 15-17 - more properly, in mathematical notation, (15,17) - is 3. The cardinality of (3,10) is 8.

Bridge players can indeed decide how they talk about bridge, but it is folly to suggest that of say 20 million bridge players world wide we can have 20 million different opinions about what things mean. Or even one million.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jan 2 2009, 04:11 AM, said:

Off the general "range" page I linked above is a link to a page about "interval". That's what we're talking about here - in mathematical terms the cardinality of an interval. For example, the cardinality of the closed integer interval 15-17 - more properly, in mathematical notation, (15,17) - is 3. The cardinality of (3,10) is 8.

Bridge players can indeed decide how they talk about bridge, but it is folly to suggest that of say 20 million bridge players world wide we can have 20 million different opinions about what things mean. Or even one million.

And it is folly for bridge players to use a term like range to mean "(max-min)+1" as you suggest when the standard meaning for the term is maximum value minus the minimum value.

This is especially so when the term is used in a regulation and when those regulations do not define the term to be anything other than the standard meaning.

I am pretty sure that when a term is not defined explicitly to mean something else then it is standard to use the normal definition of that term when it used in a legal type document.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Jan 2 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 31 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

All other things being equal, if I hear people using the expression "range", I assume that they are apply the same standard definitions that I was taught back in junir high school.

The range (sometimes referred to as the statistical range) is calculated by subtracting the smaller number from the larger number.  This is the same definition that wikipedia uses

http://en.wikipedia....ge_(statistics)

If we are using "standard" vocabuilary, a 15-17 HCP NT opener would be described as a 2 HCP range.  A 15-18 HCP opener would be a 3 HCP range.

You are referring to definitions for data with a continuous set of values. It is not clear how to extrapolate from this to a discrete set of values. (If it was clear, computer programs would be free of off-by-one values. )

Some bridge players think of hcp as a continuous quantity. In that case 15-17 means "bad 15 to good 17", i.e. a 3hcp range by any sensible definition. If you think of it as a discrete quantity, still most mathematicians would probably call "15, 16, 17" a 3 hcp range - not that it matters much, bridge players can decide how they talk about bridge, of course.

This really is nonsense.

A little bit of research will tell you that the range for discrete data is still the highest value minus the lowest value.

I have met some mathematicians who were not particularly good at arithmetic but I think I am safe in saying that most would be able to do the calculation 17 - 15 and come up with something much closer to two than the three that you suggest.

If bridge players want to use a precise term like range to mean something different than the rest of the world then the term needs to be defined before it is used in that way at least when it is used in a regulation.

[jdonn]

What do you mean the "standard meaning"? You seem to be referring to the statistical meaning. There is no such thing as a standard meaning. That's why the dictionary has more than one definition of the word.

By the way you should be referring to statisticians, not mathematicians. As has been mentioned, the mathematical meaning is the set of values taken on by a function. The statistical meaning is the highest value minus the lowest value.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 2 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

What do you mean the "standard meaning"? You seem to be referring to the statistical meaning. There is no such thing as a standard meaning. That's why the dictionary has more than one definition of the word.

By the way you should be referring to statisticians, not mathematicians. As has been mentioned, the mathematical meaning is the set of values taken on by a function. The statistical meaning is the highest value minus the lowest value.

I mean what everyone or at least an overwhelming concensus would understand when someone says or writes "within a range of ..." or simply "a range of...".

If we say an aircraft has "a range of" 750 miles then we mean the total distance it can fly from beginning to end is 750 miles (probably rounded). We don't mean some lesser amount.

If we say the number of customers we have has "a range of" 100 with a minimum of 200. Then we mean from 100 up to 200.

There is no definition of "range" that means one fewer than everyone else would think. Not even for HCP.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 1 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

If we say an aircraft has "a range of" 750 miles then we mean the total distance it can fly from beginning to end is 750 miles (probably rounded).  We don't mean some lesser amount.

If we say a bid has "a range of" 3 points then we mean the total point counts it can contain from minimum to maximum is 3 point counts (probably rounded). We don't mean some lesser amount.

I'm glad we could finally find common ground.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 1 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 31 2008, 05:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 1 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

It does not clearly go against EVERY definition, even mathematical ones (range can be the set of values taken on by a function, which is three in this case.)

We don't say in this case that the function has a "range of three" or similar.

We would say there are three values that the range can take.

Maybe, or maybe not. But even if I play devil's advocate for a moment and accept that, then it's still not inherent in the definition, but merely a matter of common practice. In other words, exactly the same as when bridge players say 15-17 is a three point range.

The fallacy here is that some bridge players would call that a two point range e.g. when i asked a bridge player for an example of a three point range she said 6-9 hcp.

Quote

Quote

Further if I have a "seven HCP range" like 3-10 hcp and then get ruled against because some director says that is an "eight HCP range" then I find that incomprehensible because the words in the regulation do not say what they mean.  On the other hand I think my opponents will reasonably easily comprehend when they mistakenly complain about my 3-10 hcp bid when it is explained to them that range means the generally accepted concept of the difference between the highest and lowest values for the hcp.

I do not agree with either part of that. Firstly I don't believe you have proven that the way bridge players use 'range' goes against every definition. One example is he first part of this post and my response. Another would be that there is a definition on dictionary.com that merely says "The full extent covered", so 15-17 covers 3 point-values and thus can be said to have a 3 point range.

That definition is from the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. It is "1c The full extent covered: within the range of possibilities. "

The italicized text seems to be an example. If we compare this with the text in the GCC which is "with a range of 7 HCP", "7 HCP" does not seem to me to be describing some possibilities. It seems much more like a measure which is much more consistent with "1d An amount or extent of variation:

Quote

a wide price range

." from the same reference. Here one can easily substitute "7 HCP" for "wide price" in the example.

Quote

Also to the second part, I would be extremely upset at the director to go against what I know is the intent of the laws and what I believe most bridge players and directors would interpret it to mean. All the more when I can point to a few definitions where either definition of range could apply, or in fact where only the commonly used one could apply such as the last definition I gave.

How is it that you know the intent? And even if what you know is the intent why do they continue with the misleading language in the chart?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 2 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

If we say a bid has "a range of" 3 points then we mean the total point counts it can contain from minimum to maximum is 3 point counts (probably rounded). We don't mean some lesser amount.

This is a complete and probably deliberate distortion of anything I have 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).

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 1 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 1 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

But even if I play devil's advocate for a moment and accept that, then it's still not inherent in the definition, but merely a matter of common practice. In other words, exactly the same as when bridge players say 15-17 is a three point range.

The fallacy here is that some bridge players would call that a two point range e.g. when i asked a bridge player for an example of a three point range she said 6-9 hcp.

There is no fallacy. Your (main) argument has been that the language is wrong, not that it isn't common practice (your entire argument against that seems to be that you asked one person.) But apparently when it suits you then common practice is a good enough reason for language to be used in a certain way. Just not in this case since it would mean you are arguing about nothing.

Quote

Quote

Another would be that there is a definition on dictionary.com that merely says "The full extent covered", so 15-17 covers 3 point-values and thus can be said to have a 3 point range.

That definition is from the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. It is "1c The full extent covered: within the range of possibilities. "

The italicized text seems to be an example. If we compare this with the text in the GCC which is "with a range of 7 HCP", "7 HCP" does not seem to me to be describing some possibilities. It seems much more like a measure which is much more consistent with "1d An amount or extent of variation:

Quote

a wide price range

." from the same reference. Here one can easily substitute "7 HCP" for "wide price" in the example.

I hate this expression but for lack of anything better, you are failing to see the forest through the trees. Their example sentence does not at all mean that definition only applies when you are describing "possibilities". That's why it's merely an example. I looked up the word "run" and one definition was "to move with haste; act quickly" followed by the example sentence "Run upstairs and get the iodine." So I'm sure you aren't meaning to say that I am speaking incorrectly if I run downstairs, or run upstairs and get anything that isn't iodine?

Quote

How is it that you know the intent?  And even if what you know is the intent why do they continue with the misleading language in the chart?

Who cares how I know, I do know and I know I know so if you don't believe it then I hope you learn it one day. As for the language being misleading, apparently you haven't convinced me that it is, nor would I think it matters since they are using the language that would be understood by most.

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

jdonn, on Jan 2 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

If we say a bid has "a range of" 3 points then we mean the total point counts it can contain from minimum to maximum is 3 point counts (probably rounded). We don't mean some lesser amount.

This is a complete and probably deliberate distortion of anything I have 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).

Huh? I didn't distort anything you said. I quoted exactly what you said, then said something myself that was very similar but applied to the current discussion. Apparently you just don't like it when even your own words can be used to show you are wrong (or at least inconsistent.) You will certainly win the argument if you get to decide how you will differently word every example sentence, and then decide that those certain wordings only apply to whatever examples you like.

[blackshoe]

This is becoming silly.

If you want to know what the C&C meant by "range", ask them.

[TimG]

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).

I don't know what "we" you are speaking for, but it doesn't include me.

This discussion reminds me of old OKbridge group discussions where Carl Huducek argued that resticted choice does not exist. I am sure he understood and believed in restricted choice, but he had a lot of fun arguing that it didn't exist.

Thing is, I think Cascade really believes in his position here. It would be much more amusing if he was just waving the carrot in front of jdonn.

[effervesce]

TimG, on Jan 1 2009, 06:00 PM, 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).

I don't know what "we" you are speaking for, but it doesn't include me.

This discussion reminds me of old OKbridge group discussions where Carl Huducek argued that resticted choice does not exist. I am sure he understood and believed in restricted choice, but he had a lot of fun arguing that it didn't exist.

Thing is, I think Cascade really believes in his position here. It would be much more amusing if he was just waving the carrot in front of jdonn.

Hmmm.... and all this time I thought it was jdonn doing the carrot waving. Meh. Then again, if someone asked what the HCP range of a 15-18 1NT was I'd have thought it was 3.

[matmat]

TimG, on Jan 1 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

Thing is, I think Cascade really believes in his position here. It would be much more amusing if he was just waving the carrot in front of jdonn.

are there bunnies?

[mycroft]

1) as many have said, this may be "destructive" bidding, but it's entirely appropriate. My agreement and explanation of my WJO is "6-card suit [at the two level], at most one control outside", and this certainly fits.

2) as many others have said, this sounds like ACBL-blinkers; there is a rule there about "purely destructive methods". But that's designed to bar the 1C strong - 1S "thirteen cards" agreement, not anything like a legitimate, aggressive WJO. However, as you already know, your tournament == your rules, and whatever you want to allow is legal.

3) it was a WJO, which confuses me as to why all the discussion about conventions after weak 2 openers is coming up.

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.

5) I still think that the appropriate response to bidding like this - and others - is the big red X. And if it isn't - if it truly pays in the long run to bid this kind of trash, even opposite penalty doubles and preparation - then it isn't destructive; it's the winning bid. But too many people (and I admit to being one of them) can't bid any more without their crutches; so they try to claim it's illegal (I'm not one of those). Good luck to them.

In other words, "what were you getting in 2Sx? Oh, you can't hit them when they do that? Well, that's good to know for the next time I play against you..." The same argument I make against stolen bid doubles over NT.

[Cascade]

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.

[Elianna]

matmat, on Jan 1 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 1 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

Thing is, I think Cascade really believes in his position here.  It would be much more amusing if he was just waving the carrot in front of jdonn.

are there bunnies?

Killer Bunnies?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy
the opponents’ methods."

For a weak two there is also another requirement in the GCC that conventions may not be played if "... weak two-bids which by partnership
agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five
cards in the suit."

Aren't these the so-called Bergen Rules adopted after Bergen had a run of success preempting weak 2 bids on 4-card suits and with extremely weak hands?

[Tola18]

Cascade, on Jan 1 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

If we say the number of customers we have has "a range of" 100 with a minimum of 200. Then we mean from 100 up to 200.

Typing wrong??

As it is written, actually means the range is from 200 up to 300 customers.


Minimum is the startpoint, not the max-endpoint.

[Tola18]

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.