is this 'destructive' ?

[Jacki]

Pardon me for interrupting this delicious debate, but...

 

The bid is fine, legal and some may even argue, good.

 

Jacki :)

[jdonn]

I can't believe this is a debate. Everyone knows what they meant, which is 15-17 is a three point range. The mathematical definition doesn't matter, and neither does the dictionary definition. After all, "the limits between which variation is possible" could be interpreted to mean 15-17 is a 5 point range since variation is possible between 14 and 18 points. Anyway this is all meaningless diversion, what they meant is simply common knowledge.

Common knowledge is that range means variation. The variation in a 15-17 point bid is 2 hcp so this is the range.

 

I can't believe that this is a debate.

 

If they meant something other than range then writing "range" was a very misleading way of conveying that meaning.

Since you seem to be in a small minority, I am surprised that you are surprised. Unless that was a not-so-subtle way of mocking me, in which case I'm not surprised after all.

[Cascade]

Pardon me for interrupting this delicious debate, but...

 

The bid is fine, legal and some may even argue, good.

 

Jacki :)

I think that might depend.

 

If this is a minimum for the weak two so the range is say 3-10 hcp then I think it would be hard to argue that the agreement's aim is primarily to destroy the opponents' methods.

 

On the other hand if this is a maximum so that the range is 0-3 hcp then it might be more reasonable to argue that the primary aim was to destroy the opponents' methods.

 

Basically from one hand without a description of the pair's intended agreement it is impossible to tell with a particular bid is legal or not.

[hrothgar]

I can't believe this is a debate. Everyone knows what they meant, which is 15-17 is a three point range. The mathematical definition doesn't matter, and neither does the dictionary definition. After all, "the limits between which variation is possible" could be interpreted to mean 15-17 is a 5 point range since variation is possible between 14 and 18 points. Anyway this is all meaningless diversion, what they meant is simply common knowledge.

Josh: I agree with your basic point...

 

For whatever reason, the word "range" seems to have a different meaning within the world of bridge than elsewhere.

 

Bridge players describe 15-17 HCP as a three HCP range.

The more established usage would describe this as a two HCP range...

 

I'm not disputing the usage pattern amongst bridge players. I do consider it regretable that they use a different meaning for a standard term.

Regrettable?

 

I think it is insane if they expect anyone reading the regulation to know that when they say the limit is a 7 HCP range that they mean a 6 HCP range.

What came first; the chicken or the egg?

 

Its my impression that bridge players commonly refer to 15-17 HCP as a three HCP point. I don't know how or why this came to pass, but it does seem quite common within the world of bridge. Furthermore, the regulatory structure within the US seems to conform to this same (aberrant) usage.

 

As I mentioned before, I consider it regretable that the world of bridge choses to redefine common terms. However, I think that it would be equally problematic if

 

Bridge players commonly described a 15 - 17 strength as a three HCP range AND

The regulations called this a four HCP range

 

As I said: I don't know how or why this came to pass. Wish it didn't happen. Unfortunately, I think that we're stuck with it...

 

(Honestly, I think that the best course of action would be to avoid using the term "range" altogether)

[Cascade]

I can't believe this is a debate. Everyone knows what they meant, which is 15-17 is a three point range. The mathematical definition doesn't matter, and neither does the dictionary definition. After all, "the limits between which variation is possible" could be interpreted to mean 15-17 is a 5 point range since variation is possible between 14 and 18 points. Anyway this is all meaningless diversion, what they meant is simply common knowledge.

Common knowledge is that range means variation. The variation in a 15-17 point bid is 2 hcp so this is the range.

 

I can't believe that this is a debate.

 

If they meant something other than range then writing "range" was a very misleading way of conveying that meaning.

Since you seem to be in a small minority, I am surprised that you are surprised. Unless that was a not-so-subtle way of mocking me, in which case I'm not surprised after all.

I think a huge majority would understand "range" to mean exactly what I am saying.

 

I am surprised that you would think that "range" means something different than what it commonly means.

 

I cannot begin to comprehend why you or anyone would think that the wording means something completely different than its standard meaning.

[TimG]

I cannot begin to comprehend why you or anyone would think that the wording means something completely different than its standard meaning.

Because it has a non-standard meaning in the world of bridge.

[jdonn]

I cannot begin to comprehend why you or anyone would think that the wording means something completely different than its standard meaning.

Because that's the way it is used among bridge players. A (huge) majority. I don't understand why that is so difficult to accept. So they are "wrong", who cares? It's what they mean when they say it.

 

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.)

 

Words change meaning over time (yes, usually due to an incorrect usage that catches on), especially in specific contexts. "Bad" has this definition in the dictionary: "outstandingly excellent; first-rate". So if that's how someone used it, would you try to convince them they are wrong?

[jdonn]

What came first; the chicken or the egg?

 

Its my impression that bridge players commonly refer to 15-17 HCP as a three HCP point. I don't know how or why this came to pass, but it does seem quite common within the world of bridge. Furthermore, the regulatory structure within the US seems to conform to this same (aberrant) usage.

 

As I mentioned before, I consider it regretable that the world of bridge choses to redefine common terms. However, I think that it would be equally problematic if

 

Bridge players commonly described a 15 - 17 strength as a three HCP range AND

The regulations called this a four HCP range

 

As I said: I don't know how or why this came to pass. Wish it didn't happen. Unfortunately, I think that we're stuck with it...

 

(Honestly, I think that the best course of action would be to avoid using the term "range" altogether)

I don't really even see why it's regrettable. Words commonly evolve (or de-evolve?) over time. As long as people generally know what is meant, no big deal.

[Cascade]

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.

 

I don't believe that "3 HCP range" is generally understood in the way that you suggest.

 

I asked someone - a national bridge champion - to give me an example of a three high card point range. She had no idea about the content of this discussion. Her response was "6-9 hcp". Yes that is a small sample. However if someone semi-intelligent can not easily understand what is intended by a simple phrase like "7 HCP range" then there is clearly a significant problem with the wording in the regulation.

 

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.

[barmar]

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.

So if a bid showed a specific HCP precisely, you would say it has a 0 HCP range? I doubt most players would agree.

 

Note also that the regulation mentions the possibility of discontinuous ranges. Suppose a bid showed 12-14 or 17-19. Presumably the total range is the sum of the ranges of the pieces. So would you say this has a range of 2+2 = 4? But consider this: a range of 14-19 could also be described as 14-16 or 17-19; the first would have a range (by your calculation) of 5, the second would have a range of 4. And if you went to the extreme, desribing it as 14-14 or 15-15 or 16-16 or 17-17 or 18-18 or 19-19, the range would be 0+0+0+0+0+0 = 0!

 

But if you consider the range to be the number of elements in the set, you don't have any such anomalies. The range would be 6 via either calculation.

[glen]

...but since 2♠ is no opening bid, that does not apply ...

As hotShot notes, what is all this about opening bid range, for an overcall?

[hrothgar]

Note also that the regulation mentions the possibility of discontinuous ranges.  Suppose a bid showed 12-14 or 17-19.  Presumably the total range is the sum of the ranges of the pieces.  So would you say this has a range of 2+2 = 4?  But consider this: a range of 14-19 could also be described as 14-16 or 17-19; the first would have a range (by your calculation) of 5, the second would have a range of 4.  And if you went to the extreme, desribing it as 14-14 or 15-15 or 16-16 or 17-17 or 18-18 or 19-19, the range would be 0+0+0+0+0+0 = 0!

 

But if you consider the range to be the number of elements in the set, you don't have any such anomalies.  The range would be 6 via either calculation.

>So if a bid showed a specific HCP precisely, you would say it

>has a 0 HCP range? I doubt most players would agree.

 

Learn to read Barry.

 

I already specifically noted that the usage of the word range amongst bridge players does not conform to standard usage. Moreover, I commented that regulations that are written for bridge players need to conform to way that bridge players communicate.

 

>Note also that the regulation mentions the possibility of

>discontinuous ranges. Suppose a bid showed 12-14 or 17-19.

>Presumably the total range is the sum of the ranges of the pieces.

>So would you say this has a range of 2+2 = 4?

 

I would do no such thing...

 

First of all, I wouldn't use the word "range" in isolation to describe a two way NT. It's nonsensical and doesn't provide useful information.

 

Second: if I were standing on formality and chose to apply the statistical concept of a range I'd hope that I would apply it properly.... If I have a set of numbers

 

[12, 13, 14, 18, 19]

 

the range is 19 - 12 = 7

[jdonn]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[blackshoe]

However the standard definition of "range" is maximum value subtract minimum value.

I don't think so. That's certainly one possible definition, but it's not the only one. It is "standard" in statistics, but we aren't talking about statistics here.

 

See "Range" on wikipedia.

 

What is the "range" of a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening? Every author I've read calls this a 3 point range - and many suggest that a 2NT bid showing a balanced hand should have a 2 point range, with examples like 18-19, 20-21, 23-24, 25-26. So I think that "range" in a bridge "point count" context is (max-min)+1.

[cherdano]

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.org/wiki/Range_(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.

[hrothgar]

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.org/wiki/Interquartile_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]

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]

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.org/wiki/Range_(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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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:

a wide price range

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

 

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]

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]

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.

 

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:

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?

 

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.

 

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.