logical alternative

[bali 2]

" A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the parnership, would be given serious consideration by a SIGNIFICANT proportion of players, of whom it is judged SOME might select it ".

 

Could we translate this in numbers ? How much is a SIGNIFICANT proportion ?

Not half, but say we accept 30%, although some may find that even 25% is significant.

 

Now how much is SOME of these 30% ? In French, we translate SOME by "quelques-uns", which is not very much...5 to 10 %. So could we say that 8% of 30% is approximately correct ?

And does that mean that only 2.4 people in one hundred would select that action ?

 

Where am I wrong please ? :lol:

Thank you in advance

Al. Ohana

[PeterE]

The numbers you used are not that bad, IMO. Although _some_ here is meant to be from the totality.

 

The numbers I was tought are 20% (1/5) for "significant" and 5% (1/4 of the significant) for "some".

[skjaeran]

The numbers you used are not that bad, IMO. Although _some_ here is meant to be from the totality.

It might be true that it's meant to be from the totality (I doubt it), but grammatically that's not what is written in the text. "of whom" points back to "a significant proportion".

[aguahombre]

Harald's interpretation of the grammar seems right. Lord knows what was intended by the writer(s).

 

:(

[gnasher]

Lord knows what was intended by the writer(s).

I imagine that they meant exactly what they said, which is that "some" of the "significant proportion" would choose the call. The language of the Laws is sometimes inaccessible, and sometimes deliberately imprecise, but I'd be surprised if there are any instances where it says something other than what the writers intended.

[gnasher]

In the EBU, a "significant proportion" is "at least one player in five", and "some" means "more than just an isolated exception". But I'm not supposed to know that, because the article where I found that information is advertised as being of relevance only to TDs. (Sorry - couldn't resist that.)

[aguahombre]

Andy has more faith in the technical writing skills of the writers than I do. "of whom" immediately follows "players", which is the term used to describe the aggregate group above, in the same quote. Although grammatically wrong, they might well be referring to the larger group.

[gordontd]

"of whom" immediately follows "significant proportion of players"

[gnasher]

Andy has more faith in the technical writing skills of the writers than I do.

What is your reason for this lack of faith?

[nigel_k]

Given they changed a previously existing rule, there's every reason to think they thought carefully about the meaning of the wording in the new rule compared to the old one.

 

I think the initial poster is correct and this change clearly, and IMO intentionally, reduces the options available to a player who has UI compared to the previous rule.

[Cascade]

"players" is definitely qualified by a those who would give the bid in question consideration. It would be an unusual reading to assume "some" was not in reference to that qualified group.

[Finch]

I think the initial poster is correct and this change clearly, and IMO intentionally, reduces the options available to a player who has UI compared to the previous rule.

Yes