[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2013-March-21, 22:16, said:

"try and <verb>" has been part of English since the 17th century or so; at least one good usage dictionary (M-W) says it may be *older* than "try to". Language doesn't evolve according to strict rules; sometimes it's idioms all the way down. Logic is the weakest argument against any given usage.

It still grates on my ears.

GreenMan, on 2013-March-21, 22:16, said:

BTW infinitives don't require "to".

Not all of them, true.

[eagles123]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before but my pet peeve is people on BBO that make a bid and alert it simply as the name of the convention when there are players on the table that clearly won't understand what that convention shows.

[broze]

jillybean, on 2012-November-14, 20:35, said:

Opponents who ask about an alert and then stop you before you have given the complete description of your methods.

I am sometimes guilty of this. I say something like "please explain the 2♦ bid" and the opponent in question provides an explanation of the bid (e.g. asking about majors) but then launches into a descripition of the followups ("partner will show a 5-card major or bid 2NT without one"). I'm sure your explanations are not so outrageous but the point I'm making is don't be offended when I stop you mid-sentence.

As a corollary to this I make a point of answering yes-or-no questions about my methods with the words yes or no. This can be taken as abruptness but it is what I would want vice versa and do-as-you-would-be-done-by.

[kenberg]

The following has become common. You call an office, in the case this morning it is a doctor's office. You get a recording: "I am currently helping other patients. Please leave a name and number where you can be reached." Translated, the is means "We don't actually answer the phone. We have you leave your name and then we call you back when we get around to it."
My call was placed 30 minutes ago, and three times since with the same result. Probably whatever patient, if any, she was helping has been helped. I need to reach the doctor. I also have other phone calls to make. I also have (many) other things to do. Nuts.

[barmar]

broze, on 2013-April-03, 06:25, said:

As a corollary to this I make a point of answering yes-or-no questions about my methods with the words yes or no. This can be taken as abruptness but it is what I would want vice versa and do-as-you-would-be-done-by.

But it's not appropriate in an ACBL competition. The ACBL Alert Procedure says "The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically." So even though they asked a yes-no question, you must still answer fully. The regulation specifically says that just giving the name of a convention is not appropriate, so answering "Is that <name of convention>?" with "yes" is just as inappropriate.

[broze]

barmar, on 2013-April-03, 09:17, said:

The ACBL Alert Procedure says "The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically."

Yes, but a large amount if the time the information that the opponents consider relevant is just not. I am asking their partner what information that bid conveys to them. I don't want anything else! I certainly don't want a list of followups or anything else that might convey UI.

Quote

So even though they asked a yes-no question, you must still answer fully.

I would consider a 'yes' or a 'no' to be a full answer to a yes or no question.

Quote

The regulation specifically says that just giving the name of a convention is not appropriate, so answering "Is that <name of convention>?" with "yes" is just as inappropriate.

I understand the difficulties that might arise from this scenario when the players disagree about what a particular convention is, but it's clearly the question that's inappropriate not the answer.

I don't like the ACBL regs here and I'm glad they don't apply to me! Wonder if EBU has anything as daft to say on the matter.

EDIT: Feel free to move these posts to a topic in the Laws forum if you think it merits a discussion and won't derail this topic.

This post has been edited by broze: 2013-April-03, 10:30

[barmar]

broze, on 2013-April-03, 10:24, said:

I don't like the ACBL regs here and I'm glad they don't apply to me! Wonder if EBU has anything as daft to say on the matter.

Looks like EBU is more in line with your opinion (or maybe your opinion was shaped by playing under these rules).

Orange Book 3B9 said:

Unless the questioner really only wants to know something specific he should merely
ask “What does that call mean?”. If the questioner asks a more specific question then a
TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it misinformation if he gets a correct
but incomplete answer to his question. Furthermore, asking “What does that call
mean?” rather than any more pointed question tends to avoid a suggestion of
unauthorised information.

[TimG]

Forgive me if I have mentioned these:

1) The use of "improper" to describe a fraction such as 4/3.

2) Use of a multiplier when describing a smaller amount, as in: Use of RKCB results in 10 times fewer missed slams.

[helene_t]

what do you suggest? 0.1 times more slams? 90% fewer slams? the latter is ok but sometimes gets confused with percentage points . For example , "DE has 5% less unemployment than NL" is ambiguous in practice although a language purist might claim it isn't .

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2013-April-05, 01:30, said:

what do you suggest? 0.1 times more slams? 90% fewer slams? the latter is ok but sometimes gets confused with percentage points . For example , "DE has 5% less unemployment than NL" is ambiguous in practice although a language purist might claim it isn't .

It's potentially ambiguous in two ways. If NL has 10% unemployment, does it mean that DE has 5% (10-5) or 9.5% (10*.95)? I think we've had a discussion about this confusion about percentages applied to percentages before (maybe earlier in this very thread).

[gwnn]

I love Jose Mourinho but he is not a great mathematician (OK alternatively he is just making fun of people talking in terms of %'s):

Mourinho said:

Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus and Bayern Munich are one step ahead of others - I give each of these teams a 25 per cent chance of winning the Champions League. Dortmund and Malaga are almost equal.

There are at least 3 different fallacies in that small text but I will just say that I'm a bit peeved.

For your convenience, the quarter finals second legs are (1st leg score in brackets):
Barcelona-PSG (2-2)
Galatasaray-Real Madrid (0-3)
Bayern-Juventus (2-0)
Dortmund-Malaga (0-0)

[billw55]

TimG, on 2013-April-04, 20:44, said:

2) Use of a multiplier when describing a smaller amount, as in: Use of RKCB results in 10 times fewer missed slams.

oooh I hate this one too.

helene_t, on 2013-April-05, 01:30, said:

what do you suggest? 0.1 times more slams? 90% fewer slams? the latter is ok but sometimes gets confused with percentage points . For example , "DE has 5% less unemployment than NL" is ambiguous in practice although a language purist might claim it isn't .

"reduces missed slams by 90%" would work, or even "one tenth as many missed slams".

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2013-April-05, 10:49, said:

It's potentially ambiguous in two ways. If NL has 10% unemployment, does it mean that DE has 5% (10-5) or 9.5% (10*.95)? I think we've had a discussion about this confusion about percentages applied to percentages before (maybe earlier in this very thread).

What's the other way?

[barmar]

gwnn, on 2013-April-09, 07:02, said:

What's the other way?

The first way is the manner that the previous posters mentioned, using a multiplier when referring to a decrease. The second way is whether you're subtracting or multiplying the two percentages.

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2013-April-09, 10:31, said:

The first way is the manner that the previous posters mentioned, using a multiplier when referring to a decrease. The second way is whether you're subtracting or multiplying the two percentages.

Oh OK. I still don't understand what they mean, though, what is the alternative answer supposed to be? 5% less should be the same as 200x more or 1.05x more? Does anyone speak like that?

[barmar]

gwnn, on 2013-April-09, 11:23, said:

Oh OK. I still don't understand what they mean, though, what is the alternative answer supposed to be? 5% less should be the same as 200x more or 1.05x more? Does anyone speak like that?

"5% less" is the same as "95% of". I've never found this the least bit confusing: "less" or "fewer" mean you're reducing the amount of something. "5 fewer" means the amount you're reducing by is 5, and "5% fewer" means that the amount you're reducing by is 5% of the original amount.

A relative pet peave that some people (not I) have is the use of "less" when "fewer" is more correct.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2013-April-09, 11:47, said:

"5% less" is the same as "95% of". I've never found this the least bit confusing: "less" or "fewer" mean you're reducing the amount of something. "5 fewer" means the amount you're reducing by is 5, and "5% fewer" means that the amount you're reducing by is 5% of the original amount.

The ambiguity is that many people say "5% fewer/less" (10% --> 9.5%) to mean "5 percentage points fewer/less" (10% --> 5%). So mathematically it's not ambiguous, but in practice one needs to be sure which is intended.

[gwnn]

We discussed that two or three posts above yours, GreenMan, talk about a pet peeve

BTW blackshoe, could you answer my question? I didn't ask what 5% less means, just what else is it supposed to mean? I understand there are two variants:

1. 5%
2. 9.5%

What else is there? If you say there are two ambiguities, there are at least three potential values, what is the third one?

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-09, 13:37, said:

The ambiguity is that many people say "5% fewer/less" (10% --> 9.5%) to mean "5 percentage points fewer/less" (10% --> 5%). So mathematically it's not ambiguous, but in practice one needs to be sure which is intended.

Yes, this usage is employed entirely to fool people.

[kenberg]

Mostly words that are said by salespeople have no discernible meaning at all.
We are not moving but I am involved in some way at looking at townhouses (irrelevant to explain why). One listing says "existing wall to wall carpeting". Think about that for a moment. The stairs were carpeted. So, I guess technically, you could say that "existing wall to wall carpeting" means that whatever wall to wall carpeting now exists (in this case none exists) that's what you get. The agent, not a guy with deep logical skills, did not think of that explanation. He just explained that this was what was meant by existing wall to wall carpeting. I think my wife was a little concerned about my reaction but I stayed calm. Sort of. I simply explained that such an approach causes trouble where no trouble needed to be, and that if he used words in ways that no one else in the universe uses them it would be difficult to communicate effectively.
It would be nice to think that this was just some weird guy and you just have to find someone better. Lots of luck. I had forgotten the extent to which words mean whatever the real estate guy wishes them to mean. I would go nuts having to deal with such people with any frequency.