Grammatical Quandary

[Tim Spanton]

Surely under 22 is clear enough?

No, it really isn't. Sometimes "under X" is intended to include X, sometimes not.

Oh come on - it's basic English. Under 22 is an efficient way of saying aged 21 years and under

[NickFaulks]

Oh come on - it's basic English. Under 22 is an efficient way of saying aged 21 years and under

I'm not going to argue about what is basic English, but in the real world I think you are just wrong. Under 16 is routinely used to mean 16 or under.

At the other end, I have never heard anyone suggest that you cannot play in an over 50 event until you are 51. What I find controversial is that you can do it when you are 49!

[Brian Egdell]

Possibly clearer, and simpler, is "open to all born on or after [insert preferred date]".

I endorse this. The potential for confusion with the use of age in years is already clear from the discussion above.

And if you're expecting any entrants from South Korea, there could be yet more confusion!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63903771

[Tim Spanton]

Oh come on - it's basic English. Under 22 is an efficient way of saying aged 21 years and under

I'm not going to argue about what is basic English, but in the real world I think you are just wrong. Under 16 is routinely used to mean 16 or under.

No it is not

[John Upham]

I reworded the EventBrite form to use January 1st in line with FIDE and EJCOA and thank PMc for this suggestion. It is much clearer for parents and organisers than using August 31st or school year or some other nonsense.

See

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/hampshir ... 4065542877