A place cannot be called smoke-free if it provides a smoking area (just pointing out an obvious fact). The smoke travels, so please do not say smoke-free if there is a smoking area allowed indoors.
Before the ban I'd like to have seen enough places being totally smoke-free so that I was not so desperate for the ban to come in, so I think my answer would be closest to number 1, if I had to make a choice. I am confused as to how it would be decided which places were to be smoke-free and which were not, as some would complain that they lost business (actually this would work both ways because in some areas it would be the smoking places that lost business to the smoke-free places, I am sure of this).
If some were smoke-free, it would have to be a meaningful proportion to reflect the numbers of non-smokers so at least 2/3 would have to be smoke-free for me to have been satisfied, 1/2 would not in my opinion have been enough.