tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276785354801124344.post2822418083849995737..comments2023-09-28T15:26:07.006+00:00Comments on DavidC's Bridge Blog: L&E Minutes for Feb 2008DavidChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14978451945191931557noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276785354801124344.post-34542408159849598522008-06-18T11:46:00.000+00:002008-06-18T11:46:00.000+00:00Thanks Robin.It's good news, but at the same time ...Thanks Robin.<BR/><BR/>It's good news, but at the same time slightly annoying: you wait two years for the L&E to make a sensible decision on this, and then when they finally make one they aren't able to implement it.DavidChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978451945191931557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276785354801124344.post-45353533557826524842008-06-17T18:01:00.000+00:002008-06-17T18:01:00.000+00:00"May 24" should be "June 5""May 24" should be "June 5"Robin Barkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040581902629897559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276785354801124344.post-75847522531394274472008-06-17T18:00:00.000+00:002008-06-17T18:00:00.000+00:00L&E minutes for May 24 now out.- No changes to ale...L&E minutes for May 24 now out.<BR/>- No changes to alerting of doubles on 1 August, will need approval of the Club Committee (part of the new strategy implementation).<BR/>- Three proposals: 1. as currently on first round, then alert strange doubles; 2. alert only strange doubles; 3. alert no doubles. Strange excludes take-out, penalties or anything in between.<BR/>- L&E vote was in favour of 2. Appropriate wording to be agreed at next meeting.<BR/>- Rewording of OB section 3E (questions and UI), including: questions asked about doubles shall not be considered to pass UI.Robin Barkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040581902629897559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276785354801124344.post-84640172967197557022008-03-05T17:24:00.000+00:002008-03-05T17:24:00.000+00:00Yes Robin! My proposal is essentially the same: we...Yes Robin! My proposal is essentially the same: we both have no doubles alerted apart from a few specific things. I have a slightly different list, but that's not so important.<BR/><BR/>So how do we get them to buy into this idea? :)DavidChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978451945191931557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276785354801124344.post-51515785735584593242008-03-05T17:02:00.000+00:002008-03-05T17:02:00.000+00:00My proposal is:- Alert penalty doubles of natural ...My proposal is:<BR/>- Alert penalty doubles of natural suit opening bids and overcalls, below 3NT.<BR/>- Alert doubles of NT bids that showed values/length/shortage in a suit, at or below 5NT.<BR/>- Alert doubles of suit bids that showed values/length/shortage in another suit, below 5NT.<BR/>- Exception: an essentially take-out double that guarantees length in the unbid major is not alertable.<BR/><BR/>The point of the exception is to distinguish such take-out doubles from Walshe transfer doubles 1C-(1H)-X = transfer to spades, the same as 1C-1H.<BR/><BR/>RobinRobin Barkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040581902629897559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276785354801124344.post-65785464536737081102008-03-04T16:09:00.000+00:002008-03-04T16:09:00.000+00:00As you know, doubles are no longer alertable in Sc...As you know, doubles are no longer alertable in Scotland. However we are supposed to pre-alert unusual doubles.<BR/><BR/>Deciding which of our doubles are pre-alertable naturally generates the list of doubles that we would alert as 'highly unusual' if that were the regulation.Paul Gipsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13564960646170455536noreply@blogger.com