4bbb on reduced course

[rulefan]

10 and 18 v 13 and 14
So over 18 - A is scratch, B gets 8, C 3 and D 4
Over 16 the start point is A 9, B 16, C 12, D 12
So over 16 - A is scratch, B gets 7, C 3, D 3
E&OE

 

[williamalex1]

10 and 18 v 13 and 14
So over 18 - A is scratch, B gets 8, C 3 and D 4
Over 16 the start point is A 9, B 16, C 12, D 12
So over 16 - A is scratch, B gets 7, C 3, D 3
E&OE

So that B loses an extra stroke, because of index 7 hole being closed

 

[chrisd]

10 and 18 v 13 and 14
So over 18 - A is scratch, B gets 8, C 3 and D 4
Over 16 the start point is A 9, B 16, C 12, D 12
So over 16 - A is scratch, B gets 7, C 3, D 3
E&OE

Over 18 doesnt B get 7?

 

[williamalex1]

Over 18 doesnt B get 7?

90% then 16/ 18ths

 

[rulie]

10 and 18 v 13 and 14

How does that jive with this part of your first post?
The 2 closed holes are stroke index 5 and 7 and one of our opponents would get a shot at both of the closed holes from his partner, neither I, or my partner, would get shots on either hole

 

[rulefan]

90% then 16/ 18ths

Or is it x 16/18 then 90% ?
IMO

 

[williamalex1]

How does that jive with this part of your first post?
The 2 closed holes are stroke index 5 and 7 and one of our opponents would get a shot at both of the closed holes from his partner, neither I, or my partner, would get shots on either hole

I read it as Chris and his PP were off 13 and 14, getting 3 and 4 strokes so no strokes at index 5 or 7.

 

[williamalex1]

Or is it x 16/18 then 90% ?
IMO

You're the expert , you tell me

 

[Foxholer]

Help me out here - he doesn't lose any shots from his opponents, but does from his partner? Then what impact does that have on the game?

He'd lose 2 shot holes, while there'd be no effect on the opposition. So, effectively (only) his handicap has been artificially reduced.
It would seem, to me, fairer that, for this (16 hole) match, SI 6 becomes SI 5 SIs 8 and 9 become SIs 6 and 7 resp. Then the 16/18ths of Handicaps should also be applied to all handicaps before determining 90% of difference. Off the top of my head, I believe, in this case, 18-capper would lose 2 shots, with others not affected.

 

[backwoodsman]

We had this at ours and it was just play 16 holes as per the card. Reasoning being, that whoever was losing shots, was not in fact playing the holes where they needed them. ie, no one was losing out. Not exactly scientific, but it seemed to work.

 

[Swango1980]

Surely, it is up to the Committee of the club to decide how to deal with such issues? They could have conditions such as:

All 18 holes must be in play;
A minimum number of holes must be in play, and if they are, just get on with it (it is winter)

Is it not dangerous asking the individual players to deal with it themselves? Inevitably, someone will feel like they are losing out. Or, the team that loses may be upset, because they may feel if all 18 holes were open, they could have pulled it back in last 2 holes. Besides, what if they agreed to something that was advised on this thread, and it conflicted with guidelines for that competition set by the Committee?

 

[clubchamp98]

Just call the two holes he loses shots a half .
After all if he needs a shot a half is a good result.
Then just play the card as is .

 

[chrisd]

Just call the two holes he loses shots a half .
After all if he needs a shot a half is a good result.
Then just play the card as is .

I think his expectation is to win those 2 holes

 

[williamalex1]

I think his expectation is to win those 2 holes

Chris, out of interest what holes are stroke index 5 and 7 at ?
BTW better update your forum handicap

 

[chrisd]

Chris, out of interest what holes are stroke index 5 and 7 at ?
BTW better update your forum handicap

6 and 7

Its easier to get my handicap down than to change it on here ??

 

[clubchamp98]

I think his expectation is to win those 2 holes

If he expects to win them he shouldn’t be getting any shots then!