[idahoclyde]

Match points, all vulnerable, playing 2/1, Michaels, equal level conversion, standard takeout double (with ELC)
You are West in second seat, first seat opens one club promising 2+clubs, 12+hcp.

---

[mike777]

Pass

[pescetom]

I abstained because unfamiliar with ELC (which is not standard nor particularly well endorsed).
Without it I double, national style is that my spades are at the limit but my diamonds may be worse than this.

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2025-December-25, 15:51, said:

I abstained because unfamiliar with ELC (which is not standard nor particularly well endorsed).
Without it I double, national style is that my spades are at the limit but my diamonds may be worse than this.

My surprise this is your nations style but ok. If pass was not permitted, option2 would be one no trump for me.

At my age "10". Looks a Doubleton diamond,

[pescetom]

 mike777, on 2025-December-25, 17:28, said:

My surprise this is your nations style but ok. If pass was not permitted, option2 would be one no trump for me.

At my age "10". Looks a Doubleton diamond,

I would much prefer "T", which is clearly a singleton and almost an honour.


"National style" may be a slight overbid, but for most players over here this double is definitely about the majors in first instance. Many will insist on at least 4-3 with only opening strength, although others will bid it 3-3 if Double seems otherwise the most flexible bid. Partner is authorized to show diamonds if necessary but has no illusions about sure fit.

I polled the local club as one reality check for you, but they're all busy eating again

[Huibertus]

1♥ for me. My partnership knows this is possible on this type of hand. Double is out of the question with no ♦ tolerance. 3♣ natural would not be our agreement (it'd be asking for a stop) and apart from that, even if it were, this is NOT the hand for it (not a 1 suited ♣ hand). One no trump would be reasonable, but is kind of gambling we should be able to reach NT at the right level anyway, and if it goes all pass it probably is bad unless they screw up defense.

Pass is the prime alternative, but we feel at this position bidding is now or never hence 1♥, the only way to get into the bidding after an initial pass is 1♣-pass-1♦-pass-2♦-Double, it happens, but rarely.

[pescetom]

Some votes staggered in from the local club.
8% Pass
84% Double
8% 1NT

This evening I play in a slightly better club at the other end of Italy, will see what some of them have to say.

[DavidKok]

I think permitting double on this type of hand is good, especially in a world where 1♦ is usually 5(+) or is unbalanced, while many balanced hands with 4♦ open 1♣. However, it is not my current partnership agreement.
It's frustrating that normally the line is drawn between '1♣ 3+' and '1♣ 2+', when instead I think it should be drawn between '1♣ 2+, 1♦ frequently 4 cards' and '1♣ 2+, 1♦ usually 5+ cards'. Even more frustrating is that checking this at the table clearly telegraphs your concerns as it's usually not front and center on a system card, so there's a real UI issue.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

And if you cannot stand Pass, bid 1NT.

ELC does not matter, if you bid 1H over 1D, this should be 5h and 4s, not 4h and 3s.

[mike777]

pescetom, on 2025-December-27, 08:56, said:

Some votes staggered in from the local club.
8% Pass
84% Double
8% 1NT

This evening I play in a slightly better club at the other end of Italy, will see what some of them have to say.

Wow, travelling all the way to the other end of Italy to play in a slightly better club is dedication.

Doubling with off shape is the Italian way, definitely ..

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2025-December-27, 14:58, said:

Wow, travelling all the way to the other end of Italy to play in a slightly better club is dedication.

Doubling with off shape is the Italian way, definitely ..

I travelled for other reasons (family, sunshine, food)

The slightly better club was slightly more inclined to bid 1NT, but still prevelantly off shape.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-27, 10:15, said:

I think permitting double on this type of hand is good, especially in a world where 1♦ is usually 5(+) or is unbalanced, while many balanced hands with 4♦ open 1♣. However, it is not my current partnership agreement.
It's frustrating that normally the line is drawn between '1♣ 3+' and '1♣ 2+', when instead I think it should be drawn between '1♣ 2+, 1♦ frequently 4 cards' and '1♣ 2+, 1♦ usually 5+ cards'. Even more frustrating is that checking this at the table clearly telegraphs your concerns as it's usually not front and center on a system card, so there's a real UI issue.

Over here 1♦ has "always" been 4+ and 1♣ 2+ only in 4=4=3=2, which already draws a line in interference over 1m openings. It is increasingly common to play 1♦ 5+ (wish I could convince a partner) which does not in itself raise a disclosure/UI issue: our alert policy says to announce "5+ cards". But the devil is in the detail (or rather lack of it) and if 5♦332 out of NT range would have been 1♣ then the 1♦ opening should be alerted and now asking offers UI (and not alerting will likely go unpunished and offer MI).

[akwoo]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-27, 10:15, said:

It's frustrating that normally the line is drawn between '1♣ 3+' and '1♣ 2+', when instead I think it should be drawn between '1♣ 2+, 1♦ frequently 4 cards' and '1♣ 2+, 1♦ usually 5+ cards'. Even more frustrating is that checking this at the table clearly telegraphs your concerns as it's usually not front and center on a system card, so there's a real UI issue.

The new-ish ACBL rule is that the 1♦ usually 5+ version requires a pre-alert (as 1♣ is now a quasi-natural rather than natural bid). The announcement when the bid is made is the same in both cases though. I don't know how well this is followed in practice, though a lot of unbalanced diamond folks are also playing transfer responses to 1♣ and know to pre-alert those, which will naturally prompt a question. If it's not followed, enforcement is rather difficult because it's hard for opponents to know about it or to know if they were damaged.

[mw64ahw]

Huibertus, on 2025-December-26, 10:47, said:

1♥ for me. My partnership knows this is possible on this type of hand. Double is out of the question with no ♦ tolerance. 3♣ natural would not be our agreement (it'd be asking for a stop) and apart from that, even if it were, this is NOT the hand for it (not a 1 suited ♣ hand). One no trump would be reasonable, but is kind of gambling we should be able to reach NT at the right level anyway, and if it goes all pass it probably is bad unless they screw up defense.

Pass is the prime alternative, but we feel at this position bidding is now or never hence 1♥, the only way to get into the bidding after an initial pass is 1♣-pass-1♦-pass-2♦-Double, it happens, but rarely.

I tend to bid 1N with random partners when we cant stop in 2♦. With other partner's playing the overcall structure it would be 1H..

[DavidKok]

The Dutch rules were recently changed where there needs to be an announcement if 5♦332 is included in 1♣, and in that case Brown Sticker defences to 1♣ are permitted. This is a good distinction, but still doesn't split the two system types that I care most about.

In case there's any confusion, I play that 1♦ is [5+ or 4=4=4=1 or 1=4=4=4], and think my 1♣, while not including 5♦332 (for the moment, at least) should still be disclosed in more detail than just '2+', and I would be happy if Brown Sticker defences were permitted against this opening. Obviously we provide more detail in the disclosure, unprompted, but it would be better if that were mandatory.

[mycroft]

akwoo, on 2025-December-27, 22:12, said:

The new-ish ACBL rule is that the 1♦ usually 5+ version requires a pre-alert (as 1♣ is now a quasi-natural rather than natural bid). The announcement when the bid is made is the same in both cases though. I don't know how well this is followed in practice, though a lot of unbalanced diamond folks are also playing transfer responses to 1♣ and know to pre-alert those, which will naturally prompt a question. If it's not followed, enforcement is rather difficult because it's hard for opponents to know about it or to know if they were damaged.

The QN rule (in context) is "1♣ 2+, not *exactly* 4=4=3=2". Interestingly, the responses are irrelevant to the pre-Alert (even though that's what's going to be asked about, as you say). I'm glad those who do Pre-Alert tend to mention the responses for that exact reason.

We have a spate of Montréal Relay pairs in Calgary (and a spate of 2♦ Méxicana pairs, which I find amusing. Almost never the same pairs, though). Their teacher seems to think that the fact that *any* 4432 is opened 1♣ isn't important enough to mention. I mean, it's not as if anybody plays anything different anyway.

I find it frustrating that I can't get my regular partners to understand Kit's Grunt Defence (even though it's basically "Woolsey/1m") enough to play it. Not because I expect to do better (I'd be happier playing 1M in fourth seat after 1♣-1♦ as a Wonder Bid: "I don't have a 5-card major." "I don't either." "Okay, I might, or it might be your 4=4 fit. Good luck.") but because I can *absolutely* show damage if it turns out that I played my "4=4=3=2" defence to their Montréal Relay when I had a Raptor 1N/pass-and-double strong NT hand and either they got an easier time or partner found out that it was "the pre-Alertable kind" before she got to bid...Maybe if I get to play with Fellow Director again, I can convince him to play his Precision D defence to the MR club...

But frankly (given who I am), I just want *enough* pairs to find out and TD call the lack of pre-Alert that I can nail one or two (preferably the teacher) for "failing to follow directions". I'd be quite happy to smile in the bar after when I hear the complaints about "dropping to third because some pair griped about a 'technical' failure to Alert", too.

This is one of the little things where "the right response, at least at a tournament, is to SB. When they say 'could be 2', ask if it's exactly 4=4=3=2. If it's not (or they're not sure), call the TD who will figure it out. The 'majors 5, diamonds 4' pairs we're protecting will be able to answer the question next time, and the ones who don't know their requirements will learn. And the ones who know and don't care - oh well."

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-28, 04:48, said:

The Dutch rules were recently changed where there needs to be an announcement if 5♦332 is included in 1♣, and in that case Brown Sticker defences to 1♣ are permitted. This is a good distinction, but still doesn't split the two system types that I care most about.

In case there's any confusion, I play that 1♦ is [5+ or 4=4=4=1 or 1=4=4=4], and think my 1♣, while not including 5♦332 (for the moment, at least) should still be disclosed in more detail than just '2+', and I would be happy if Brown Sticker defences were permitted against this opening. Obviously we provide more detail in the disclosure, unprompted, but it would be better if that were mandatory.

The Italian rules have not yet changed but I think they will have to. As I mentioned previously, they start off from a strong point where all natural or semi-natural 1 level openings are announced in terms of minimum suit length, which worked like a charm when it was implicit what kind of agreements would promise which lengths. To some extent that is still true as many playing unbalance diamonds put 4=4=4=1 through 1♣ which is thus announced as "1+", which acts as a warning bell and if you really need to know more you can ask. But it's not satisfactory IMO. I don't much like the idea of announcing such things explicitly during the auction which is a dangerous precedent and not the way the wind is blowing anyway (people want less/no announcements). Maybe an ACBL-like policy of pre-alert could be the answer, even in two board rounds. Many people already do this anyway, but it is not obligatory.