[mikl_plkcc]

With the following agreement in the opening bids:

1♣: either 5+ ♣, 4441 with a stiff ♦ or all balanced hand without a 5-card suit
1♦: at least 5 ♦ or 4441 with a stiff in ♣ or major.
1♥/1♠: at least 5 of the major.

i.e. balanced hands without a 5-card suit outside of the 1NT opening range, even with longer ♦, are systematically opened 1♣, for example, 4=3=4=2, planning to rebid 1NT bypassing ♠.

Is this 1♣ opening alertable in the EBU?

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-14, 05:59, said:

With the following agreement in the opening bids:

1♣: either 5+ ♣, 4441 with a stiff ♦ or all balanced hand without a 5-card suit
1♦: at least 5 ♦ or 4441 with a stiff in ♣ or major.
1♥/1♠: at least 5 of the major.

i.e. balanced hands without a 5-card suit outside of the 1NT opening range, even with longer ♦, are systematically opened 1♣, for example, 4=3=4=2, planning to rebid 1NT bypassing ♠.

Is this 1♣ opening alertable in the EBU?

It took me all of 30 seconds to find the answer

Why don't you look up the regulations (they are very easy to find) and explain what you believe to be true.

I expect that people would be quite happy to help you with any of the more complicated consideration.

[paulg]

hrothgar, on 2025-June-14, 06:43, said:

It took me all of 30 seconds to find the answer

To be fair to mikl_plkcc, it is not as easy as you'd expect if you navigate the EBU website as opposed to using the Search function.

I would expect to find the information in the Competitions area under Rules and Regulations: absolutely no mention of the alerting policy or the Blue Book that defines it. In fact it is almost impossible to find without the search function without prior knowledge of the policy's history.

Anyway, the answer is to search for the Blue Book, or Alert policy, and you will find that the answer depends on whether you are playing face to face or online; and, if online, which platform.

And the policy will probably change in August.

[pescetom]

hrothgar, on 2025-June-14, 06:43, said:

It took me all of 30 seconds to find the answer

Why don't you look up the regulations (they are very easy to find) and explain what you believe to be true.

I expect that people would be quite happy to help you with any of the more complicated consideration.

It took me 30 seconds to look up, but a minute to think and I would like people to confirm that I understood it correctly, this policy has merits but simplicity is not one.

1♦ I think must be alerted (not wholly natural and potentially unexpected meaning) and I'm comfortable with that.

1♣ I think should be announced f2f as "may be 2", but without any mention of "with up to 4 diamonds" (it seems I could only say that for 5?). I would feel uncomfortable if so.

Over here both are clear alerts (and I think OP's explanations are exemplary, wish I heard them in Turin).

[mw64ahw]

pescetom, on 2025-June-14, 15:14, said:

It took me 30 seconds to look up, but a minute to think and I would like people to confirm that I understood it correctly, this policy has merits but simplicity is not one.

1♦ I think must be alerted (not wholly natural and potentially unexpected meaning) and I'm comfortable with that.

1♣ I think should be announced f2f as "may be 2", but without any mention of "with up to 4 diamonds" (it seems I could only say that for 5?). I would feel uncomfortable if so.

Over here both are clear alerts (and I think OP's explanations are exemplary, wish I heard them in Turin).

Yep - I announce 'may be short may have 5♦'. Don't think it needs to be announced if you have 4♦

[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2025-June-14, 15:58, said:

Yep - I announce 'may be short may have 5♦'. Don't think it needs to be announced if you have 4♦

My understanding was that it could not be announced at all. Yet I don't think that "may be short even with 4 diamonds" is so unsurprising that opponents deserve no warning.