Match Point Precision - 1NT bid ( No 4 card Majors)

[A2003]

Match Point Precision Book, Page 33-39 refers:

 

1NT 13-15 HCP, denies 4 card majors.

 

Based on the reference below, page 2, No alert is required to 1NT (13-15) bid which denies 4 card majors.

Match Point Precision Book - 1NT bid

The above reference, page 2 states:

1. In a recent ACBL Regional tournament, we had an opponent protest because we did not also alert that the 1NT bid denies a four card Major. The tournament director reviewed the bidding, looked at our convention cards, and had consultation with head director. After the consultation, he returned to our table and said that the denial of a four card major is a treatment and does not need to be alerted as it clearly marked on the convention cards. This confirmed a similar ruling we received in a tournament many years ago.

 

Is it true that no alert is required to 1NT bid which denies 4 card majors?

 

Is there any other treatment which requires no alert?

[gwnn]

definitely alert!!!

[PrecisionL]

That was then (1975), this is now: ALERT!

 

Other treatments? If extra distribution or strength is promised with a bid, then be safe and ALERT!

[Gerben42]

Denying a 4-card major is certainly alertable. In other news, I would not recommend this treatment. When playing a weakish NT, frequency is key. Instead I would open all hands with a 4-card major and some hands with a 5-card major in range with 1NT. If instead you want to keep the "no 4-card major" part, you can extend the range to 11 - 15 and unload the overloaded 1♦ opening bid.

[Siegmund]

IIRC the book is old enough that it assumed balanced 11s and 12s without 4CM were passed, not opened 1D.

 

In a more modern context, yes, if you play this treatment, bring it down to 11-14 or 15. (It's a method I've experimented with off and on for a long time, but only ever found 1 real-life partner who wanted to try it on for size.) I like this opening, but it IS hard to fit all of the other hands into the other openings comfortably enough to justify it.

[Free]

The main philosophy of the alerting regulations is to let opps know there is something unusual about the calls we make. Imo this 'treatment' should be alerted in the spirit of the alert regulations.

 

Your opps won't expect you open 1NT denying a 4 card Major, even if it's clearly described on the CC. If it's stated somewhere in the regulations that this shouldn't be alerted, then I guess you're morally obligated to at least pre-alert.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL (which is where the book was written), by guidance, calls that are unusual simply through negative inference are not Alertable for that reason (for instance, constructive raises (1S-2S 8-10; good5-bad8 hands with three-card support go through 1NT and are lumped in with the 2-card preferences) are explicitly not Alertable). Having said that, there are the odd "negative inference" calls that I will Alert anyway (for instance, I play superaccepts of transfers with any 4-card support, so 1NT-2red; 2M denies 4). Playing this system, I would Alert it. The number of players who will assume it's the "strong forcing artificial" is very small.

 

Alternatively, as this is a call that will come up a lot, you may choose to take advantage of the "fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents" rule and Pre-Alert it instead. "our 1NT opener is 11-14, and denies a 4-card major" doesn't take all that long.