This conventional method was developed and devised by Mr. Alvin Landy of Greenwich, Connecticut, United States. Mr. Alvin Landy was Life Master #24 and a longtime ACBL chief executive. He joined the ACBL as a tournament director in the year 1948. He had previously worked as a free-lance director for years and was referred to as a national director years before the actual position of a salaried national Tournament Director was actually conceived.

Biographical Data

Mr. Alvin Landy joined the ACBL as a tournament director in the year 1948. He had previously worked as a free-lance director for many years and was referred to as a national director long before any such position of a salaried national Tournament Director actually existed. In the year 1951 Mr. Alvin Landy was named Acting Business Manager of ACBL.

In December 1952 Mr. Alvin Landy was named Executive Manager of the ACBL. He remained in that capacity until his unexpected death from a heart attack in the year 1967. He was born in the year 1905. His sixteen year tenure as the top executive for the ACBL was marked by rapid growth in the membership and a stable administration. Mr. Alvin Landy was named ACBL Honorary Member of the Year in 1957. Mr. Alvin Landy served as secretary of the ACBL Charity Foundation from the time of its inception.

Mr. Alvin Landy served as Secretary of the ACBL Laws Commission from the year 1956 until his death in the year 1967. He was also active in the World Bridge Federation. Indeed, Mr. Alvin Landy was one of the founders and first officers serving as Secretary-Treasurer from the year 1958 to 1966.

     

Landy Convention

The concept is that of overcalling an opening bid of 1 No Trump by an opponent. The original version by Mr. Alvin Landy states that the overcall may be made either in the immediate sear or in the fourth seat after two passes. This is especially the case if the opponent has opened a weak No Trump with a lowest range of 12 high card points, which is particularly the case if the bidding system of the opponents is the Acol Bidding System.

The conventional method is also based on the idea that the initiator can compete in the auction with a marginally weak to an average two-suited holding showing both Major suits, via an overcall of 2 Clubs either immediately or in the balancing seat after two consecutive passes. The major deciding factor, especially in the immediate seat, is that the player must decide whether or not to compete by pre-calculating, pre-determining, pre-guessing a favorable result in the score, which will also be based on the state of vulnerability. In the balancing seat this decision to compete becomes easier to determine since the partner of the No Trump bidder has shown weakness in points by passing.

The original concept of Mr. Alvin Landy made a huge impact on the game of bridge, because he was practically the first bridge player, who devised a defense method against a No Trump opening by an opponent. Viewed from this perspective he changed for all times the way bridge was played.

However, since the original concept allowed the overcaller to show only those two-suited holdings with both Major suits, the concept was rather limited. Other variations and variants, with less stricter distributional patterns, were soon devised to include other two-suited holdings. In reality the conventional method of Mr. Alvin Landy has become rather more a historical fact. The original concept is seldom, if ever employed in the more modern bridge bidding.

The strongly suggested point count is that the player planning to compete against a No Trump opening should hold a minimum of 5/6 points, but no more than 15/16 high card points. If the player holds points in excess of 16 plus high card points, then the player should first double and then bid.

The overcall of double is not penalty-oriented. The following two holdings should clarify when a player should decide to compete and when not to compete. The reader will notice that the distribution is identical.

Example 1
Opponent   Overcaller
AK8
A763
Q43
KJ5
 
QJ1096
QJ1094
75
9
1 NT   2
     
Example 2
Opponent   Overcaller
KQJ
AQ63
KJ43
J54
 
A9874
A10987
Q7
6
1 NT   Pass

The overcaller in Example 1 has a holding worth 5-6 playing tricks. The overcaller in Example 2 has a holding worth 3-4 playing tricks. The distribution is identical, and the values held by the overcaller in Example 1 equal 6 points as opposed to 10 points in Example 2, but the trick-taking capability of the holding in Example 1 equals at least 2-3 playing tricks more, which the overcaller can present to his partner, or advancer, as dummy, if the advancer becomes declarer.

Note: all partnerships solely basing and employing the evaluation method of Losing Trick Count should be very cautious in deciding to employ the Landy conventional method. As the bridge player can readily see, both holdings of the overcaller contain seven losing tricks.

Continuations

The continuations of the advancer, or partner of the overcaller, are shown below. It must be remembered that the advancer may be a passed hand before an opponent opens the auction with No Trump or also a passed hand, which immediately followed the No Trump opening by an opponent. These responses become only valid if the partner of the No Trump bidder passes.

Note: All continuances in competition by the partner of the No Trump bidder are per partnership agreement.

Note: The advancer may pass if the partner of the No Trump bidder competes.

Opener   Advancer   Meaning
2       Artificial. Shows both Major suits of 5-card plus length.
    Pass   Shows a weak holding with at least a 6-card plus Club suit.
    2   Shows a weak holding, minimum of 3-card support, and a preference for Hearts. The bid does not deny equal length in the other Major suit, only a preference.
    2   Shows a weak holding, minimum of 3-card support, and a preference for Spades. The bid does not deny equal length in the other Major suit, only a preference.
    2 NT *   This is an asking response requesting the intervenor (overcaller) to bid the better Major suit. The inference is that the advancer has equal support in both Major suits and sufficient values to support both Major suits on the three level. * See below.
    3   Natural bid. Shows at least a solid 5-card Diamond suit or a semi-solid 6-card plus Diamond suit.
    3   Invitational. Shows at least a 3-card support in Hearts, a distributional holding with ruffing ability and/or sufficient high card points located in both Major suits.
    3   Invitational. Shows at least a 3-card support in Spades, a distributional holding with ruffing ability and/or sufficient high card points located in both Major suits.

* Note: it must be noted that some variants employ the 2 No Trump response by the advancer as natural and employ only the 3 response as game forcing.

The original Landy conventional method does not include the provision that the distribution of both Major suits may also be 4-5 or even 4-4. The original Landy conventional method only mentions both Major suits, each of 5 card plus length. For other variants of the Landy conventional defense method, which include such a feature, please review these variants.

Extended Landy

The concept of Mr. Alvin Landy became so popular that there were various modified, varied, and extended versions during the following year. An extension to the Landy convention was suggested by Mr. Ira Rubin in the year 1947. The overcall or takeout bid of 2 Clubs was applied as in the Landy convention, but is applied after a response or rebid of 1 No Trump after a suit opening. This overcall of 2 Clubs under these circumstances implies/promises more distribution and less strength than a double. It also applies in the Pass Out Seat or Balancing Seat.

North

 

East

 

South

 

West

1

 

Pass

 

1

 

Pass

1 NT

 

2

 

 

 

The bid of 2 Clubs by North promises five or more Clubs and exactly four Hearts, and this implication is based on the original pass of North and his failure to overcall immediately. Mr. Martin Cohn developed this concept further for other similar applications.

Variations of the Landy Convention

A slight alteration to the original concept was proposed by Mr. Edwin Kantar. He suggested the following variation for the overcaller / intervenor:

2 : Shows a Major two-suited holding - Spades and Hearts.
2 : Shows a Red two-suited holding - Hearts and Diamonds.
Double: This overcall is penalty-oriented.
Other: All other overcalls are natural.

Modification with Double

A second, subtle modification of the original Landy conventional method was proposed by Mr. Michel Lebed of France (born in Romania). The original conventional method did not include any meaning to a double after a No Trump opening by the opponents. Mr. Michel Lebed suggested that a double be included to indicate a two-suited holding of on one unspecified Major suit and one unspecified Minor suit. Otherwise the two concepts are the same.

Modification from Paris

A third modification of the original Landy conventional method has been proposed by the Bridge Club de Paris, which follows:

Double: Shows a two-suited holding identifying Hearts as one suit and an unspecified Minor suit.
2 : Show a two-suited holding identifying Spades as one suit and an unspecified Minor suit.

The response by the advancer to discover the unspecified Minor suit is generally a matter of partnership agreement. Some partnerships employ the relay bid of 2 Clubs, whereupon the intervenor could pass if Clubs is the Minor suit or correct to Diamonds. This relay bid denies any 3-card support in Hearts.

In order to discover the Minor suit after a 2 Diamonds overcall, the advancer could again employ the relay bid of 2 Hearts with weaker values (or 2 No Trump with stronger values) to discover the identity of the Minor suit. This action also denies any 3-card support for Spades.

See also: Multi Landy and Variations

 

 

If you wish to include this feature, or any other feature, of the game of bridge in your partnership agreement, then please make certain that the concept is understood by both partners. Be aware whether or not the feature is alertable or not and whether an announcement should or must be made. Check with the governing body and/or the bridge district and/or the bridge unit prior to the game to establish the guidelines applied. Please include the particular feature on your convention card in order that your opponents are also aware of this feature during the bidding process, since this information must be made known to them according to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. We do not always include the procedure regarding Alerts and/or Announcements, since these regulations are changed and revised during time by the governing body. It is our intention only to present the information as concisely and as accurately as possible.

 


     
Email Conventions Bridge Sites
     
Home Page I Glossary Home Page II
     
   
  Defense Methods