[Wainfleet]

---

My partner and I play Landy as showing 5-4. I had this hand and bid 2C and alerted it as Landy because I could not think of a better bid. I knew it was off beam but got picked up on it "funny Landy?" I was deceiving my partner as much as anyone else. Was my opponent justified in expressing mild disapproval?
And regardless of that, would it have been better bridge to pass?

[AL78]

Wainfleet, on 2020-November-09, 10:36, said:

---

My partner and I play Landy as showing 5-4. I had this hand and bid 2C and alerted it as Landy because I could not think of a better bid. I knew it was off beam but got picked up on it "funny Landy?" I was deceiving my partner as much as anyone else. Was my opponent justified in expressing mild disapproval?
And regardless of that, would it have been better bridge to pass?

It is ok to bid Landy with 4-4 if the values are concentrated in the majors. I'm not sure I'd do it with your hand, I'd prefer a bit more substance in the majors, but it depends on how aggressive your style is. I don't think it is any worse than opening a weak NT on a good 11 count, so it is hard luck to your opponent if your Landy bid allowed you to win the part score battle.

[pescetom]

It's good bridge to follow agreements, so pass if you agreed 5-4. It's also good bridge (IMO) to interfere with that hand, but that can wait. There are conventions that allow you to do so (with the safety net of the clubs) but Landy 5-4 is good enough for n/b.

[mycroft]

If your partner has an issue with it, don't do it.

If your opponents have an issue with it, your response is "I have both majors". They don't get to decide how *you* play a convention. Sure, if they were told it was 5-4 at least, you chose to deviate, and if they have a concern about that, they can and should get the director involved to determine how much if any it was a deviation, and whether they were misinformed as to your agreement. But they have no hold on *you* at all.

The classic line (which you shouldn't use, at least not except as a joke, unless it was true) is "I had a club in my spades".

[pilowsky]

The general rule that I've started to apply in these situations is "What would I bid if my partner had opened 1NT".
This approach works particularly well with pickup partners and when playing 2/1 or SAYC and its variants.
It seems to work quite well playing with GIB as well. Mostly...

Particularly in online Bridge where you are responsible for making the alert.

[apollo1201]

When I learnt the convention, my teacher told me 44 is okay if:
- 3-suited
- above average strength (opening values or more)
- nice honors

The hand does not exactly qualify. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be upset if partner overcalled 2C😊

But opponents have nothing to disapprove of. Either they believe they were misinformed and had a loss because of that, and they call the TD to confirm this damage, or they acknowledge that your « twisting » of the hand was astute and fell well this time.

And to quote a very good player (can’t remember which one!) who answered a hand I had posted where I commented my opps thought a »judgmental » bid I made was bad, « the fact that your opps commented against strongly suggests your bid was right »🤣

[Wainfleet]

pescetom, on 2020-November-09, 11:00, said:

It's good bridge to follow agreements, so pass if you agreed 5-4. It's also good bridge (IMO) to interfere with that hand, but that can wait. There are conventions that allow you to do so (with the safety net of the clubs) but Landy 5-4 is good enough for n/b.

Could you give an example of a convention that might help here. I can't imagine one.

[pescetom]

Wainfleet, on 2020-November-10, 14:36, said:

Could you give an example of a convention that might help here. I can't imagine one.

Many people play that double of 1NT shows an undisclosed 4-card major plus an undisclosed 5-card minor. This is part of Multilandy which is popular in Europe and also some interpretations of Cappelletti once popular in USA. The simplest developments are that 2♣ is pass/correct for the minor, 2♦ asks the major and anything else including pass is natural. We play in addition that 2NT after a reply to 2♦ asks for the minor.

But if you really are novice/beginner, I suggest you put this at the back of your mind for now. There are far more important things for a partnership to learn and practice. Playing too many conventions takes your attention off the big picture.

[mycroft]

If you play DONT, this is only not an automatic 2♣ overcall because you might decide to overcall 2♥ instead.

But DONT is designed specifically to "get in often and get out safely", and you might end up playing a 5=3 club fit with a 4=4 major fit available (or a 4=3 heart fit with a 5=4 club fit available, if you decide to show both majors instead).

As pescetom said, Woolsey/Multi-Landy doubles (strong) NTs to show "a 4-card major and a longer minor". When I play that, I would either do that or bid 2♣ "both majors" as I felt was right.

But as I said upthread, if partner has an issue with Landy on this hand, don't do it. If partner's okay with this as an "obvious deviation", then you're good, If partner thinks this kind of thing is systemic, then you should change your explanation "we assume 5-4, but we reserve the right to bid on 4=4(14) or 4=4(05)." If the opponents wouldn't Landy on this hand, that's their choice, but they don't get to make you play by their agreements. Any "funny Landy?" comments get responded to by "I have both majors." Any further comment gets "If you have an issue, call the director" and otherwise ignored.

I agree with pescetom's conclusion as well - play what you play; don't go looking for conventions to fix issues until you are completely comfortable with the basics you are playing. My gadgety partner and I haven't changed anything in over 3 years - because we still haven't nailed down the last (big!) change yet.

[nige1]

Wainfleet 'My partner and I play Landy as showing 5-4. I had this hand and bid 2C and alerted it as Landy because I could not think of a better bid. I knew it was off beam but got picked up on it "funny Landy?" I was deceiving my partner as much as anyone else. Was my opponent justified in expressing mild disapproval? And regardless of that, would it have been better bridge to pass?
++++++++++++++++++++
Agree with Mycroft. You shouldn't bid 2♣ if partner would disapprove; and if you sometimes bid 2♣ with 4-4 in the majors, then you should change your explanation and system-card.
If partner would bid a major with 4-cards but bid 2♦ when 2-2 or 3-3 or 2♠3♥, then it is better to hold ♦ than ♣ length because you can take a view and pass 2♦.

---

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2020-November-10, 17:08, said:

As pescetom said, Woolsey/Multi-Landy doubles (strong) NTs to show "a 4-card major and a longer minor". When I play that, I would either do that or bid 2♣ "both majors" as I felt was right.

Yes it is important to make the distinction here between strong and weak NT openings.

Quote

But as I said upthread, if partner has an issue with Landy on this hand, don't do it. If partner's okay with this as an "obvious deviation", then you're good, If partner thinks this kind of thing is systemic, then you should change your explanation "we assume 5-4, but we reserve the right to bid on 4=4(14) or 4=4(05)." If the opponents wouldn't Landy on this hand, that's their choice, but they don't get to make you play by their agreements. Any "funny Landy?" comments get responded to by "I have both majors." Any further comment gets "If you have an issue, call the director" and otherwise ignored.

This is a bit verbose, and if the occasional 4-4 is systemic it might not always be on a 3-suited hand. I think that “usually 5-4” is good enough.

When protecting 4-4 is pretty normal.

[nige1]

Wainfleet, on 2020-November-10, 14:36, said:

Could you give an example of a convention that might help here. I can't imagine one.

I play Raptor (in the the same way as Pescetom) X shows 10+ HCP 5+ m 4+ M. then

• 2♣ = P/C,
• 2♦ = ASK for M.
• 2M = S/O to play.
• 2N = ASK for m.

You might employ the Sharples convention instead

• 2♣ = T/O with 4+ ♠ (You could bid 2♣ with the OP hand).
• 2♦ = T/O with short ♣s.
• 2M = NAT 4+ cards.
• 2N = minors.

The Sharples brothers were the best bidders in the world

[pilowsky]

This Discussion highlights a problem that is common in Bridge - and in life.
There are, according to Wikipedia at least 70 different defenses to 1NT: I am sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are all perfect according to their adherents.
I can also guarantee that that the partner of the person that originally proposed the system that they currently use is not entirely satisfied with it and secretly wants to change it.

In Bridge, it's a good idea to have agreements. In Bridge, nobody ever agrees on anything. That's what the Forum is for.

In Biology, we think using our brains. Our brains outsource the thinking job to neurons which in turn pass it along to a bunch of neurotransmitters and receptors.
Even they have trouble agreeing. Serotonin is an excellent neurotransmitter, so is dopamine. The more you have, the happier you are. Between the two of them, they have 20 receptors.

I think, we have more defences against 1NT than we really need.

[sfi]

Wainfleet, on 2020-November-09, 10:36, said:

My partner and I play Landy as showing 5-4. I had this hand and bid 2C and alerted it as Landy because I could not think of a better bid. I knew it was off beam but got picked up on it "funny Landy?" I was deceiving my partner as much as anyone else. Was my opponent justified in expressing mild disapproval?
And regardless of that, would it have been better bridge to pass?

Your opponents have the right to be informed about your agreements, so if you have agreed 5-4 then that's all they're entitled to. However, you now have at least some history doing this on a 4-4. So you should probably start describing it as "normally 5-4" or something similar unless you and your partner agree no 4-4 hands are suitable.

They're not justified in expressing disapproval. You're entitled to choose calls that they would not have done so without their extraneous commentary. If there is an issue, they should let the director sort it out.

I think bidding on the hand is clear. If I'm playing Landy, 2C it is. Even with agreements that allow me a greater range of options I may still show the majors.

[pilowsky]

OK, if we are going to old fogey serious, the problem is that 'Landy' is not an alert. Landy is a name.
You are simply asking for trouble making alerts by saying the name of a convention and hoping to slide one through to the keeper.

An advantage of online play is that the bidder makes the alert. This means that you get to say what your bid might mean. The result of this is that the only person that might be damaged is your partner, and then later, if things go pear-shaped, you.
With this system, there should not be any need for a Director call.

Unless you play with robots. Robots don't care what you do.

[Vampyr]

pilowsky, on 2020-November-10, 20:42, said:

This Discussion highlights a problem that is common in Bridge - and in life.
There are, according to Wikipedia at least 70 different defenses to 1NT...

I think, we have more defences against 1NT than we really need.

Who is “we”? I play Multi-Landy with all of my partners. (But see below). So two defences is more than I need. But if I weren’t happy with any of the defences that someone else has come up with, I would devise my own and now there would be at least 71.

Over a strong NT, with some of my favourite partners I play a version of Meckwell that is possibly unique. So actually there are already at least 71.

[Vampyr]

pilowsky, on 2020-November-10, 22:09, said:

OK, if we are going to old fogey serious, the problem is that 'Landy' is not an alert. Landy is a name.
You are simply asking for trouble making alerts by saying the name of a convention and hoping to slide one through to the keeper.

An advantage of online play is that the bidder makes the alert. This means that you get to say what your bid might mean. The result of this is that the only person that might be damaged is your partner, and then later, if things go pear-shaped, you.
With this system, there should not be any need for a Director call.

Unless you play with robots. Robots don't care what you do.

You are correct that Landy is a convention name and in most jurisdictions this is not a proper description. You should explain what the convention shows.

And you don’t get to make frequent deviations without it being your agreement, nor can you play a different system to your partner.

[pilowsky]

Vampyr, on 2020-November-11, 06:16, said:

Who is "we"? I play Multi-Landy with all of my partners. (But see below). So two defences is more than I need. But if I weren't happy with any of the defences that someone else has come up with, I would devise my own and now there would be at least 71.

Over a strong NT, with some of my favourite partners I play a version of Meckwell that is possibly unique. So actually there are already at least 71.

No need to be arch. 'We' is the Bridge-playing public at large. Although, to be fair interference over NT is something that is generally learned systematically at intermediate+ level. And then only by established partnerships.

Given that during lockdown when all the Clubs were closed, and BBO was almost the only game in town it might be possible to look back and estimate just how many intermediate+ players there are in the world.

I take your point about strong vs weak. I seem to recall reading recently that Cappelletti was originally designed for use over weak 1NT yet it's what GIB uses, and it's very louche in worrying about its holdings.
I've had cause to call the Director many times in Robot tourneys .

[AL78]

This talk of how to inform the opponents reminds me a bit of a hand last week. RHO opened 1NT, I bid 2C Astro, LHO paused for a fair amount of time, then up pops a question "Is it forcing?". The matter of fact answer is "no", but I typed "no, but partner will only pass with a weak hand and a long club suit". He then cue bid my heart suit. Coincidentally, partner did hold a weak hand with a long club suit and would have passed if she had the opportunity. T thought there was no harm in giving the extra information.