The original conventional method was developed and devised by Mr. Alvin Landy of Greenwich, Connecticut, United States. 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 immediately or in the fourth seat after two passes.
Note: 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 the case when the bidding system of the opponents is the Acol bidding system.
Calculation of End Scores is Determining Factor
The conventional defense 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 in the immediate seat 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 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 it is strongly recommended that the player should first double and then show such values on the rebid.
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 |
|
|
|
| 1 NT |
|
2  |
| |
|
|
| Example 2 |
| Opponent |
|
Overcaller |
|
|
|
| 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.
Original Landy Conventional Defense Method
| Example |
| Opponent |
|
Overcaller |
|
Meaning |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 NT |
|
|
|
The range of the No Trump should be announced. |
| |
|
2 |
|
Original Landy convention: Promises both Major suits, each of 5-card plus length. |
The Landy Variant of Bridge Club de Paris
Also known and designated as Landy BCP, includes two additional bids or overcalls to the original version of the Landy conventional defense method. The Bridge Club de Paris no longer exists, but it was generally recognized as the most prestigious bridge club in the 1970s in Paris and Europe for all experienced and expert bridge players, who would play either against each other, devise alternative bidding concepts, or tutor.
These two additional bids or overcalls are shown below. It is not known whether the players of the Bridge Club de Paris proposed the application of this variant for a distributional pattern of 5-5, 5-4, and 4-4 depending on the state of vulnerability and/or other elements.
| Example |
| Opponent |
|
Overcaller |
|
Meaning |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 NT |
|
|
|
The range of the No Trump should be announced. |
| |
|
2 |
|
As in the original concept this overcall promises a two-suited holding with both Major suits. Note: the distributional pattern is per partnership agreement. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 NT |
|
|
|
The range of the No Trump should be announced. |
| |
|
Double |
|
Landy Variant of the Bridge Club de Paris: a double promises a two-suited holding. One known suit is the Heart suit and one unspecified Minor suit. Continuances are per partnership agreement. Note: the distributional pattern is per partnership agreement. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 NT |
|
|
|
The range of the No Trump should be announced. |
| |
|
2  |
|
Landy Variant of the Bridge Club de Paris: promises a two-suited holding. One known suit is Spades and one unspecified Minor suit. Continuances are per partnership agreement. Note: the distributional pattern is per partnership agreement. |
Continuances Following 2 Diamonds
Following a double or a 2 overcall by the overcaller, showing a specified Major suit and an unspecified Minor suit, then the continuances change.
The responses of the advancer, or partner of the overcaller, are shown below for the overcall of 2 Clubs, not for a double and not for the 2 overcall. 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. All continuances in competition by the partner of the No Trump bidder are per partnership agreement.
The advancer may pass if the partner of the No Trump bidder competes.
| Overcaller |
|
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 |
|
Shows excellent support for both Major suits and game values based on distribution and/or Losing Trick count. This first response by the advancer is artificial and game forcing. |
|
|
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.
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.