The origin of this revised variant of the Landy conventional defense method is unknown. The original conventional defense method was developed and devised by Mr. Alvin Landy of Greenwich, Connecticut, United States. The concept consists 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. 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.

Explanation of Concept

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 the player should first double and then bid. 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 KQ63 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.

The Original Landy Convention

Example 1
Opponent		Overcaller		Meaning
AK8 A763 Q43 KJ5		QJ1096 QJ1094 75 9
1 NT				The range of the No Trump should be announced.
		2		Original Landy defense convention: Promises both Major suits, each of 5-card plus length.

Revised Landy Variant

The revised method contains only a subtle change and includes only one additional bid. The following explanations should clarify the differences between the original version and the revised variant. It is not known whether this variant is also employed by a distribution of 5-5, 5-4, and/or 4-4 depending on the state of vulnerability and/or other elements.

Example 1
Opponent		Overcaller		Meaning
AK8 A763 Q43 KJ5		QJ1096 QJ1094 75 9
1 NT				The range of the No Trump should be announced.
		2		Original Landy defense convention: Promises both Major suits, each of 5-card plus length.

Example 2
Opponent		Overcaller		Meaning
AQ8 A763 A43 K85		7 95 QJ1094 QJ1096
1 NT				The range of the No Trump should be announced.
		2		Revised Landy variant: Promises both Minor suits, each with a minimum of 5-card plus length.

In the revised Landy variant both overcalls of 2 Clubs and 2 Diamonds are employed. All continuances by the advancer remain the same.

Variation of the Revised Landy Variant

There is also a variation of the revised Landy variant and which is also presented on this web page instead of being presented separately. The origin of this variation of a variant is unknown.

Note: The bridge student will recognize that this variation of the revised Landy variant features only a reversal of the two overcalls. Instead of both Major suits, both Minor suits are communicated, and, conversely, instead of both Minor suit, both Major suits are communicated.

Example 1
Opponent		Overcaller		Meaning
AK8 A763 Q43 K85		7 95 QJ1094 QJ1096
1 NT				The range of the No Trump should be announced.
		2		Variation: Promises both Minor suits, each with a minimum of 5-card plus length.

Example 2
Opponent		Overcaller		Meaning
AK8 A763 Q43 K85		QJ1096 QJ1094 75 9
1 NT				The range of the No Trump should be announced.
		2		Variation: Promises both Major suits, each with a minimum of 5-card plus length.

Note: All other continuances remain the same for the Revised Landy Variant and also for the variation of the Revised Landy Variant, which are included below.

Responses of the Advancer

The responses 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. For example, 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.

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 method, which include such a feature, please review these variants.

 

 

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.