B2 Fun tournament

[wackojack]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-2598534062-1556136118

Our defence to 1NT was DONT as I had agreed to play partner's profile. With 5-4 in the majors and such a weak hand I considered an overcall of 2  to be too dangerous and also flawed.  Another popular defence to 1N as used by iacers is cappelletti 2  which is also flawed in that partner cannot know the best contract with equal length in the majors. 

The very simple Landy 2 is ideally suited to cope with 5-4 in the majors.  Partner with equal length will bid 2  .  Note that 5-4 is 6 times more likely than 5-5. The table that got a 100% score played in the inferior contract of 2  and went 1 off.   

So this is a plug for the use of the Landy defence by iac ers.  If you really want to go to town then adopt Multilandy against a strong no trump.  Then you can overcall with all suitable 5-4 combinations except minors. 
5M4m overcall 2M (use with caution)
4M5m overcall double (use with caution)
54M overcall 2  . (use with abandon nv)
6M overcall 2  and partner bids 2  pass or correct or 2  pass or correct with 3 cards in hearts.  Higher level bids need agreement

   

[kenberg]

You make a good case for Landy. The multi version gets more complicated. Steve Robinson devotes 11 pages to Multi-Landy in Washington Standard. I think the basic problem, in any intervention over 1NT, is that there might not be a fit anywhere so agreements have to be good enough to survive. You and your partner have 26 cards so there might be two 7 card fits and two 6 card fits, or even three 7 card fits and one 5 card fit. In such circumstances we want to land in a 7 card fit. And we want to do this while still looking for an 8 card fit if there is one.

It would be useful and interesting (to me) to have a thread where various hands from play involving intervention over 1NT are presented, both when the intervention worked and when it didn't.

An example (I think it's a fairly standard Landy agreement) from Robinson: (1NT)  - 2 - (Pass) -?  Suppose fourth hand has one and three . He bids 2 , pass or correct. Probably the 2 bidder has , presumably 6+ for his one suited intervention over 1NT,  and he happily passes 2 . Fine. If, instead, the 2 bidder has , unlikely but possible, he corrects to 3   which should be a fine contract with three card support and a stiff .   This makes sense, but I wouldn't try it without previous discussion.

Often I like to simply play natural overcalls of 1NT.  It's not that I think it is great, I don't, but at least we are unlikely to get confused as to what means what. For example, playing DONT the auction (1NT) - 2   DONT - (Pass) - 2 asks for overcaller's second suit. However I think that (1NT) - 2 DONT - (X) - 2 shows , while (1NT) - 2 - (X) - XX asks for overcaller's other suit. This is workable, but only if both partners are on the same page. Misunderstandings are a frequent problem in IAC and elsewhere. Donna was speaking about this in her session yesterday and I completely agree.

At any rate, I like the example that you present and I think a string of examples could be very useful.

Added: I was browsing and found
https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.baronbarclay.com/downloads/book_samples/5516.pdf
This shows the first 20+ pages of a 220+ page book on Multi-Landy.
A bit much!
But it should be possible to get the essence in not too many pages.

[wackojack]

Yes as with all conventions, interference changes the meaning of subsequent action.  wrt Landy 2 :  If RHO doubles, then you have an extra bid that you would not have had without the double.  To take advantage of this 2 changes its meaning from "you choose partner" to I have got a good    suit and likely not an 8 card fit for either major. Redouble  now becomes the "you choose" bid.  This is intuitively correct.   

After 1N-(2  ) pass-(?)  the responses are known as "paradox" responses because if you have support for one of the majors, then you bid the suit that you do not have support for.  This concept should be readily understandable for most intermediate players.  It is a pity that your link only goes over the Capelletti bit of multi-Landy.   Yes agreement is needed on the paradox limit.  e.g 1N- (2 ) - pass-(3  )  obviously pass or correct.  How about  1N- (2 ) - pass-(3 ) ? Does this mean "I have 3  and 4  ?   Then how about  1N- (2 ) - pass-(4  )?
Also how about  1N-(2  ) -pass -(2NT) ?  These situations are rare.  The distribution that comes up often is 5M332.  it seems the bid you make depends on suit quality whether or not you play natural overcalls. 

Another debate prompted by chat last night as to what is the best meaning for a response of 2M to 1m.  I think we should be guided by (i) the frequency of its intended use and (ii) its efficacy.  Very weak?  Weak? Rev Flannery? Fit jump?  Solway jump shift? Mixed raise in the minor?  etc etc.  If a particular meaning comes up once in 1000 hands (f = .001) and its average gain (g) over not using it is say 5 imps .  Then fg = .005.  The use for which any bid should be put would be when fg is greatest.     

[kenberg]

Robinson's 11 pages seems to be about right. Shorter than the 220+ but enough to take care of most things. I was browsing to see if I could find something online when I found intro to Oakley's book on Amazon. Not surprisingly details online vary with the site. I haven't played multi-landy, or at least I haven't played it with someone with whom I have gone over details, sometimes I just agree to play something and hope the details don't happen, but I'll give it some thought.  I think Robinson says that a major suit bid at any level after 1N-2C-P-  is pass/correct. So 4H would be a willingness to play in hearts if that is the 2D bidders suit, but spades if spades is his suit.  I would think in that case the heart suit would not have to be the shorter suit, it would just be a willingness to play in either. This comes up maybe once a lifetime I imagine.

I think the part that, by frequency, most needs sorting out is what happens after 1NT-X-P-? . If I am 3=3=2=5 I suppose I bid 2C and pass when partner bids the expected 2D. If I am 3=3=1=6 it gets trickier. Even with agreements, there is no way I can play in clubs without it being at the 3 level, and pard has already says he has at least 9 cards in two suits other than clubs. . But I have played in 4-3 fits before so presumably I just see what major he has. Nothing works all of the time and with a little luck we will survive.

The above is not meant as an argument against ML. If we enter the auction, any auction with any agreement,  it can go wrong.  ML seems to provide many ways for it to go right.

So I will read over some stuff and think about it.
 

[wackojack]

I would be very interested in what Robinson has to say about continuations after a ML 2 overcall.  I live in Acol weak no-trump land and so it is necessary to play double for penalties.  So I am happy to play simple Landy where overcalls of 2 , 2 or 2 are natural.  In 15-17 no trump land you could double to show a 6 card minor suit but I think this would be ineffective as it takes up no bidding room for the LHO.  But much more effective would be a double to show 4M + longer minor.  However, since the double cannot be passed it could be made to include a 6 card diamond suit  also.    I would be interested in what Oakley has to say.  If you play entirely natural overcalls and so a 2 is natural it is very rare that this bid will be passed out, so it is a wasted bid.  A natural 2 however is much more likely to survive as the final contract or stop the opps in finding the optimum.   

[kenberg]

I'll take a longer look at the Robinson book. 11 pages seems about right since there are several things to consider: The X, 2 , 2 , 2M, and various follow-ups, and how it might vary over weak/strong NT. It seems to me that the X is the part that needs the most discussion. It  is apt to come up fairly often, and the various follow-ups are not just totally obvious. Anyway, I'll take a look.

[Curls77]

Just in case someone does not yet have Robinson's book, long ago its been put free online, one of links:
http://www.bridge.is/files/Partnership%20Bidding%20at%20Bridge_2054397795.pdf

[kenberg]

That link goes to Robson (and Segal), not Robinson. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IblDPdjn-c  For an interview with Steve Robinson.
He is very dedicated to the game.

[Curls77]

Oh well, caught as silly rushy rabbit, and stand corrected... 
But it's one good book anyway  : ))

[kenberg]

Absolutely. Moreover, it is a book I don't have. I have a fair number of them (which is not the same as saying I have read them)  but not this one.

Continuing about books, when I rewed my subscription ro Bridge World they gave me a free copy of Fred Gitelman's Who Has the Queen.  I have read the first part, I will read the rest and I recommend it not just because this is BBO.

[wackojack]

Robson - Segal 's" Partnership bidding"  is the most influential bridge book I have ever read.