[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

1NT 2♣! P 2♠
  P    P   P

Result:
2♠/S +2
NS +170

---

1NT was 12 to 14, and 2♣ was alerted, asked, and described as "Landy". It also says "Landy" on both SCs. Landy is quite well known over here: 2♣ shows both majors, other bids are natural in defence to 1NT.

The defenders asked after dummy had been revealed, and were told that sometimes they used "Landy" with a major and a long minor, bidding the long minor if partner bids the wrong major.

East felt he had been talked out of a heart contract. He pointed out that if he had bid 2♥ over 2♣ when it was described as "Landy" his partner would have taken it as better hearts than spades, fishing for no-trumps. His partner agreed. East thought 4♥ unambiguous, but silly with a known four card suit on his right.

[Mbodell]

I'll assume that this convention (majors or a major with a longer minor) is a legal defense, if properly explained. If it was properly explained I do believe that E might have bid 2♥ initially or 3♥ balancing or something, so the auction would have been different thanks to the MI. Of course while 4♥ should make, 4♠ could make over the top and might be bid as a 2 way shot (might make, might be a good sac) if E/W bid to 4♥ but I'm doubtful. I think with proper information E/W will play 4♥ more often than not. I don't want to work out all the other possibilities though.

[jeremy69]

The convention is legal because you can play any defence to 1NT but it is not Landy and the explanation is clearly deficient. I think EW might get to 4H annd although it is possible NS might go on to 4S they showed no desire to do so in an uncontested auction. An adjustment to 4H all or nearly all of the time seems appropriate with a warning or PP to NS for their description of their convention. It's a good example of whyyou should not use names to describe what you are playing!

[wank]

4sx is clearly going for a fat penalty anyway. i know it made 10 tricks in spades as it was, but 4S is 2 levels higher and would attract a double, both of which would be expected to cause a different defence. of course, you would examine the defence to 2S to see where the missing tricks went, but i expect i'd be tolerant of defensive carvery to this contract.

[nige1]

jeremy69, on Jan 3 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

The convention is legal because you can play any defence to 1NT but it is not Landy and the explanation is clearly deficient. I think EW might get to 4H annd although it is possible NS might go on to 4S they showed no desire to do so in an uncontested auction. An adjustment to 4H all or nearly all of the time seems appropriate with a warning or PP to NS for their description of their convention. It's a good example of whyyou should not use names to describe what you are playing!

Agree with all that

[MFA]

nige1, on Jan 4 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

jeremy69, on Jan 3 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

The convention is legal because you can play any defence to 1NT but it is not Landy and the explanation is clearly deficient. I think EW might get to 4H annd although it is possible NS might go on to 4S they showed no desire to do so in an uncontested auction. An adjustment to 4H all or nearly all of the time seems appropriate with a warning or PP to NS for their description of their convention. It's a good example of whyyou should not use names to describe what you are playing!

Agree with all that

I agree too except for the PPs.

[bluejak]

This seemed simple enough. Over a correct description East might easily bid 4♥ direct over 2♣ which should end the auction, and make easily. While there are other possibilities the TD thought this likely enough not to weight and adjusted to this result. He also explained to N/S about altering their explanations and SCs.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 08:51 AM, said:

This seemed simple enough. Over a correct description East might easily bid 4♥ direct over 2♣ which should end the auction, and make easily. While there are other possibilities the TD thought this likely enough not to weight and adjusted to this result. He also explained to N/S about altering their explanations and SCs.

Agree 100%.