Alerting (Landy)

Tony

Recently at the club we had a discussion as to whether the following 2 response to Landy was alertable. (1NT) – 2♣ – (pass) – 2. Since the 2 can be bid on a two-card suit, doesn’t this imply that the heart suit is not natural and therefore alertable?

Glyn Williams – Pencoed

One thought on “Alerting (Landy)”

  1. The rules for alerting are not covered by the Laws Of Bridge, which are universal, but are detailed in the Regulations adopted by a particular organisation. In Wales we automatically adopt the Regulations as specified by the EBU – the ‘Blue Book’.
    You are correct in that a non-natural bid should be alerted (4B1a), and moreover under 4C1a a non-natural suit bid is defined as ‘a bid of a suit which shows that suit (4+ cards for an opening bid of 1 or higher or any overcall, otherwise 3+ cards) and does not show any other suit; ……’
    However this clause goes on to state’…..preference bids, completion of transfer bids and raises may be on shorter suits.
    So in the case of a Landy response, yes, the 2 can be a two-card response, but the previous Landy 2♣ bid basically said ‘partner please give me a preference – hearts or spades’. You are merely responding to the preference, so it is not alertable. Similary 2♠ would not be alertable, but the 2 response (no preference) would be alertable.

    Another example of a preference situation is a Michaels response – (1) – 2 – (pass) – 2♠ – not alertable, just preferring spades to hearts. However be careful with a situation (1) – 2 – (pass) – 3♣. The 3♣ is normally a ‘pass or correct’ bid rather than a preference, and therefore must be alerted (also stated in BB 4H1c).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *