[thorvald]

---

2♣=Cappelletti
2N=Lebensohl
3N=6+♣, 13-15 HCP
4N=No explanation

[sfi]

I believe North has shown a slam try with long clubs. 2NT is a transfer to clubs rather than Lebensohl over 2C interference. It sounds like South has a particularly suitable hand in support of clubs.

[pescetom]

If 2NT is a transfer to clubs then N is pushing his luck to rebid 3NT and 4NT rather than just splinter 3S.

[thorvald]

Yes, 2N is not Lebensohl, but just a transfer to ♣.

I agree, that North is showing a slam try and that is also what the explanation shows. I am just having difficulties find all the promised values (13-15 HCP) on the hand.

Now the entire story behind the hand is it was played in a Robot challenge.

I was playing against a player, that I know will often open 1N on off-beat hands like

---

so I also opened 1N

After 3N I decided that West probably had ♠, so ♣ would play better. I should probably have bid 5♣ over 4N, but as usual I was a bit optimistic.

Result 3 down

Now back at my opponent, that as expected opened 1N, but decided that 3N was better than 5/6♣

The result:

---

On the run of the ♠s declarer got pseudo squeezed so the result was 8 down :-)

[smerriman]

Just a bug in the database.

The general idea is that transferring to clubs then bidding 3NT shows extra values, otherwise you'd just bid 3NT directly, so they updated what 3NT "shows" in the database to promise the extra values.

But they didn't update the logic part.

Generally, GIB would bid 3♠ with a singleton spade after transferring.

But there's a rule that says if you have 9-12 HCP, and your singleton is an A or K, bid 3NT, and describe it as showing 13-15.

(And it has 13-15 with a singleton king, it goes back to bidding 3♠.. guess they just have things backwards by mistake.)

[thorvald]

I think 3N should more be described as slaminvitational with 6+♣ and HCP is not right to use when there 6+ card suits involved

Poll


I think the hand lack controls for making an invitation, but introducing a better way of counting, when slammish is probably never gonna happen :-)