[saneadvice]

After 2C i prefer x with a single suiter otherwise bid highest shortage or 2nt for minors. So bid 2d shows majors. 2h shows s and minor. 2s shows h and minor. Obviously 3c is 4441 . The object of bidding a shortage is that you are bidding opponent's suits so you make it difficult for them to find the contract

[Lovera]

saneadvice, on 2017-January-26, 21:14, said:

After 2C i prefer x with a single suiter otherwise bid highest shortage or 2nt for minors. So bid 2d shows majors. 2h shows s and minor. 2s shows h and minor. Obviously 3c is 4441 . The object of bidding a shortage is that you are bidding opponent's suits so you make it difficult for them to find the contract

As i already told this one requires an (or, also, differently - as in your case) agreement with partner. I am going to explain my choising about the second level bidding.

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2017-January-27, 05:00, said:

As i already told this one requires an (or, also, differently - as in your case) agreement with partner. I am going to explain my choising about the second level bidding.

This is the Expert forum. If you are not looking for ideas on a defensive scheme, just what are you hoping to achieve from this thread?

[Lovera]

It is remaining the second level bidding reserved for 5-4, 5-5, 6-4 (or more) shape (with almost points in the two suits). At this aim i have choose the Astro convention (with any necessary definition). You can see here how it works: http://www.bridgeguy...nse_method.html

[Lovera]

The re-definitions are about : club bid and relatif meaning ( and also for diamond suit ) plus any ultherior integration. So, after 2♣ the first opp bids : X having the suit of Club (and not an unspecified minor) and Heart, 2♦ meaning Diamond and Spade, 2♥ with Heart and Spade, 2♠ (ambigous) with Spade and Club or Heart and Diamond, 2NT with Club and Diamond.

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2017-January-27, 09:04, said:

At this aim i have choose the Astro convention

Why is your personal choice of any interest to any experts that might be reading the thread? Are you seeking input or do you feel in a position to be teaching the experts that visit BBF?

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-27, 10:57, said:

Why is your personal choice of any interest to any experts that might be reading the thread? Are you seeking input or do you feel in a position to be teaching the experts that visit BBF?

Hi. This part, infact, can be different for other players (as in your first post here).

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-27, 10:57, said:

Why is your personal choice of any interest to any experts that might be reading the thread? Are you seeking input or do you feel in a position to be teaching the experts that visit BBF?

This conv. (I thought was italian by the name "Astro" that instead is an acronim) and has also a good structure (more of using for).

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2017-January-27, 11:06, said:

Hi. This part, infact, can be different for other players (as in your first post here).

Which part? I asked 2 questions but this reply does not appear to relate to either.

Lovera, on 2017-January-27, 16:08, said:

This conv. (I thought was italian by the name "Astro" that instead is an acronim) and has also a good structure (more of using for).

Astro is not an acronym. It was rather something "clever" in allowing the overcaller to be called the "Astronaut". For the record, the related methods Aspro and Asptro are also not acronyms. One major issue with using this sort of method is that it gives the opps a cheap cue in all cases, which is generally not regarded as a positive. There are, simply put, better alternatives for this but I have no issue with your using Astro if that is your preferred option. I do have an issue with your using it as the apparent basis for teaching the BBF community via the expert forum. I fail to see what expert level discussion is being generated here, as is perhaps evidenced by the two of us being so prominent in the thread.

[johnu]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-27, 17:04, said:

Astro is not an acronym. It was rather something "clever" in allowing the overcaller to be called the "Astronaut".

Allinger - Stern - Rosler

Thus the acronym, A-St-Ro

FWIW, I played Astro as a defense over 1NT at one time.

[Zelandakh]

I stand corrected. I was, naturally, thinking of the Aspro convention. The difference between them is in the way both majors are handled and most regard the combination of both - Asptro - to be better than either.

[Lovera]

johnu, on 2017-January-27, 17:28, said:

Allinger - Stern - Rosler

Thus the acronym, A-St-Ro

FWIW, I played Astro as a defense over 1NT at one time.

Exactly so. This conv. can be used also vs strong 1NT with about 14/15+HD.

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-28, 03:19, said:

I stand corrected. I was, naturally, thinking of the Aspro convention. The difference between them is in the way both majors are handled and most regard the combination of both - Asptro - to be better than either.

Infact i wonder myself for your answer. Now when i say "this part" the meaning is that this conventionated bidding (in my case with Astro) at second level can have a different agreement for another different convention (as for you with CRASH or Truscott or i.e. Cappelletti) by anyone other player.

[Zelandakh]

Astro is:-
2♣ = ♥ + another
2♦ = ♠ + minor

Aspro is:-
2♣ = ♥ + minor
2♦ = ♠ + another

Asptro is:-
2♣ = ♥ + another (if both majors then longer/better spades)
2♦ = ♠ + another (if both majors then longer/better hearts)

The closest 1NT defences I can find to your idea are Pinpoint Astro:-
2♣ = ♥ + ♣
2♦ = ♥ + ♦
2♥ = ♠ + ♥
(2♠ then handles ♠ + minor)

...and Kent
2♣ = ♠ + ♣
2♦ = ♠ + ♦
2♥ = ♠ + ♥
(X then handles ♥ + minor)

You can find out more about possible 1NT defences at Dave Stevenson's website if you are interested.

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-28, 14:16, said:

Astro is:-
2♣ = ♥ + another
2♦ = ♠ + minor

Aspro is:-
2♣ = ♥ + minor
2♦ = ♠ + another

Asptro is:-
2♣ = ♥ + another (if both majors then longer/better spades)
2♦ = ♠ + another (if both majors then longer/better hearts)

The closest 1NT defences I can find to your idea are Pinpoint Astro:-
2♣ = ♥ + ♣
2♦ = ♥ + ♦
2♥ = ♠ + ♥
(2♠ then handles ♠ + minor)

...and Kent
2♣ = ♠ + ♣
2♦ = ♠ + ♦
2♥ = ♠ + ♥
(X then handles ♥ + minor)

You can find out more about possible 1NT defences at Dave Stevenson's website if you are interested.

Thanks, it seems Pinpoint Astro with ♠+♣ or ♥+♦ (and 2NT relay over pass) for 2♠ ambiguous (see also post #25) and ♦ + ♠ for 2♦

[Lovera]

This conv. very good structured has a lot of options covering shapes (expecially if you have a long suit). The "anchor suit" is the higher suit in the couple indicated by partner conventionally (i.e. over 2NT is diamond suit).

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2017-February-02, 02:08, said:

The "anchor suit" is the higher suit in the couple indicated by partner conventionally (i.e. over 2NT is diamond suit).

I am not sure what you mean here. If 2NT shows both minors then both are anchor suits. The term is generally used where one suit is known and a second suit is unknown (or possibly non-existent).

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-02, 03:05, said:

I am not sure what you mean here. If 2NT shows both minors then both are anchor suits. The term is generally used where one suit is known and a second suit is unknown (or possibly non-existent).

Because in mine variation of Astro i' m useing the same terms you have to see in "Responses Summarized" (here "After 2♣ Hearts is the anchor suit and a new suit p.. "and here "After a 2♦ by intervenor showing Spades as the anchor suit, this fir..") cliking on url in post #24.

[Zelandakh]

If 2♣ shows hearts and another then hearts is the anchor suit. If, as here, 2♣ shows hearts and clubs then calling hearts the anchor suit is more than misleading. Similarly for 2♦ as spades + another versus showing spades and diamonds. This is merely terminology and not especially important but I would suggest to you that it is difficult enough to communicate effectively in a foreign language already without additionally using specialist terms in an unexpected way.

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-02, 09:34, said:

If 2♣ shows hearts and another then hearts is the anchor suit. If, as here, 2♣ shows hearts and clubs then calling hearts the anchor suit is more than misleading. Similarly for 2♦ as spades + another versus showing spades and diamonds. This is merely terminology and not especially important but I would suggest to you that it is difficult enough to communicate effectively in a foreign language already without additionally using specialist terms in an unexpected way.

Anyhow is at this Higher Suit ( termed "anchor suit" or not) which we refer when bidding the new suit at level (6th/+) are denieing support whilest jumping we show a suit of six cards (or more) plus support (in this Higher Suit - i.e. Diamond for ♦+♣ responding at 2NT by partner).