As(p)tro bidding
Mark Lehto
All vul Matchpoints.
RHO Pd LHO Me
1N 2C! P 2N! 12-14 NT
P 3C P 3H
2C is asptro meaning hearts and another. 2N was the inquiry for the
other (clubs in this case). Have you any idea what my bid means? Can you
guess what I was trying to get it to mean? (And yes we should have
discussed this at some point!)
S
p
o
i
l
e
r
How should I bid my hand? Partner is known to be "brave".
J10xx AJx Axx A10x
Ville Likitalo
> Here is a bidding sequence for you...
> All vul Matchpoints.
> RHO Pd LHO Me
> 1N 2C! P 2N! 12-14 NT
> P 3C P 3H
> 2C is asptro meaning hearts and another. 2N was the inquiry for the
> other (clubs in this case). Have you any idea what my bid means? Can you
> guess what I was trying to get it to mean? (And yes we should have
> discussed this at some point!)
> How should I bid my hand? Partner is known to be "brave".
> J10xx AJx Axx A10x
If he might have 4-4 or 4-5 suits, I'd try 3NT. If 5-5 or 5
Hearts are guaranteed -> 4H. Do you play 2N as game try or
game force? In GF case 3H would show stronger hand.
Another example, holding the following hands: [I was South]
T964 W N E S
K 1NT 2C* 2H p
AJT5 p 2S p p
KJ83 X 3D p 3NT
ap.
K83 1NT was 15-17 [or 14-16, can't recall now]
Q832 2C* = Clubs and above suit, good hand directly over
K74 2H 6 cards, signoff
Q96
West led Ah, continued with ten, East covered with jack.
West held Qd, East discards a heart on second round.
...and you're supposed to make it now. :)
West held 4252 and the placement of honours is obvious, if
anyone can come up with working DD-solution, I'd like to
hear it.
--
"Jos mun pää on pinta ja siihen pannaan tangenttitaso, niin
korvataan linearisoimalla mun pääni."
Peter Gill
>All vul Matchpoints.
>
>RHO Pd LHO Me
> 1N 2C! P 2N! 12-14 NT
> P 3C P 3H
>
>2C is asptro meaning hearts and another. 2N was the
>inquiry for the other (clubs in this case). Have you any
>idea what my bid means?
Exactly three card heart support and a good hand. Whether
it's invitational or forcing is a matter for discussion. In the
absence of discussion, I'd assume non-forcing.
>How should I bid my hand? Partner is known to be "brave".
>J10xx AJx Axx A10x
Exactly as you did bid it.
My partner and I play 2D as a forcing relay in response to
As(p)tro. With five hearts, the rebid over 2D is normally 2H.
All other bids suggest four hearts. Our space-saving style
may be a better approach than yours, as our style makes
the subsequent bidding much clearer.
Peter Gill
Australia.
Gordon Rainsford
> Here is a bidding sequence for you...
> All vul Matchpoints.
>
> RHO Pd LHO Me
> 1N 2C! P 2N! 12-14 NT
> P 3C P 3H
>
> 2C is asptro meaning hearts and another. 2N was the inquiry for the
> other (clubs in this case). Have you any idea what my bid means? Can you
> guess what I was trying to get it to mean? (And yes we should have
> discussed this at some point!)
>
>
I think you're making a forcing choice-of-game bid. When your partner
bids 2C, s/he could have a spade suit as well as a heart suit, so you
make a forcing enquiry to find out. The 3C rebid lets you know partner
doesn't have spades, but it doesn't tell you whether partner has 4 or 5
hearts. So you now bid 3H, forcing, to ask partner to choose between 3NT
and 4H.
If you"d had a slightly weaker hand of similar shape, you could have
made a non-forcing enquiry bid of 2D. Partner would have rebid 2H with
five of them, and you could now have raised to 3H to invite game.
Similarly with 5 spades and 4 hearts, partner would rebid 2S and you
would have raised to 3S to invite game. If partner had passed 2D
(showing 4 hearts and 5 diamonds), you'd probably have been in a
reasonable spot - as if partner had rebid 3C.
>
>
>
> How should I bid my hand? Partner is known to be "brave".
>
> J10xx AJx Axx A10x
It seems this is the hand you showed in the auction above.
--
Gordon Rainsford
London, UK
Sandy Barnes
2C.
Sandy Barnes
"Mark Lehto" <M.L...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A01997E...@sheffield.ac.uk...
Christopher J. Monsour
suiter with hearts *or* a heart one-suiter (especially vs a weak NT)?
Similar, 2D = spades + other *or* a spade one-suiter. Now, 2H and 2S can be
used for minor suit overcalls with advancer being able to show a raise
without getting past the three level. (I have worked out a structure for
advancer, but I don't feel like posting it; however, surely you can work one
out yourself.)
Yes, I am advocating canape transfers vs weak NT. I don't advocate this vs.
strong NT, where 2H and 2S should be natural for semi-preemptive reasons,
but it seems to make perfect sense vs weak NT.
Christopher J. Monsour
"Peter Gill" <Gi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:8piM5.16974$e5.4...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Christopher J. Monsour
trash?
Iin case you are unfamiliar with the As(p)tro family of conventions, a five
card heart suit is most assuredly *not* guaranteed.
Christopher J. Monsour
"Sandy Barnes" <sandyb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1GoM5.39372$U5.5...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
David Stevenson
Makes playing in 2D a bit tricky.
If you use Asptro on rubbish as I do it is more important to avoid
climbing to the skies than worrying about how to handle the clouds when
you get there.
I am *not* keen on rebidding 3D with a 2452 8-count.
Actually, I got Asptro wrong myself last night: we have not discussed
responses to 2NT at all, and I rebid 3H after 1N 2C P 2NT P because I
had longer hearts.
Bad move. 2NT shows a game try+ and I should always rebid my minor
with a minimum: now I know that! Presumably 3H shows a maximum with a
side minor, 3S a minimum with spades so 3NT a maximum with spades. Of
course we play Asptro so that with spades and hearts the hearts are
known to be shorter.
There was a sad end to the story. I had a 3=5=1=4 8-count.
1N 2C P 2N
P 3H P 3N
P P X 4C
X AP
After I had persuaded partner that I was playing it, not him, I
basically played for two off [he had a 4=1=4=4 14-count]. I came down
to D J9 in the dummy, with AKT gone, and I cashed my last winner. LHO
put the DQ out accidentally and then pulled it back. I did not really
like to say "You have played that" so I said nothing. His partner said
"That is played" and insisted when he argued. Bridge is much better
when people look after their own infractions rather than their
opponents.
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK
Quango's birthday is on 11th November Emails to <qua...@blakjak.com>
Nanki Poo got *fifty* emails on his birthday: Quango expects **more**!
Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm
jan kamras
Sandy Barnes wrote:
>
> I don't bid over a 12-14 NT with trash, so I would have bid a direct 4H over
> 2C.
And played it there also when partner's pattern was 5=4-1-3. :-)
Sandy Barnes
without a 5 card heart suit. It would not be my 1st 4-3 fit played in game.
I would expect a good 4 card heart suit from partner if that is all he has.
If it is your style to overcall on 4-4 patterns or lousy suits, that is
another matter. But, thankfully, I don't play with partners who have such
habits. Such a style does not appeal to me.
Sandy Barnes
"Christopher J. Monsour" <cmon...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eVO1i4URAHA.345@cpmsnbbsa09...
Sandy Barnes
which suit is the 4, since hearts is either the 5 or the 4.
Sandy Barnes
"jan kamras" <jka...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A0287B7...@home.com...
Christopher J. Monsour
5-4 or 6-4 spade fit?
I prefer to play with partners who don't confuse 'hearts and another' with
'hearts and a minor'.
Christopher J. Monsour
"Sandy Barnes" <sandyb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:EAyM5.40212$U5.5...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
Barry Rigal and Sue Picus
your sequence shows three trumps and a high-card raise to 3H.
see below for how to bid the hand.
In the UK I used to play that 2NT was natural and invitational --a
useful meaning for the bid.
3C asked for shape (3D showed longer anchor suit and 3H/S/NT bid out the
pattern with a further relay over 3D for the other two possible shapes.
this method assumes anchoring into the weaker suit with both majors)
that lets you use a jump to 3D as three trumps and invitational+ and 3M
as four-card raise so partner does not worry when he has four trumps and
a maximum about the 4-3 fit.
with your actual hand 3D followed by 3NT sounds right to me.
Barry Rigal
this is not orginal and came I believe from Steve Lodge.
Peter Gill
>If you are going to do this (2D advance forcing), why not
>have 2C show a two suiter with hearts *or* a heart one-suiter
>(especially vs a weak NT)?
Theoretically, perhaps yes, but in practice I play what my partner
has played for the last two decades, i.e his version of Astro.
After years of success using it, he would see no reason to
upgrade to a newer model.
And if 2H over 2D shows a one-suited heart hand, then the
distinction between four and five hearts in the Asptroer's
hand is not made as immediately, which can be inconvenient.
Peter Gill
Australia.
jan kamras
Sandy Barnes wrote:
>
> I fail to see a problem with playing opposite a 5-4-3-1 pattern, no matter
> which suit is the 4, since hearts is either the 5 or the 4.
>
> Sandy Barnes
You don't see a problem ending up in 4H when pard's pattern is 5=4-3-1
(i.e. 5 cd spades) opposite your 4=3=3=3????
Sandy Barnes
the heart suit 4 long. I understood that a minor may be longer. Oh well.
Sandy Barnes
"jan kamras" <jka...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A06ABE3...@home.com...
>
>
> Sandy Barnes wrote:
> >
> > I fail to see a problem with playing opposite a 5-4-3-1 pattern, no
matter
> > which suit is the 4, since hearts is either the 5 or the 4.
> >
> > Sandy Barnes
>
> You don't see a problem ending up in 4H when pard's pattern is 5=4-3-1
> (i.e. 5 cd spades) opposite your 4=3=3=3????
>
>
Gordon Rainsford
> Would it not be the first time you played in a 4-3 heart fit when you had a
> 5-4 or 6-4 spade fit?
>
> I prefer to play with partners who don't confuse 'hearts and another' with
> 'hearts and a minor'.
Absolutely. One of the reasons for Asptro's popularity in UK, over other
two-suited methods is its ability (when played properly) to maximise
your chance of finding your best major suit fit.
David Stevenson
>The problem was I did not understand that the spade suit could be 5 long and
>the heart suit 4 long. I understood that a minor may be longer. Oh well.
The very effective way of playing Asptro that is common in England is
as follows:
2C shows H + other, at least 5/4 or 4/5
2D shows S + other, at least 5/4 or 4/5
If you hold both majors then you show the shorter [weaker if both the
same length].
In response, 2H over 2C shows *four+* hearts, or three with an outside
singleton. Similarly 2S over 2D shows *four+* spades, or three with an
outside singleton.
If you do not have four cards in partner's shown major, then you
respond 2D over 2C, or 2H over 2D. This shows at least two cards in the
bid suit.
After the relay response, overcaller shows his longest suit, by
passing, rebidding his shown major, or rebidding his second suit.
If overcaller rebids his shown suit, then his second suit is a minor,
and it is shorter/equal to the major. Why can it not be a major?
Because with longer hearts he starts with 2D, passing a 2H response:
with longer spades he starts with 2C and rebids 2S over 2D.
So if advancer has a singleton in partner's shown major and partner
rebids it, then advancer can bid 2NT to ask for overcaller's minor.
If you work all this out carefully, you never miss a 4-4 major fit:
you always reach a 5-2 fit otherwise if there is one: you reach a 4-3
fit only when the alternative would be a 5-1 fit.
It works, brilliantly.
Barry Rigal and Sue Picus
Barry Rigal
David Stevenson wrote:
>
> Sandy Barnes <sandyb...@home.com> wrote
> >The problem was I did not understand that the spade suit could be 5 long and
> >the heart suit 4 long. I understood that a minor may be longer. Oh well.
>
> The very effective way of playing Asptro that is common in England is
> as follows:
>
> 2C shows H + other, at least 5/4 or 4/5
> 2D shows S + other, at least 5/4 or 4/5
>
> If you hold both majors then you show the shorter [weaker if both the
> same length].
>
> In response, 2H over 2C shows *four+* hearts, or three with an outside
> singleton. Similarly 2S over 2D shows *four+* spades, or three with an
> outside singleton. ** on any hand where you have three 'trumps' and do not want partner to bid 2S over 2D relay or pass the 2H relay (eg with 2-3-x-x- or 3-2-x-x) you can go back to the anchor suit. similarly with 3-3-2-5 i would not encourage bidding 2H over 2D asptro -- you might finish up in 3D not 2H. It is a blind guess here but playing the wrong major is less of a problem than playing a minor not a major)**
>
> If you do not have four cards in partner's shown major, then you
> respond 2D over 2C, or 2H over 2D. This shows at least two cards in the
> bid suit.
>
> After the relay response, overcaller shows his longest suit, by
> passing, rebidding his shown major, or rebidding his second suit.**2NT shows both minors 544 type**
>
> If overcaller rebids his shown suit, then his second suit is a minor,
> and it is shorter/equal to the major. Why can it not be a major?
> Because with longer hearts he starts with 2D, passing a 2H response:
> with longer spades he starts with 2C and rebids 2S over 2D.
>
> So if advancer has a singleton in partner's shown major and partner
> rebids it, then advancer can bid 2NT to ask for overcaller's minor.
>
> If you work all this out carefully, you never miss a 4-4 major fit:
> you always reach a 5-2 fit otherwise if there is one: you reach a 4-3
> fit only when the alternative would be a 5-1 fit.
>
> It works, brilliantly. **the one disadvantage is that with minimal values and 3-3 in H/S in response to a hand with both majors you may play the wrong one..**
>
** This message does not deal with what is the forcing relay over
Asptro. I prefer 2NT natural and invitational and 3C as a shape relay
(3D shows longer anchor suit work out the rest for yourself) and 3D is a
limit raise in the anchor suit with 3 trumps 3M shows 4T.**
David Stevenson
>A couple of slight modifications to the following --see ** passage
>Barry Rigal
>
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> It works, brilliantly.
> **the one disadvantage is that with minimal values
>and 3-3 in H/S in response to a hand with both majors you may play the wrong
>one..**
Rubbish. In my method you always play the 5-3 fit not the 4-3 fit.
In what way is that "the wrong one"?
>** This message does not deal with what is the forcing relay over
>Asptro.
True.
--
N.J. Hills
<Apstro description snipped>
: If you work all this out carefully, you never miss a 4-4 major fit:
: you always reach a 5-2 fit otherwise if there is one: you reach a 4-3
: fit only when the alternative would be a 5-1 fit.
: It works, brilliantly.
This seems a bit of an over-statement? For example, a 5341 hand on the
auction (1N) - 2C! - (P) is going to bid 2H not 2D (as the prospect of
partner rebidding 3C to show 5 is not a happy one.) Opposite partner's
5422 Apstro bid, you appear to have reached a 4-3 fit when a 5-5 fit was
available...
Since I play these methods myself, explanation as to why I am wrong
would be gratefully received...!
Nick
--
Nick Hills Thermo-Fluid Mechanics Research Centre
N.J....@sussex.ac.uk University of Sussex
Tel: 01273 877136 Falmer, Brighton
Fax: 01273 678486
Barry Rigal and Sue Picus
the point is that there are two approaches here,
I assume you are not permitted to use asptro on a 4-2-5-2 shape or
3-4-1-5 (if you do so then you finish up in trouble over a relay on 3-3
in the majors, playing the minor not the major. Yes?)
you have to promise five cards in the major if 5-4 with a minor.
That allows you to reach the 5-3 not 4-3 major but stops you acrting
initially on hands where ypou would 'like' to bid on.
my version of Asptro allows you to act on more hands but accepts the
trade off of playing the wrong major specifically facing 3-3 in the
majors. that is because with other equal length you can use the relay
[if short] or play the 4-4 which should be OK.
but when you are 3-3 and minimum you simply have to go to the anchor
suit.
Barry
Chris Ryall
>my version of Asptro
We had ASTRO, then Aspro, then Astpro, which was supposed to
solve the problems of both. Can there really be a further
variant on 2C = {H+other} 2D = {S+other}? Anyway if there is
it needs a new name. AsBRo?
--
Chris Ryall Birkenhead UK
Ian Payn
Chris Ryall <ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HeSxZNAg...@cavendish.demon.co.uk...
You've forgotten Pin-Point Astro (Aspro?).
David Stevenson
>David
>
>the point is that there are two approaches here,
>I assume you are not permitted to use asptro on a 4-2-5-2 shape or
>3-4-1-5 (if you do so then you finish up in trouble over a relay on 3-3
>in the majors, playing the minor not the major. Yes?)
No. Why am I in trouble?
>you have to promise five cards in the major if 5-4 with a minor.
I don't.
>That allows you to reach the 5-3 not 4-3 major but stops you acrting
>initially on hands where ypou would 'like' to bid on.
Which is why I don't play these strange and totally unnecessary rules
you are ascribing to me.
>my version of Asptro allows you to act on more hands but accepts the
>trade off of playing the wrong major specifically facing 3-3 in the
>majors. that is because with other equal length you can use the relay
>[if short] or play the 4-4 which should be OK.
>but when you are 3-3 and minimum you simply have to go to the anchor
>suit.
So what are the more hands your method allows?
--
David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK <bri...@blakjak.com>
Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about
it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one.
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson (bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
><Apstro description snipped>
>
>: If you work all this out carefully, you never miss a 4-4 major fit:
>: you always reach a 5-2 fit otherwise if there is one: you reach a 4-3
>: fit only when the alternative would be a 5-1 fit.
>
>: It works, brilliantly.
>
>This seems a bit of an over-statement? For example, a 5341 hand on the
>auction (1N) - 2C! - (P) is going to bid 2H not 2D (as the prospect of
>partner rebidding 3C to show 5 is not a happy one.) Opposite partner's
>5422 Apstro bid, you appear to have reached a 4-3 fit when a 5-5 fit was
>available...
Doesn't happen. Trust me.
>Since I play these methods myself, explanation as to why I am wrong
>would be gratefully received...!
As a general rule of thumb, when you have a 5-5 fit oppos tell you.
OK, you can find theoretical problems, as with any system or
convention, but the only obvious theoretical problem is the one where
your assumption that your singleton is pd's second suit is wrong. RHO
bids it.
Barry Rigal and Sue Picus
It is not enough to rely on your assurances that these things do not
happen.
Enough Americans have bought the Brooklyn Bridge that having a
tournament director (and one who has registered a 27% game?) telling us
that accidents will noty happen is not good enough.
you are describing flawed methods and using as an excuse that all
methods are flawed.
Whereas the alternatvie approach leaves a small lacuna on a very
specific type of deal (the approach i recommend might get you to the
wrong major facing limited values and 3-3 in the majors) but this is at
worst a part-score issue.
Barry Rigal
David Stevenson
>
>It is not enough to rely on your assurances that these things do not
>happen.
>Enough Americans have bought the Brooklyn Bridge that having a
>tournament director (and one who has registered a 27% game?) telling us
>that accidents will noty happen is not good enough.
>you are describing flawed methods and using as an excuse that all
>methods are flawed.
>Whereas the alternatvie approach leaves a small lacuna on a very
>specific type of deal (the approach i recommend might get you to the
>wrong major facing limited values and 3-3 in the majors) but this is at
>worst a part-score issue.
It is quite clear from the emails that you have sent me that you have
not read what I wrote accurately. May I suggest you re-read it?
OK, I am not telling the truth when I tell you it works, I am
deliberately lying, I have not really been playing this convention for
25 years, I have not seen it develop, I have not seen an absence of
flaws in it, I am trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Trust me
never.
Or perhaps you could try it the way I suggested?
David Burn
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7uMUJSBi...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> OK, I am not telling the truth when I tell you it works, I am
> deliberately lying, I have not really been playing this convention for
> 25 years, I have not seen it develop, I have not seen an absence of
> flaws in it, I am trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Trust me
> never.
>
> Or perhaps you could try it the way I suggested?
The simple answer to this is that if Asptro were any use at all, which it
is not, it would be played by leading experts both in this country and
abroad. But this does not happen. No one beyond these shores plays the
wretched method at all, and the people who play it in England are, shall we
say, not quite of the first rank. Like the rest of what passes for standard
English bidding, it is an idea whose time has gone.
David Burn
London, England
Mark Lehto
>
> "David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7uMUJSBi...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> > deliberately lying, I have not really been playing this convention for
> > 25 years, I have not seen it develop, I have not seen an absence of
> > flaws in it, I am trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Trust me
> > never.
> >
> > Or perhaps you could try it the way I suggested?
>
> is not, it would be played by leading experts both in this country and
> abroad. But this does not happen. No one beyond these shores plays the
> wretched method at all, and the people who play it in England are, shall we
> say, not quite of the first rank. Like the rest of what passes for standard
> English bidding, it is an idea whose time has gone.
>
> David Burn
> London, England
What do experts play abroad (and here) then? As a not-quite-first-rank
player
I tend to like asptro or natural. But of course I have to be welded to a
penalty double.
--
Mark Lehto
Email: M.L...@sheffield.ac.uk, M.L...@cern.ch
Web: http://cern.ch/lehto
Tel: 07941 375 757 (Mobile)
Gordon Rainsford
> Mark Lehto wrote:
> >What do experts play abroad (and here) then? As
> >a not-quite-first-rank player I tend to like asptro or natural.
> >But of course I have to be welded to a penalty double.
>
>
> Before the Maastricht Olympiad I was asked to summarise
> the CCs of Australia's 55 opposing pairs. DONT, various
> forms of Hamilton (e.g. 2C = one-suiter, 2D = majors, 2M
> = M + minor) and some home grown gadgets were popular.
> The weaker teams tended to play other methods.
>
> Of course David Burn would have first hand experience, and
> from a different section from Australia's one, so his comments
> would increase this rough survey to over 100 of the pairs at
> Maastricht.
>
> Peter Gill
> Australia.
What do you play from choice, Peter?
Does it vary according to their NT?
Chris Ryall
>Like the rest of what passes for standard
>> English bidding, it is an idea whose time has gone.
>>
>> David Burn
>> London, England
>
>player
>I tend to like asptro or natural. But of course I have to be welded to a
>penalty double.
I don't think we can have any sensible discussion on English methods
against 1NT without remembering the EBU's ex-cathedra edict that 2nd
position double *has* to be penalties in virtually all its competitions.
This against 12-14 NT (not a bad method) 10-12 NT (they always take out
and are one step ahead already in the part score battle) and against a
15-17 (or even eg. 17-19!) NT (whatever for)?
Perhaps I am more optimistic than Mark, but I'm grateful that "they"
don't specify my lead as well.
Peter Gill
>What do experts play abroad (and here) then? As
>a not-quite-first-rank player I tend to like asptro or natural.
>But of course I have to be welded to a penalty double.
Peter Gill
>Does it vary according to their NT?
The last time my regular partner and I played together (in 1998),
we played Aspro because that's what he like/s(/d?). As he lives
in London and I live in Sydney, it will be interesting for me to find
out if we still play Aspro in January at the Oz Natonals which is
our next game together.
In the last two years I have become a bit of a convert to Hamilton
style methods, despite having played Aspro for about 20 years.
At the moment for me, the jury's still out, but the new methods do
seem to have advantages over the older ones.
Peter Gill
Australia.
Mark Lehto
>
> Gordon Rainsford wrote:
> >
> >What do you play from choice, Peter?
> >Does it vary according to their NT?
>
> The last time my regular partner and I played together (in 1998),
> we played Aspro because that's what he like/s(/d?). As he lives
> in London and I live in Sydney, it will be interesting for me to find
> out if we still play Aspro in January at the Oz Natonals which is
> our next game together.
>
> In the last two years I have become a bit of a convert to Hamilton
> style methods, despite having played Aspro for about 20 years.
> At the moment for me, the jury's still out, but the new methods do
> seem to have advantages over the older ones.
>
> Peter Gill
> Australia.
Looks like I will have to get to Australia - according to David
Stephenson's
article on defenses to 1NT
(http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_lnks.htm#syscon)
Hamilton isnt EBU level 2 or 3 allowed. Though I can see why it might
have advantages.
Peter Gill
>Looks like I will have to get to Australia - according to David
>(http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_lnks.htm#syscon)
>Hamilton isnt EBU level 2 or 3 allowed. Though I can see
>why it might have advantages.
In the November 2000 issue of "Australian Bridge" magazine,
Peter Jamieson has written an article called "Defences to 1NT".
In it, the leading bridge teachers in Oz's biggest cities told PJ
that they teach:
Perth - DONT over strong, Cappeletti over weak to advanced's
- Landy to improvers
Brisbane - DONT over strong, Splash over weak (intermediates)
Tasmania - Landy, Brozel and Cappeletti at different levels
Lindfield (North Sydney) - Hamilton for intermediate players
Sydney - a variation of Hamilton for intermediate lessons
Melbourne - DONT and Cappeletti are popular but some
players still use Astro, Aspro and Landy (no info on lessons)
Adelaide - nothing specific. Landy for beginners, with advanced
players being shown Cappeletti, Aspro, Ripstra & Canape Transfers.
No wonder we come across DONT and Cappeletti so often here.
At the end of the series of articles (three installments),
PJ concludes that RCO is probably best followed by Lionel
(a NZ invention) then Cappeletti (= Hamilton, Pottage) and
DONT. In his opinion after a considerable survey. RCO is
Klinger's method and Lionel is Lionel Wright's method which
many top NZ players now use.
Peter Gill
Sydney.
Gordon Rainsford
Bruce...@nospam.akamail.com
: Barry Rigal and Sue Picus <sue-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
{Several confusing messages with Barry indicating that asptro, as
commonly played, get you to the wrong major fit}.
I'm sorry that I haven't *quite* followed all this. I've recently begun
playing a similar method, where after big 1C=1D, 2C shows hearts. The
context here seems to be that opponent opened a 12-14 1NT and we're
intervening.
Hold that thought -- I think I've got it!
First case. Intervenor holds a 5=4=3=1 hand. Advancer holds 3=3=5=2.
The auction begins (1N)-2C. The writeups I've seen say that advancer
bids 2H. This allows the partnership to play the 4-3 instead of the
5-3. David says that with this pattern advancer is to bid 2D. This
allows the partnership to play the 5-3 fit. It seems that Barry is
assuming a 2H advance.
Second case. Intervenor holds 1=4=3=5. Advancer still holds 3=3=5=2.
The auction begins (1N)-2C. Playing David's methods, intervenor rebids
3C. He has avoided the major suit *and* the 8 card diamond fit; worse,
he's at the three level.
In the writeups I've seen, advancer bids 2H with 3+H unless holding
extra values. This means that in the first case, one plays the 4-3
heart fit instead of the 5-3 spade fit. In the second case, one plays
the 4-3 heart fit at the two level instead of the 5-2 club fit at the
three level.
I'm not sure which method is "better" on average. If I at least have
found the right question, perhaps others with better skills could
comment.
Bruce
--
Bruce Moore
Mentor on the Lake, OH
Bruce...@NOSPAM.akamail.com on OKB since 1993 - brucej
Peter Gill
>Peter Gill wrote:
>> PJ concludes that RCO is probably best followed by Lionel
>> (a NZ invention) then Cappeletti (= Hamilton, Pottage) and
>> DONT. In his opinion after a considerable survey. RCO is
>> Klinger's method and Lionel is Lionel Wright's method which
>> many top NZ players now use.
>>
>> Peter Gill
>> Sydney.
>
RCO: X (or 2NT over a weak NT) = odd suits, 2C = same
rank, 2D = same colour. The lack of a suit for LHO to cue
makes their bidding tricky. This same "lack of an anchor suit"
may make the method illegal in some areas. Ron Klinger and
Kieran Dyke used this method when they won Australia's
Grand National Teams Championship a week ago.
Lionel: X = 4+ spades, 11+HCP, and another 4+ suit;
2C = clubs and hearts, 2D = diamonds and hearts,
2H and 2S are natural, 2NT = minors. Invented by Lionel
Wright when he lived in New Zealand (he now lives in London).
Peter Gill
Sydney Australia.
David Stevenson
While you have managed to find a case where the methods I espouse do
not find the best fit, I really do not think any defence of the hearts
and another suit type expect to find fits in advancers suits.
Asptro, played the way I say, will find an 8 card fit if one is
available in one of overcaller's suits.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~