Talk:Asptro convention

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asptro → Astro — Typo on page name. Actual text of page makes that clear 71.179.232.36 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Astro is a disambiguation page, I suggest that the move should be to Astro (convention) - which is a redlink on List of defenses to 1NT. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose clearly not the primary meaning of "astro" and overwriting a dab page for an obscure use is a bad idea. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because "asptro" is not necessarily a typo; according to this 2001 book, asptro is a combination of two other contract bridge bidding conventions, aspro and astro. --Una Smith (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further thought - when I read the list I referred to above properly, I see that "aspro", "astro", and "asptro" are all listed. Therefore, along with Una's point, the correction required is possibly not to the name of this article but to the content. As I know very little about Contract Bridge, I've left a message with the Contract Bridge Project (the existence of which I've only just discovered). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Astro and Asptro are distinct - albeit very similar coventions. The articke is correctly named. There's merely a typo in the name given in the body of the article, which I have now corrected. Asptro was far less popular than Astro, sp it's perhaps odd that it should have an article if Astro does not. See my comments at WT:WikiProject Contract bridge#Discussion at the article Asptro for further info. JH (talk page) 08:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Astro article

Astro (convention) has been created. Newwhist (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

I have revised and expanded this article heavily, relying on general knowledge plus the Move discussion archived here, including the comment by JH at WT:WikiProject Contract bridge#Discussion at the article Asptro. --P64 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2♥ response after 2♦

Firstly, I am the author of the first article on this convention on the internet as far as I am aware. I called it "astpro" at the time. In response to a 2♦ overcall showing spades and another suit, partner bids 2♥ on a hand that wants to play there if hearts is partner's other (and main) suit. The bid itself does not indicate heart length.

In general, I prefer that you make this response unless you have 4 spades or 3 spades and a singleton somewhere or a game-going hand. (This can include a hand that wants to go to game if partner has 5 hearts, even if you don't want to go to game on some other holdings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.95.5 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]