[eyalk5]

Wanted to share my cheat-sheet that uses standard 2/1 conventions, with some that I like more.

I use look at it during games so that I won't have to remember everything.

It should be pretty comprehensive. Generated using AI (latex , can share the tex file as well).
There is printable version and colored one.

Included:

• Regular Responses and Rebids: Per Standard 2/1 bidding system
  
  
• 1NT forcing system
  
  
• Competitive bidding arsenal: Cappelletti , Michaels cuebids and Unusual 2NT, overcall strategies
  
  
• Multiple double types: Takeout, negative, responsive, support (X/XX), and maximal doubles
  
  
• Inverted minors, new minor forcing , and other conventional bids
  
  
• Advanced slam bidding: Roman Key Card Blackwood 1430 with void-showing, control-showing cuebids with bypass logic, serious 3NT convention, and Last Train
  
  
• Defensive foundations: signals, opening lead strategies

PS. Also let me know if there are any mistakes in there.

Enjoy!


(you can go to Repo for some more details & contribution )

[mike777]

You look at it, during the game, between hands? Sounds exhausting..pls relax..

[jillybean]

It sounds like a resource that would be useful for online play

[mikeh]

So long as your opps know that you’re using notes during the auction, no problem. But in any kind of serious game, you’re cheating if you’re not disclosing. Ok, I do understand that looking at system notes while playing is one of the most common breaches of how one is supposed to play, but that doesn’t make it right…again, if the opps don’t know. Personally, I play a 15 board set practice match once a week, and we all talk about what’s going on and I’ll have my 160 pages of notes at hand…but usually I can’t find the bit I need in time, lol


As for whether you’ve made any mistakes…system choices aren’t really mistakes unless you have two contradictory notes. I would say, however, that I don’t think there is a good player anywhere in the world who plays cappelletti over 1N. I think the reason so many non experts play it is because it’s what the GIB robots play on BBO. It’s theoretically unsound. Having to bid 2C on any one suiter makes it difficult for partner if responder bids, and using 2D for both majors means partner has to guess when he holds equal length, unless 2D promises 5-5, which is too restrictive specially at favourable vulnerability. There are many better methods. Multi Landy or Meckwell are both fairly popular amongst more advanced players

[awm]

mikeh, on 2025-December-14, 16:52, said:

So long as your opps know that you’re using notes during the auction, no problem. But in any kind of serious game, you’re cheating if you’re not disclosing. Ok, I do understand that looking at system notes while playing is one of the most common breaches of how one is supposed to play, but that doesn’t make it right…again, if the opps don’t know. Personally, I play a 15 board set practice match once a week, and we all talk about what’s going on and I’ll have my 160 pages of notes at hand…but usually I can’t find the bit I need in time, lol


As for whether you’ve made any mistakes…system choices aren’t really mistakes unless you have two contradictory notes. I would say, however, that I don’t think there is a good player anywhere in the world who plays cappelletti over 1N. I think the reason so many non experts play it is because it’s what the GIB robots play on BBO. It’s theoretically unsound. Having to bid 2C on any one suiter makes it difficult for partner if responder bids, and using 2D for both majors means partner has to guess when he holds equal length, unless 2D promises 5-5, which is too restrictive specially at favourable vulnerability. There are many better methods. Multi Landy or Meckwell are both fairly popular amongst more advanced players

When I started to play tournament bridge in the 1990s in California, virtually everyone was playing Cappelletti and/or DONT vs. notrump openings. This was around the time BBO came into existence and well before the popularity of robot bridge. In fact, even when I left the US in 2017, Cappelletti was a pretty common defence to notrump in local clubs and tournaments (at the time, ACBL still disallowed the multi-landy 2♦ overcall in most events).

While I agree with you that Cappelletti is not a very good defence, I don't think the reason non-experts play it is because of robot bridge. The non-expert game is usually a number of years behind what the top players do, and ACBL's restrictions on allowed methods slow the process even further. If anything, the robots play Cappelletti because it's popular and most people know it. It would be pretty easy to program the robots to play something else; in fact there's a regular robot game on BBO ("Challenge des Villes") where the robots play French Standard.

[eyalk5]

Hi,
I did say I looked it during the games. I do it quite seldom, mostly for the less frequent stuff and to double check. I don't see why it would be forbidden (even in the real world).

In any case, hopefully you find it useful (either before or during games).

[jillybean]

eyalk5, on 2025-December-15, 18:27, said:

Hi,
I did say I looked it during the games. I do it quite seldom, mostly for the less frequent stuff and to double check. I don't see why it would be forbidden (even in the real world).

In any case, hopefully you find it useful (either before or during games).

Law 40 D prohibits memory aids
Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player is not entitled to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique during the auction period and play.

But the Laws say many things that we ignore, so don't let that stop you.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-December-16, 07:10, said:

Law 40 D prohibits memory aids
Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player is not entitled to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique during the auction period and play.

But the Laws say many things that we ignore, so don't let that stop you.

The Laws also say many things that contradict what they say about memory aids, such as being obliged to place trumps on the right and being free otherwise to arrange the suits in any order of choice (not always just to irritate partner).

Be that as it may, fortunately many RAs do provide otherwise for explicit teaching situations and even some for checking one's own system card during online play (though why the distinction vs face to face beats me). I'm all in favour of players being able to check what they told the world, particularly if it incentivates them to actually document their agreements and follow them

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-December-16, 14:41, said:

The Laws also say many things that contradict what they say about memory aids, such as being obliged to place trumps on the right and being free otherwise to arrange the suits in any order of choice (not always just to irritate partner).

Be that as it may, fortunately many RAs do provide otherwise for explicit teaching situations and even some for checking one's own system card during online play (though why the distinction vs face to face beats me). I'm all in favour of players being able to check what they told the world, particularly if it incentivates them to actually document their agreements and follow them

Are you suggesting it is acceptable to check after you explain and have responded to partners artificial call?

[thepossum]

 mikeh, on 2025-December-14, 16:52, said:

... I’ll have my 160 pages of notes at hand…but usually I can’t find the bit I need in time, lol ....

I always did much worse in open book exams too lol

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-December-17, 03:28, said:

Are you suggesting it is acceptable to check after you explain and have responded to partners artificial call?

I am suggesting it could be acceptable (outside formal competition) to check your own system card at any time. This also allows zero tolerance of misleading explanations, which is another step in the right direction. There are some awkward implications to sort out (e.g. announce an intentional deviation, AI to partner?), but no worse than the current mess when people forget/invent agreements. Also requires regulations to cutoff system card from detailed development of conventions, which should not be open book. It could be done and I think club players would understand and follow the spirit of the initiative.

But the priority is in at least making open card normal and accepted in teaching/mentoring situations, where the objective is learning, not pure competition.

[Gerardo]

pescetom, on 2025-December-16, 14:41, said:

The Laws also say many things that contradict what they say about memory aids, such as being obliged to place trumps on the right and being free otherwise to arrange the suits in any order of choice

Anyone can ask what the contract is (including what trumps are) at any time.

So a way to always shows what suit is trumps is not that big of a deal, is it?

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-December-24, 08:28, said:

But the priority is in at least making open card normal and accepted in teaching/mentoring situations, where the objective is learning, not pure competition.

This part I agree with, for the everything else we have Law 16.
If pairs are playing methods they can't remember they should be penalized accordingly. The Laws are there to protect the NOS, or should be if we decided it would be fair to everyone is the Laws were applied.

[pescetom]

 Gerardo, on 2025-December-24, 17:46, said:

Anyone can ask what the contract is (including what trumps are) at any time.

So a way to always shows what suit is trumps is not that big of a deal, is it?

No. But it's a memory aid, albeit mandatory.
Yet you can't always ask who doubled and you don't get to show that it was doubled, or the level.
And dummy does get the chance to leave you secret messages (such as "this is opponents' declared suit") with his choice of suit order.
And dummy can't remind you which hand you are in but can attempt to prevent you leading from the one you wrongly thought.
And in some places nobody complains if you write down the contract and lead, with notes about the auction, or even leave that where you could see it.

It's all a bit of a mess.

[thepossum]

Fortunately some of us only play relaxed friendly bridge free of such concerns

I think I would be upset if opps were showing each other their hands but not much else

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-December-25, 04:49, said:

It's all a bit of a mess.

That's a bit of an understatement.