[eyalk5]

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

It should be pretty comprehensive. Generated using AI (latex , can share the tex file as well) .

Enjoy!

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

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

[pescetom]

At very first sight, there is some discussable stuff in there (although quite possibly still standard for intermediates in NA):

- Cappelletti instead of the much sounder MultiLandy
- the dreadful 2NT response to 2♣ showing points and a balanced hand
- pessimistic and over-generalized requirements for 6 and 7 level
- vague and unrealistic Penalty double

[eyalk5]

Thanks. To the point(s):
- hmm, it seems better. hard as it is to find partners that know Cappelletti.
- what is your suggestion?
- yeh, might remove that. Know what to check.
- removed in my version.

Btw, did I miss any important sequence?

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2025-December-05, 13:29, said:

At very first sight, there is some discussable stuff in there (although quite possibly still standard for intermediates in NA):

- Cappelletti instead of the much sounder MultiLandy
- the dreadful 2NT response to 2♣ showing points and a balanced hand
- pessimistic and over-generalized requirements for 6 and 7 level
- vague and unrealistic Penalty double

THIS

[pescetom]

 eyalk5, on 2025-December-05, 14:25, said:

Thanks. To the point(s):
- hmm, it seems better. hard as it is to find partners that know Cappelletti.
- what is your suggestion?

If you mean that Cappelletti seems better than Multilandy, then I respectfully suggest you are nuts Check out the system cards of pros to see how many play which.

My suggestion for 2C-2NT? Both minors, or anything equally unlikely. The important thing is not to preempt the opener by making it near impossible to describe his hand in time and by wrongsiding NT. If both hands are balanced and there is a quantitative decision to be made then it is Opener who should be describing his range and Responder who should be deciding.

I skipped over a lot of the sequences and stuff like Jacoby 2NT which I dislike but understand are still the works over there.

The control-bid section is a bit of a mess, with no decision about how to use 3NT within a sequence and some AI nonsense in the examples.

[awm]

As with many things generated using AI, there are some mistakes that need to be corrected. From my quick proofread:

In the "Overcalls" section, the cuebid example doesn't make sense.

The response to weak two bids don't quite make sense -- having a point count for an obstructive raise to 3 just seems weird, and while I see the "15+ HCP for 2NT" requirement in Germany it seems pretty strange even if you don't occasionally "psych" the 2NT ask. Note that there is no bid with 14 points since raise is 6-13 and 2NT starts at 15.

The 2♣ section says 14+ HCP 9+ tricks, but then all opener's rebids start at 17.

The quick reference says 3NT is 25-27 balanced but the section about 2♣ says that 2♣ followed by 3NT is the same range.

The Jacoby Transfers section indicates that transfers to minors show slam interest, but it's quite normal to be able to use them to sign off in a minor.

In the Roman Keycard Blackwood section, in response to the queen ask one shouldn't show a king that's above six of the trump suit.

In the "Doubles" section, it says that with 10+ cuebid the opponents suit, but the usual treatment is that the cuebid shows either a game force or both suits of the same rank, not just a random 10-12 (which normally would jump in a suit or bid 2NT).

In the "Doubles" section, the maximal double description and example don't mesh -- the description suggests it's only maximal when you can't bid below game (should anyway be below three of our trump suit), but in the example auction you definitely have bids below three of our trump suit available.

In the "Responses to one of a suit", you have new suits at the two level marked as "SAYC 10+" but the document is supposed to be about 2/1 GF. Also jump shifts are marked as "17-19" but actually (assuming strong jumps) there should be no upper limit. It also seems random to play 1♣-2♦ as invitational but all the other jump shifts are strong (you could possibly have this agreement, but it seems quite unusual). Altogether this section is not very consistent (for example it says 3-level raise is invitational but then later it seems like 1M-3♦ is the limit raise; it says 1M-3♣ is 13-16 with 4+ trump but then 1M-2NT is also 13+ jacoby with 4+ trump, etc).

The "inverted minors" section is not consistent with the "responses to one of a suit" section, since the latter says 1m-3m is invitational.

The "splinter bids" section should say "double jump in new suit" and not just "jump in new suit."

The "NT bidding conventions" section includes a lot of nonsense, such as jump response to 3M showing 10-15 points and to play (which makes no logical sense). It's also quite inconsistent with the "jacoby transfers" section (i.e. is 2NT natural and invitational or transfer to diamonds?). This section also includes 3M rebids after stayman (which again I guess you could play but they are highly non-standard).

The "1NT forcing" section suggests that 1NT denies a 3-card fit (even though you seem to have no other way to bid with a 3-card limit raise, which most 2/1 players include in 1NT) and also that it denies 4+ in the other major (likely true over 1♥ but certainly not true over 1♠). Opener's rebid of "two of the other major" is described as 5+/5+ and 16-18, which is entirely untrue (rebidding hearts after opening spades can be much weaker and certainly doesn't show five hearts; rebidding spades after opening 1♥ should be 16+ points but will not be 5/5; it could be 6♥-5♠ but usually will be only 5-4 or 6-4). There is also no mention of the possibility of opener rebidding a three-card minor (even two with 4-5-2-2) which is a core part of the forcing notrump. In the "responder rebids" part of this section, 2♠ is mentioned as artificial F1, which is fine when opener's suit is HEARTS but doesn't really make sense when opener's suit was SPADES. There is also no mention of rebidding 2NT or raising to three of opener's second suit, both of which are common actions with responder's 10-12 point hands.

The "jacoby 2NT" section suggests that three-of-a-suit bids are 5+ side suits, but also that three of the other major is a singleton. This is quite unclear as to the meaning of three of the other major, and also leaves you with no bid on shapes like 3541 (no five-card side suit, no minor suit void, not balanced). The normal way to play jacoby is that three of a new suit is shortness (singleton or void) and four of a new suit is 5+/5+; obviously different agreements are possible but the agreements in this box don't really make sense.

The "2/1 game forcing" section has an odd exception for 1♠-2♣ (but not 1♥-2♣?). Also, it seems to miss the point of 2/1 GF, which is that don't have to jump around to show extras (because you know that you are forced to game). Many of opener's rebids here seem drawn from Acol or something (where you have to jump to show extras because basically none of opener's rebids are forcing) and this is not at all the style of 2/1 bidders.

The "showing 5/5 and 6/5 in 2/1" section is complete nonsense; the auctions given aren't even 2/1 (they are minor suit raise auctions) and the rebids given do not show 5/5 or 6/5. In general you shouldn't be jumping around like this in 2/1 auctions; you can just bid your second suit at the two-level and then bid it again at next turn.

The "control showing cuebids" section is all about the modern (sometimes called Italian-style) cuebidding methods; the only thing that looked really weird here was the 4NT bid not being RKC... however, this section conflicts with what you say about cuebidding in the "jacoby 2NT" section which seemed to be the older (American-style) cuebidding of aces first.

In the "opening leads" section, you say to lead A from AK except K with "ace from AK" which seems exactly wrong. The lead of K from KJTx is also extremely weird (standard here is to lead the jack). You list all three possibilities for leads from three small (low, middle/MUD and high from worthless holdings) when you need to pick just one. Against suit contracts, you have the lead of ace from ATx(x) which is quite weird (most people try to avoid leading unsupported aces) and say to avoid trump leads "except from strong holdings" (which doesn't really make sense, you will rarely have a strong TRUMP holding that you want to lead away from, it's more that you lead trumps to protect your strong holding in opener's second suit).

[jillybean]

I see that AI is not comparable to AWM

[barmar]

In response to 2♣ most people play that a natural suit shows 5+ and 2 of the top 3 honors in the suit, not just 5+ cards.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2025-December-05, 13:29, said:

- the dreadful 2NT response to 2♣ showing points and a balanced hand

While it's not my preference either, the BBO robots play this and it's not too horrible. You can't find 4-4 major fits (there's no Stayman available), but with 30+ and two balanced hands this may not a disaster.

[smerriman]

barmar, on 2025-December-06, 10:48, said:

the BBO robots play this and it's not too horrible. You can't find 4-4 major fits (there's no Stayman available), but with 30+ and two balanced hands this may not a disaster.

To quote a recent BW thread (though there 3♣ was Stayman, so presumably not GIB):

Quote

Why would anyone respond 2NT with that North hand? Make a 2♦ waiting bid like a sane person.
2NT: END OF PARTNERSHIP.
"Robot" -That says it all.
2N is a terrible bid.
Almost no good player would make this bid a part of his system.
That's obviously a terrible agreement.

Yes, if opener is balanced, it may not be a disaster, but then you would have been fine anyway. When opener isn't balanced, it almost always is a disaster.