PhantomSac

I think passing the X is nuts, you are not even behind the heart bidder. I would bid 2N. Agree with passing as dealer in 2/1 but w/e.

I think Brink-Drijver have some method to show a worthless doubleton and a 3N bid also (I don't know if they still do but 99 % sure they had it come up vs me once).

lol, that is just standard Bocchi at the table, just tell him for a small fee you can give him some system coaching ;) Congrats on making it to the final day, that event is pretty epic when you look at all the great teams who get cut before then. It was pretty close who was a better group, the top 10 on day 2 or the bottom 10, and that is no knock on the top 10, it just goes to show how amazing the field is! And also teams like Fleisher etc that won the spingold last national didn't even make day 2.

What he's saying is you don't know who guards diamonds so you don't know whether to hook the club or play for the drop in the endgame.

It's quite possible gib looking at xx diamonds behind the AQJTxx and KT of hearts onside decided it had no prospects at all of getting tricks unless partner had the SA (which is at least somewhat reasonable).

Yes, he was a part of one of the most amazing real life "feats" ever!

True! lol, evolution is a thing! Transfers after transfers have also gotten much more involved now, in a good way :)

One meckwell improvement is to play 2n as puppet and 3c as diamonds, you lose inviting in diamonds but gain A) they can't double 3c for the lead B) you can put (31)(54) into puppet, over 3c no major you bid 3d to show that (partner asks), this frees up 1n-3M

Not saying I'd do it and it's definitely a huge play but it's possible to play for this layout. If LHO has 7 hearts they are presumably 4702 or 2722 (with 7321 they would lead their stiff most likely). If RHO has the AK of diamonds for their X LHO should have the SK for their bid. LHO having Kxx of spades means they have 6 hearts, 2H with Kxx QT8xxx xx Qx is pretty far out their r/w. But as you said, you make on 1/3rd of the Kx's this way anyway, and with an opp bad enough to lead a heart after the X it's tough to rely on their bidding too much. Playing them for Kxx of spades is definitely better than Txx of spades though... Txx requires a 2H bid on Txx QT8xxx xx Qx.

I don't think anyone (including myself and my team) is critical of the Spanish team for going to the directors when they viewed there to be an infraction. Does anyone really think that is what the issue is?

It is nice that you think it's cool to say things like this so nonchalantly. "I have hearsay evidence from my secret anonymous clearly biased source that he randomly overheard an anonymous director saying to an unknown person in passing that the USA team was going home one way or another." Cool story. The WBF in their own statement said "Max Bavin has investigated the claims of the Spanish team and found them to be unsubstantiated." (Max Bavin being the head director). I don't have a lot more to say about this subject but it is really ridiculous that you have not even learned from this that maybe you should be a little more careful with the things you say and the way you say them.

And why is that? The host country puts up half the money (I think) for the championship. If anyone should get a good draw via conspiracy its poland. Mr zimmerman of monaco also puts tons of money into bridge. China has been doing that as well recently, but I dunno, Europeans putting on a conspiracy for China seems far fetched to me. More likely the seeding committee was incompetent or the draw was unlucky. I definitely think the format was not transparent and opens the door for these conspiracy theories which is bad. It should be changed in the future, no doubt. However I still think the most logical explanation is that some groups were gonna be harder than the others. Just like I don't think the mafia had JFK killed. I could be wrong, but I believe that human nature is to find patterns (due to evolution) where they don't exist. People still have a hard time understanding randomness and probability because they want to find unfairness and patterns. I totally think the process was BS, but I also think we were equally likely to be placed in a tough group rather than the group of death, so even though there is more variance I don't think we have enough evidence to be suggesting bias or rigging. To be honest I don't care. I am going to try to focus on playing to half the standard of my partner and teammates in which case I know I'm going to be a world champion, regardless of draw. Playing that well is a tall order though!

FWIW our schedule is also front loaded and I'm personllly pumped about that. But like I said its just a personal thing and everyone is different.

It is expensive to go to these things, frequently in the olmypiad (and juniors) teams are trying to raise money hoping to go but if they can't raise it they have to drop out. Don't think the bridgewinners thread had anything to do with this. Some people like to get into their groove (play easy teams first). IMO it is better to play the tougher teams first so you know where you stand and what you need vs the weaker teams. Your strategy changes if youve done ok vs the good teams and don't need blitzes, vs if you need to have big wins at the end in order to qualify. Some people become demoralized because they are not at the top of the leader boards early after playing tough teams, some feel enegergized that the worst is behind them and they are about to kick some ass. It is all personal. I agree with just play well and hope it doesnt matter. At the end of the day youre going to have to play the same teams and the order really shouldn't matter that much. From my perspective I would not want to play 3 top teams in one day because that would mean one of our pairs possibly sitting out an entire day which I think is bad (playing each day seems good). But at the end of the day it's all pretty random and playing good bridge overcomes everything else. GL dude hope we meet in the finals :)

It is expensive to go to these things, frequently in the olmypiad (and juniors) teams are trying to raise money hoping to go but if they can't raise it they have to drop out. Don't think the bridgewinners thread had anything to do with this. Some people like to get into their groove (play easy teams first). IMO it is better to play the tougher teams first so you know where you stand and what you need vs the weaker teams. Your strategy changes if youve done ok vs the good teams and don't need blitzes, vs if you need to have big wins at the end in order to qualify. Some people become demoralized because they are not at the top of the leader boards early after playing tough teams, some feel enegergized that the worst is behind them and they are about to kick some ass. It is all personal. I agree with just play well and hope it doesnt matter. At the end of the day youre going to have to play the same teams and the order really shouldn't matter that much. From my perspective I would not want to play 3 top teams in one day because that would mean one of our pairs possibly sitting out an entire day which I think is bad (playing each day seems good). But at the end of the day it's all pretty random and playing good bridge overcomes everything else. GL dude hope we meet in the finals :)

If he has 6322 he will bid 4S and I will pass. I don't see the problem there.

People are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Over 3C east can just raise to 4C. We are never playing 3N, even if I bid 3S and partner bid 3N I would not sit with xxx diamonds that is nuts, I would bid 4C. 3S will be better when the 5-2 spade fit is better than playing in clubs so that is certainly a reasonable bid, but we have a great hand for a club slam and 4C will be the easiest way to get there. Our honor disparity in spades and clubs makes me think that spades will not be better that much more often to get me to bid 3S.

No finesse

Pass by east NF. And as much as I love bluffing the pass of a precision D X or a short C X, at this vul in particular you generally have very good long clubs for this pass or something very weak since it's very risky to pass with a good hand when you might have game.

I used to describe it as "4+ trumps too strong for a weak raise and too weak for a limit raise " but that never seemed to go over well. Now I just say "7-9 with 4 trumps but may be less HCP with compensating shape" which seems to work alright. I do think all of these things/definitions in this thread are roughly the same thing.

I dunno if I was declarer and I heard a wrong explanation and then didn't hear a correction and that persons partner then drew my attention to the "correction" I would be totally freaked out by that lol. I put correction in quotation marks not because I think you lied or anything obviously, but you can see the can of worms it opens. AFAIK it is the person who is alerting's duty to make sure the opp heard or saw the alert. I think the same should apply to explanations especially after a misexplanation. It is your partners fault if the opp did not fully understand the corrected explanation, and I think you're supposed to be silent and then eat it if your partner fails at that. I think it would be a bad precedent if both opps started talking in this kind of sensitive situation. Obviously the worst would be to not say anything and then to try and win the ruling by saying your partner corrected it though. I think taking the worst of it (like you did) is overall best in this type of situation, you (your partnership) is the offending side.

Yep this exactly

Saving is totally ridiculous IMO. You made them guess. Their suits are not breaking and you have K9xx of trumps. Try to set them.

Depends on the level of the opp but I can't imagine a club shift with Ax of hearts

I think it's a wtp X