„most of the top US players go above and beyond in their ethical efforts.“ And others do not?

The promotion of Mr. Wilsmores book generates more comments then any bridge related article. It seems there is still a lot of frustration about the Italian dominance of 30-40 years ago. We know from recent cases how hard it is to prove cheating. Trying to make a case from matches that long ago is impossible. Some of the examples given may look strange, but then they were extraordinary players. Other examples are nonsense. Mr. Wilsmore probably hasn‘t used D.I., I have … without cheating as I have played Roman Club without cheating. BTW D.I. Was part of KSU. Is Mr. Wilsmore suggesting that the great (no sarcasm, I really think he‘s the greatest bridge theoretican of all times) Edgar Kaplan cheated?

Why depressing? Nothing has been proven and Mr. Wilsmores book will not prove anything either. The Australian Bridge Federation denied him the opportunity to promote his book, BW gave him this opportunity. Depressing?

Sour grapes, milady?

Even without frequent psyches X of 3♥ is penalty.
Avon, is this „Crusade against the Blue Team (part 2)“?

I would have doubled 3♠ for penalty.

Transfers and a transfer in their suit is Stayman.

If you don‘t envision game you pass 2♣. If you do - and that seems sensible to me - just ask yourself this question: what is the most likely game? The answer: the best minor suit game is 3N! What are your options? 1) 2N or 3♦ invitational. Looking at my hand I should play 3N, ergo bid 2N. 2) My choice 3N! Do I know if it makes? No, but neither can I be sure about 2N or 3♦.
As an aside, the problem with all the books you can buy, is that they are incomplete. You have to work on the details by yourself. Some complete systems are available for free on https://bridgewithdan.com/systems/ unfortunately none of them Polish Club based. IMO Ambra, Kokish-Kraft Notes and Revision Club are detailed enough to use without further work. As it is I prefer PC or rather my adaption even if it is „work in progress“. We are pretty satisfied, but room for improvement keeps coming up.
Your example shows that no matter how detailed your system is, there will be situations where you simply have to decide where you want to go. Then you just say to yourself „to hell with science, today I‘m going to be pragmatic“.

How is 4N help me find out if pard has 1, 2 or 3 aces? What will you do if pard bids 5♣, Pass or 6♣? If pard bids 5♦ you will bid 5♠ and pard is forced to bid 6♣ with 2263 but will pass with 3262. As Bas pointed out in the companion bidding problem, 4N then 5♠ over either 5♣ or 5♦ could be interpreted as a slam try in ♠ with ♥ control. I will make that an entry in the chapter „Various competitive situations“

Yes, 4N followed by 5♠ was my second choice. Bidding 4♠ or 5♠ never occurred to me.

One lie is as good as the other. This is why I don‘t play 4SF (or 3SF for that matter) in the traditional way. I can bid 2♠ as a neutral bid and pard will tell me why he bid 4SF. This could be 1) 4crd ♠, no ♥-stop, 2) 5crd ♠ with or without ♥-stop, 3) slam try in ♣, ♦ or ♠, 4) 5♠-4♥ (I could be 1444). But even if you do play traditional 4SF, you should define follow-ups and if you do you will find out that you have lots of different follow-ups depending upon the first 4 bids.

Considering the crap people bid with these days, I don‘t think it‘s a good idea.

No, he’s a good player, but at times stuck on what he learned as a beginner. We get along very well, but sometimes I need the help of BW to sort out our differences (sometimes he‘s right and I‘m wrong!). In the parallel poll on high level negativ e doubles 13 out of 100 voters agree with his interpretation of a negative double on 4♥, even if that doesn‘t mean that they would have doubled with my hand.

Apart from a few minority votes, the choice seems to be between 4♠ and 6♠. My bid was 6♠ and pard with 4144 and both pointed aces decided to be a hero. Unfortunately LHO dutyfully led ♥K.

X of 2N: usually balanced 10+, creates a force, pard should pass with 2/3, X with 3/4, bid with 0/1.
Pass then X: Penalty for the suit doubled, not necessarily for the other suit.

There are three different issues then:
1) am I to strong to open 4♥? I‘d never open 4♥ with two aces, too much defence.
2) if I open 1♥ will I rebid 3♦ because ♦ will play better then ♥? Hardly ever IMHO.
3) if I open 1♥ will I try for slam if pard can help in ♦? ♦ should be headed by A or K I think.

Exactly!

I agree with John. I rate the hand 13+, K&R says 12.85.

If I bid 3♣ pard already knows that 3N is not my primary interest, so if s/he still bids 3N it‘s for a reason. if I‘m still interested in a ♣-slam I‘d bid 4♣, but I can also bid 4♦ completing the pattern or a quantitive 4N etc. Hands with 5♠ start with 2♥.
The benefit is that a space consuming bid is better defined. After 1♦-2♣ the main goal is often 3N. We primarily bid stoppers, not distribution. Knowing where partners strength is helps to decide if we take our chances above 3N. We may still end up in 4M on a Moysian if 3N is not playable.
Our 3rd/4th suit forcing structures follow the same principles in all situations, which is another advantage.