1. If I recall correctly (pre-pend this comment to all of my remarks) Grue/Moss play Precision when NV, but 2/1 when Vul. My Take: A very fine pair, having studied both approaches in detail, has concluded that the relatives pluses and minuses are small enough so the choice comes down to details of circumstances. I find this fascinating.
2. I saw that some, I forget who, play CRASH over a big club. Crash must soon be eligible for Medicare. Updated perhaps? At any rate, I would be interested in seeing what defenses were actually used, how often they arose, how they worked out. It has occurred to me that some sort of Multi-Landy/Woolsey/Robinson/etc bids for 2♣ and 2♦ might be nice as a relatively safe and somewhat frequen opportunity to deprive the opponents of the one level responses.
3. Big clubbers have a somewhat, perhaps a very, nebulous 1♦ opening. This seems to get less attention than it should. If the nebulous 1♦ side buys the contract, the opponents may have a more difficult time with the defense because the auction was, perhaps, less fully disclosive of shape. Otoh a pre-empt, say a wjo of 2♠, against 1♦ might be more effective against the nebulous 1♦ than it would be against a more descriptive minor opening. But this is just me fantasizing with my morning coffee. In pactice what happens?
Anyway, we have this treasure trove of high level play. Seems like we need to do some exploration.
Btw, here is one of my favorite hands:
Board 15, first session, Kalita sitting E.
Perhaps I should have presented this w/o the NS hands showing, but presenting a puzzle is not my point here.
The opening lead is the 9♣, it goes 9-Q-2-3.
Then T ♥ from the board: T-K-A-2.
A spade to the Jack, back to hand playing the 8 (!), run spades, throw S in with a heart, getting the K♦ on an endplay.
There are reasons that these guys were in the finals. And won. Congratulations and thanks for the show.