These are my preliminary thoughts (with what I am leaning toward at the start of each).  Like Todd, I am still mulling over my final answer, and will submit by Sunday night).  This is the first time I have used the specific agreements mentioned by BW, and I hate thinking that I like the suggestions - so I will be trying hard to find something I like better for problems A and G.

Problem A:  2   The bid is non-forcing, it provides a reasonable lead director, I have 9 HCPs, and with Jx in I can tolerate a return to partner’s suit.

Problem B:  3 Part of my problem is that I anticipate partner rebid to show a weak hand with long s.  That means that a jump shift into is likely an overbid.  Similarly, 3 feels like an underbid until considering the anticipation.   

Problem C: 4   Having bid over 3NT, I consider this to be a slam try still looking for the best strain.  This completes my pattern with an inference of extras.   

Problem D:  2   I have working cards in both of partner’s suits, the ace of my suit, and a stiff .  I may not have the HCPs, but I do have the playing points.  Partner’s bid over 4SF may clarify everything or continue to muddy the water. also caters to the 4-5 opening to avoid a reverse without enough value.  Partner may give me a belated raise, though I think partner is much more likely to have a stiff on this auction (and given my hand) than three.  Perhaps pard will clarify which minor is longer.

Problem E:  Pass  I assume that 2 is non-forcing because partner is a passed hand and Problem A.  Partner should not introduce a new suit under these circumstances without five.  Although the suit or hand was not good enough to overcall directly, it should play reasonably opposite my hand.

Problem F:  1NT Choice between 1NT, double and 1 .  1 NT  tends to show more of my hand than the other bids – it shows my values and stopper, where 1 undervalues the hand and make it hard to recover and dbl may end up overvaluing my hand, particularly if I bid my over the anticipated call from partner.

Problem G:  4 NT  With partner bidding and RHO pre-empting in my stiff, I think partner has a real suit and asking for keycards will answer a lot of questions that can be answered.  I already know that we have a combined holding of 30+ HCPs, and the vulnerability suggests that most of partner’s HCP’s will not be in .  Let’s go with the known fit, and not worry about the s.

Problem H:  10   I often like leading aces against slams – read that it was a winning proposition most of the time.  This time, it is at best a 50% shot that the trick will not be ruffed, and could easily set up a couple of pitches for declarer at the same time. 

Your Solutions for the December 2018 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades  - 50
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump - 60
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds - 40
PROBLEM D: 5 Notrump - 60
PROBLEM E: Double - 100
PROBLEM F: Double - 90
PROBLEM G: Heart 10 - 80
PROBLEM H: Club Ace - 100
                                  580

What a brutal set.  Very few had second choices that scored 80 or better.  Under the circumstances, I am happy with a 580.  All of my selections were within the top three.. In the November contest, selecting the third choice across the board would have been a 560; this month with the same choice you would get a 410.

Congrats to Todd!!!  Second in the overall standings is fantastic, particularly on this set. WTG!

Your Solutions for the December 2018 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades  - I think this is the value bid and I am a bit concerned with using partner's 's with KQ tight.
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump - given the auction I have to live with, I will try signing off.  I wonder a bit if there might be a safe game or even a slam possibility.
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds - I don't quite have the shape of Problem A, but do have the strength.  I think the cue might be the right continuation, with a bid next.
PROBLEM D: 5 Notrump - With 4 NT natural, I feel like 5 NT should be forcing to slam, with an uncertain strain - pick a slam partner.
PROBLEM E: Double - an imperfect takeout, but you have to work with what you have.
PROBLEM F: Double - an imperfect negative double, but I think it shows where I have values and makes it easier to find NT.  If partner bids 's, I've played in worse Moysian fits.
PROBLEM G: Heart 10 - The A would give me a peek, and that was very tempting, but I felt like the broken sequence might have more chances to succeed.  I am hoping that if I am wrong, I will get a chance to try 's when I get in with the K .   
PROBLEM H: Club Ace - In the face of a preempt, I like to see the dummy before proceeding. 

I've also played mini-Roman.  The alert clearly said both majors, but I also mis-remembered the opener's call - it was 2 .  It said nothing about other suits.  Below, that bid is consistent with the first profile.  It is interesting that with as much (different) detail each profile has, neither says anything about an opening 3NT.

The profile for one player is:

Precision
1C=16+
Replies 1D=0-8 (if then 1H opener promise 19+ Points) Rest is Natural 16-18 Points
All other Replies are Game on and Bid till fit or 3NT
1D=11-15 (5 Clubs or 5 Diamonds)
1H=11-15 (5 Plus Hearts)
1S=11-15 (5 Plus Spades)
1NT=12-15 (Flat)
2C= 4 Clubs & 4 of any Major Weak 4-10 Points (2D reply asking for what Major)
2D= Transfer to Hearts 6+ Weak 4-10 Points
2H= Weak 4-10 Points both Majors (4+)
2S= Weak 4-10 Points 6+ Spades
Jump Overcall 10-14 points 6+ Suit

The other's profile:

1C=Maybe Short Club (Forcing)
1D=Maybe Short Diamond (Forcing)
1H=15+
1S=17+
1NT=19+
2C=21+
2D=23+
2H 6+ weak
2S 6+ weak

Weak 3 level 7  cards

Dlr: East
Vul: N-S

          North
            83
            63
            AQT9
            QJ852

West                    East
  9                       QJT62
  K975                 8
  85                     K6432
  AKT974              63

          South
            AK754
            AQJT42
            J7
           

Auction:
East      South   West   North       
    P        3 NT       P           P
    P

I am submitting this hand largely because I found the bidding perplexing. 

The pair was playing some Precision variation (but I was unaware of that when this hand came up).  3NT was alerted as gambling, and even with my rag of a West hand, I thought about balancing 4 , because typically a gambling 3NT is a solid minor and I might get a lucky fit. 

I got lucky by not bidding and finding us in the middle of a buzz saw.

I got unlucky because they were in the only makeable game.

I wasn’t going to bother with the play because with that opening bid, that dummy, and profiles that indicated beginners, I was dizzy trying to figure out what declarer held.  I suspect partner was in the same boat.  However, the play was more advanced than I normally would attribute to a beginner. 

Essentially, partner started a top , then shifted to a low .  Declarer then passed the J ,  which I ducked.  Next declarer led another , going up with the A, and now gave up a .  Normally, I expect a beginner to repeat a “proven” finesse.  Then if we can keep him off dummy, there are a total of five losers. 

Going up with the A assured the contract. 

I added my results for the November contest.  It looks like I got badly dinged for signaling when partner led the A and dummy showed up with the stiff K.  Otherwise, I feel pretty good about the results.

These are my entries for the November 2018 contest:


PROBLEM A: Double  90
PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump  100
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump  100
PROBLEM D: (b2)    50
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts  100
PROBLEM F: 5 Clubs  100
PROBLEM G: 4 Clubs  100
PROBLEM H: Club Ace  90

                                  730

I thought about this hand a bit more, and realized that the simplest way to make the hand is to duck the J lead altogether.  The defense has no effective counter.

If East also ducks, the KQ can be used for a ruffing finesse later for the pitch and the can be ruffed as originally planned.  West cannot effectively start the trump.  And if East overtakes to lead a trump through, the KQ takes care of the red suit losers without needing the squeeze.