Problem A is a great advertisement for why a person should subscribe to Bridge World. I thought I might mention that since I am sure they hope this thread gets them some customers.

I took up a subscription for Bridge World this year but I shall not be renewing it.
That is because I read for pleasure and enjoyment and personally I find that Bridge World
is more like hard work and I often end up on the computer playing the hands through on
BBO to get a better grasp of any point in a particular bridge deal. Further, it irritates
me exceedingly that the bidding tables show South on the left - instead of West.

For me it's the ACBL Bulletin every day of the week for pure enjoyment and for
the delight in seeing West's bids first.

Jock wrote on A: He HAS 5 running tricks.

To justify a 5♦ bid, you are presuming partner is strong, in which
case why did partner not simply bid 3♥? Since ours was just a
one-level overcall a 3♥ bid would be non-forcing constructive. If
partner is strong and fears that a 3♥ bid might be passed,
then bidding 3♦ is fine because partner can bid again with
a stronger hand.

Problem E. So you raise to 3♦ and end up in a 3-3 fit if partner bid 1♦ with a hand like in problem C.
Pretty. 

A - pass. The bidders must be assuming that partner holds 18+ points because with any less I can't see us wanting to be in game. And if the opposition can be trusted just a little (11 points with East, 5 with West) partner can't have more than 17.

B - 2♥.

C - 2NT, probably not the bid I'd make at the table but experts frequently bid notrumps with an unstopped suit, so why not with two unstopped suits?

D - dble. The passers assume opener will reopen but why should that be the case if partner has just a normal minimum hand?

E - 1♠, again probably not the bid I'd make at the table but sometimes these panellists can get quite adventuresome.

F - 1NT, as with problem C this is about describing the general hand shape rather than guessing the right suit contract to play in.

G - 3♣. I don't buy into the argument that we are changing a potential plus score into a minus one, would seem to me to be a clairvoyant's view. If a partner who passed initially is unable to balance then bidding 3♣ now could do the reverse, change a minus score into a plus one.

H - ♥K.

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: Redouble
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade
PROBLEM D: (b2)
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: 3 Spades
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace

These “dog that didn’t bark” clues lead me to believe partner has something like:
Jxxx — Jx — AKJx — QJx
Even giving partner more, say:
Jxxx — Tx — AKJx — AQJ

I wish I could say I'm convinced. Bidding 3NT with either of those hands means that
partner is relying on being able to run nine tricks after the spade stopper is knocked
out at trick 1. That is why I can't help thinking that partner really needs two spade
stoppers, something like K-10-x-x, to justify a jump when 3NT could otherwise be
reached in a more stately fashion.

And if you are giving partner J-x in hearts (not possible because I've got the jack)
or 10-x in hearts, then why not Q-x? In that case the second example is looking far
more likely. Partner can't know your spades are as good as they are, so wouldn't
partner first ponder over whether 4♥ gives a better matchpoint result than
3NT with a reasonable doubleton in support of hearts.

Modify it further as:
♠ K-10-x-x   ♥ Q-x    ♦ A-J-x-x   ♣ A-J-x
and do you still think it is right to pass?

Your Solutions for the June 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 4 Spades
PROBLEM D: (b2)
PROBLEM E: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
 

I'm dithering on problem D as well. In standard methods a reverse bid is not only forcing, but also promises
that the opener will bid once more unless responder jumps to game. So do I misdescribe the shape of my hand
with a 1NT opening bid, do I overbid via (b3), or do I go quietly via (b2)? I think I've convinced myself to go on
the low road.
Oliver