Apollo81

I'd pass again.

Agree, and I think one table in slam is about normal for most fields. Most Souths wouldn't think to cuebid.

This is a maximum 2♠ bid; this bid has a significantly wider range than 3♠ because partner can invite over it.

Just 5♣. I don't like the semibalanced nature of the hand, nor do I like the minor honors I hold in every outside suit.

I blame mostly North.

2♠

If it starts (1♦) p (1♠) then South will have to choose between a super-heavy 1NT and an offshape double. I might choose the super heavy notrump if not playing some ridiculous convention that deprives me of such a bid.

North 100%. If South has ♣AK he will always bid the slam after a superaccept, so North should cue 4♦ and pass a 4♥ bid.

1♠, and rebid 3NT over a 1NT response. Dare I say WTP?

5♥

When holding 13 cards in a suit, don't sell out below the 7-level.

Here's what I would do over each possible response - bad hand, bad suit: 3♠ - good hand, bad suit: 4♠ - good suit: 3NT (we can count 9 tricks on a non spade lead if spades are 3-2)

I think North has the heart length, south probably has 5 spades since he has the ♦K also and he only had ♠KJ

2♠ What other call are you considering? We don't want to unilaterally set trumps via 3♠ on this hand, and the hand is inappropriate for 4♠ too.

Double doesn't feel right either!

I'd have passed.

2♦

Good one. I think I'd pass, but it really feels wrong.

4♥

Pass. I agree with awm's thinking here.

For me the less bridge I play the more rusty I am, and the harder I have to work at routine things. Other games don't seem to help.

We get to blame partner for the final decision! I thought that was the point of post-mortems.

You know you can also cuebid 3♥ right? You don't need two cuebids, but you might need a natural bid in a suit you couldn't bid naturally at your last turn.

But isn't it more like 0.44% in this case? Well South can't have six spades (else would have overtaken partner's jack). Therefore South has AQ987 at best and maybe a queen or two, or he has the ♦A. I bet a lot of people would only double with the ♦A also with such a (relatively speaking) poor spade suit; people seem to be very concerned about being rewound in my experience.

Person A argues that 20-23 are early 20s, 24-26 are mid 20s, 27-29 are late 20s, and that evenly dividing the three ranges makes the most sense. Person B argues that if you are 20 or 21 you would never identify as "early 20s" because our society places special emphasis on age 21, thus those are omitted and that the ranges are 22-24, 25-27, and 28-29. Person B concedes that person A's argument is valid for ages starting with the 30s. Who's right? And a followup question: is person B right about ages 20-21