Play to make, or play to go (not too many) down?
(Page of 2)

A team-mate gave me this deal - Swiss Teams, short matches.  There's a narrow question and a broader one.

North
AKJ
1063
1053
Q1032
South
63
QJ9842
A7
J84
W
N
E
S
P
1
2
X
3
P
P
P

Question One:  How do you approach the play?

PTO

In answering question one, you may well have considered the probability of being able to make the contract (and the extra risk you might need to take to do so) - but to what degree?

Question Two:  In general, for IMP scoring, where are you on a spectrum between

• Play to make the contract (almost*) always, hence focus most energy on trying to find the best (any?) line
• ...
• Judge what you think is likely to have happened at the other table, the probability of each possible outcome at both tables then calculate the exact IMP odds implied to be at stake and take what you judge to be the mathematically optimal approach for the contract?

This is not a theoretic question - having infinite time, infinite mental energy with both perfect knowledge and judgement of the action at the other table, we'd all go for the mathematically optimal approach - but we don't have any of the above.  Hence it becomes a practical choice of sorts.

* there are some contracts where even a zealot of this approach will not take a ridiculous risk for a highly unlikely make