[cnszsun]

Scoring: IMP

4♥-ps-ps-4♠
ps-ps-??

---

[Hanoi5]

I'd double and lead the ♣K.

[rogerclee]

Looks normal to bid 5♥ here, it's too easy for either 4♠ or 5♥ to be making in my opinion.

[neilkaz]

rogerclee, on Mar 7 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

Looks normal to bid 5♥ here, it's too easy for either 4♠ or 5♥ to be making in my opinion.

A tougher call for me, but I have to agree with you and try 5♥. When PD has 8 ♥ to the AK and RHO is void, my teammates may not like the double game swing.

BTW,Michael, this hand may have made a good poll.

[mtvesuvius]

Are we playing namyatS? Either way... I'll try 5♥, partner bid on the 4 level and I have 3 tricks and 3 trumps for him, what more could he want?

[CSGibson]

5♥.

[hanp]

Hanoi5, on Mar 7 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

I'd double and lead the ♣K.

[whereagles]

Held a hand just like that the other day. Then 5♥ was the right bid. Maybe it's still so

[Hanoi5]

Well I simulated 100 hands where opener had from 7 to 9 hearts headed by at least KQJ or AK and up to 12 HCP while advancer held 6 to 8 spades and 11 to 15. According to this simulation you score for your side 85 times if you let them play while you only score 48 times if you play at the 5 level. However, you win 23 imps (total of 100 hands) by bidding on instead of doubling; this is of course because in 15 deals they'll make 4♠x which is REALLY bad, especially since you could save.

So do you look at the imps or at the plus side of your score card? I also checked what happened if you didn't double and then you'd win more than 300 imps by bidding on (compared to doubling). I suppose the imps are the important thing anyway, right?

[fromageGB]

Well, my first reaction was to think it's a toss-up, so bid 5♥ as either can well make, but Hanoi's simulation makes it a clear cut 5♥. I see no reason to restrict advancer's hand to 8 spades, so if it could be more, then bidding on gains in validity.