[blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Steve Willner:

>Why did no one discuss "suggested over another?"  Suppose you
>believe the 4S bidder (who holds a strong hand, not a weak
>preempt) has forgotten NAMYATS and was reminded by partner's
>alert (UI).  Why does that suggest 6S over double?  The
>director asserts that it does but gives no reason.

Richard Hills:

If I had been the TD, I would have given this reasoning:

(1) Given the matchpoint scoring in use, going -800 in 5Sx
would be a bottom if North-South cannot make 6H.

(2) Opposite a weak-or-strong 4S, partner might make a slightly
pushy 5C lead-director.

(3) But opposite an always-weak 4S, partner will have full value
for their 5C lead-director, due to the greater risk of -800.

Ergo, an alerting partner will tend to hold more values than a
non-alerting partner, thus demonstrably suggesting that a "glass
is half full" optimist should bid to 6S, rather than score a
mere +500 defending 6H doubled.

On the other hand, the actual East was a pessimist, as they
apparently expected 6H to make, so bid 6S as a "glass is half
empty" sacrifice, rather than score a mere -1430 defending 6H
undoubled.

So, who are East's peers for determining what was demonstrably
suggested by West's alert?  Must we poll Eeyore and Marvin the
Paranoid Android?

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285