[blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 17:26 25/09/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

>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.

When the case is intricated, I like to go back to essentials.

The explanation did give UI. So what ?

1. Would many players opt to defend 6H undoubled ? No.

2. Did UI CLEARLY suggest either double or 6S over the other ? No.
Richard's point about having more values for a 5C bid is important, but it 
also suggests 6H will go down quite a few. (Although, if the 5C bidder was 
my usual partner, you could forget the inference)

I've an empirical rule, as an AC member, that if the AC don't agree quickly 
on what was clearly suggested, nothing was.

So, who are we to disallow either double or 6S ?

Best regards,

    Alain.