I am surprised when you say that the first part of the Chicago Opener is not logical.
Personnaly, I think it is just a question of patter. When I perform Chicago Opener, I first ask the spectators if they know what a Transformist card is? Of course they don't, so I offer them to explain what it is. I ask them to pick a card and to put it back in the deck. Now I say that a transformist card is a card which back can change colour in just a snap. I snap my fingers and show them that one card and one card only has now a red back. Then I say:"Would it be a good trick if the only transformist card in the deck was precisely YOUR card? They agree and I show them that it is.
Then I say:"Now, I know what your are thinking, well, maybe not.(Sorry, this is in deed a Dan Fleshman line I think).
You are wondering what would have happened if you had chosen an other card. Well, I would have done an other trick.(Sorry once more, this is a Michael Ammar line I think this time). But let's try any way...
He picks an other card, forced of course, which is put back in the deck.
I now say:"Look, just a snap and here is our transformist card" I look through the deck and find no red card. So I say"Oh, but the transformist card in on the table not in the deck. What can I do? Well, as it is a transformist card it should transform itself.
What was you card? and I finish the trick.
Well, not a big thing but not illogical I hope!!!
Talking a bit more about this trick, I have always wondered why it was sometimes called Red Hot Mamma, just a name or a special patter for the trick?
To finish with this long(too long perhaps)mail. In which book can we find the "Blue Intruder"?