Vampyr Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 [The second card played is not the smallest, but the original third highest.] Is it? I thought it was normal to give remaining count, so second then fourth from four, second then third from five, and second then first from three.Perhaps I am wrong. I had thought that third-highest was played to show four cards in the suit rather than a doubleton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 This issue has been debated in Jeff Ruben's book, Journalist Leads. There is no "solution" to the problem, as both views (lead Xxx or xxX) have good points. The only thing that's more or less settled is that MUD (xXx) is rather nebulous. In the book Jeff recommends xxX against suit and Xxx vs NT. His resoning is count is more important vs suit and attitude vs NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 It seems to me that there are three reasonable styles of leads. Basically we want to convey information about count (even or odd) and about attitude. So we have: (1) Opening lead primarily about count. This is the popular US style and is what Elianna and I play. We use 3/5 leads against suits so would lead low from three small. Since this lead style doesn't give much attitude information, our later signals usually emphasize attitude and/or suit preference. (2) Opening lead primarily about attitude. This seems to be the Polish style, where leading low indicates you want the suit returned. So you'd lead low from doubleton or from an honor, and highest affordable from a bunch of small cards. Presumably one might want to play count signals later in the hand after this sort of lead. (3) Opening lead sends a mixed signal. This is the Slawinski style, where a lead might show either even length to an honor or odd length without an honor (or vice versa). This has the advantage that sometimes you can figure out one of honor holding or length from the bidding or play to trick one, and now you have both pieces of information. Of course, there are also probably situations where Slawinksi leads are confusing because you don't have solid information about either option. Anyway, all of these make sense to me. Elianna and I usually play (1); it seems like with her new partner she has transitioned to play (2). What I don't get is how MUD fits into any of these standards. Leading middle cards basically causes confusion (could be top of doubleton, could be lowest from an honor, could be middle from three small) and even after the second play in the suit there is still ambiguity. Wouldn't it be better to lead highest affordable (risking only that partner thinks you have doubleton)? Or to lead low from doubleton and high from three small like the Polish style? In the USA, MUD is basically universally panned by experts; I have seen and heard many comments about how awful it is and how one shouldn't play it. Is the expert consensus different abroad? If your agreements against suit contracts include 4th highest from Hxxx and top of a doubleton, then it is probably more awful to: (i) lead low from xxx. You're already leading low from Hxxx, Hxx and (presumably) xxxx. Now if you lead what appears to be the lowest card in your suit, partner can't tell the count (3 or 4) OR the attitude. (ii) lead top from xxx. "Top of nothing" was in vogue about 50 years ago, until people got sick of seeing their partners following suit on the 3rd round when they were hoping to give a ruff. MUD falls within your "mixed signal" category. Partner has more chance of working out the attitude than do users of low from xxx, and more chance of working out the count than do users of "top of nothing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I've always understood that only the British and Irish think it a good idea, and everyone else thinks we're barking mad. It seems to go right to the top: In the 2010 European Championships, two of the three pairs from Israel seem to have been playing 4th highest and MUD. The third Israeli pair was playing "low from 3 or more cards". Convention cards from all participants of that event can be found at:Ostend 2010 Convention Cards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Leading middle cards basically causes confusion (could be top of doubleton, could be lowest from an honor, could be middle from three small) and even after the second play in the suit there is still ambiguity.While this may be true in theory, it is extremely rare that this ambiguity exists in practice. MUD leads are the most common agreement for xxx both in the partnerships I play in and for the people I play against, and I can't recall the last time when the leader's partner was unable to distinguish between HxX and xXx after seeing the honours played to the first two rounds of the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevek Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Where I live (New Zealand) MUD is sadly very popular among weaker players. It's just about the only thing I will flat out refuse to play under any circumstances. I don't know where it came from but Kelsey liked it and Reese hated it and they are the two most respected authors. I'm blaming Kelsey for making it popular unless anyone has a better explanation. In general, I prefer top from three small cards against NT and low against suits unless it is partner's suit and I have raised. But I can easily live with just leading top all the time. MUD was invented by Les Longhurst of Sydney in 1932.He played for Australia with Klinger in the 60s, died a few years ago aged about 97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantumcat Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I think it is standard here (Australia) to lead MUD from three small, 2nd-then-4th from four small, top from doubleton, low from partner's suit if you haven't raised and have three or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvage Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 No-one seems to have mentioned this, but my reason for a strong preference towards 3/5 (low from xxx) versus MUD (which is also popular in some parts of Norway) is not that 3/5 makes the defence easier. Having played MUD on some occasions I didn't feel there was that much of a difference. But as declarer my experience is that the MUD-style is much easier to play against, mostly because it spared me many early guesses regarding honour-location. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 What is the systemic card to follow with to the second round, playing MUD, holding 942, or 853? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 What is the systemic card to follow with to the second round, playing MUD, holding 942, or 853?Middle, Up, Down. You'd play your highest in the second round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Middle, Up, Down. You'd play your highest in the second round. hmmmthe 9, even the 8 seems an AWFULLY large spot to be wasting on the second round of the suit just to give count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 hmmmthe 9, even the 8 seems an AWFULLY large spot to be wasting on the second round of the suit just to give count.If you can't afford to play it, you don't. Anyway, that's appears to be an argument for playing MUD rather than top-of-nothing. If you find out at trick four that the nine is an important card, it's undesirable to have led it at trick one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 If you can't afford to play it, you don't. Anyway, that's appears to be an argument for playing MUD rather than top-of-nothing. If you find out at trick four that the nine is an important card, it's undesirable to have led it at trick one. Agree that in this context MUD > top of nothing, but still both inferior to third best. I suppose one could have the best of both worlds with mud, following slowly low to the second round to show three, and in tempo to confirm doubleton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.