does anyone good recommand MUD ?

[WGF_Flame]

Hi everyone,

 

I seems to me that MUD (leading middle up down from non honor 3 card suit) is very common between intermidiate or advance players but no serious strong partnership will use them.

What is the most common why to lead 3 small cards among experts ?

[paulg]

Michael Rosenberg and Zia have always been a high profile supporters of MUD, with an exception when you are leading partner's suit. Most of us would be happy to have their bridge careers.

[Mbodell]

Most of us would be happy to have their bridge careers.

 

Serious underbid!

[broze]

with an exception when you are leading partner's suit.

 

Low from three is the common treatment in this instance? I've never really understood why this is supposed to be better, just followed convention.

[sfi]

Low from three is the common treatment in this instance? I've never really understood why this is supposed to be better, just followed convention.

 

It's more likely you will need to distinguish between 2 and 3 in the suit, and there is an expectation that partner (who bid the suit) will have some idea of where the honours are soon enough.

[gnasher]

MUD is commonly played in the UK and, I think, Ireland. Pairs that lead middle from xxx include Forrester-Gold and Hackett-Hackett

[paulg]

with an exception when you are leading partner's suit.

 

Low from three is the common treatment in this instance? I've never really understood why this is supposed to be better, just followed convention.

Your lead from xxx in partner's suit should be dependent on the auction and contract, but the guiding principles are to help partner understand when you hold two small or an honour.

 

So if you have supported partner's suit, then the critical information is that you do not have an honour, so you would lead the top from xxx as it is unlikely that you have a doubleton.

 

If you have not supported partner's suit, then the critical information is that you do not have a doubleton and are not looking for a ruff, so you would lead small from xxx (as it is unlikely you have an honour given the lack of support). Of course there will be auctions where you cannot support, but I've found this a good method.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Low from three is the common treatment in this instance? I've never really understood why this is supposed to be better, just followed convention.

 

The following from Phillip Alder ... bridge columnist :

 

If you have NOT supported partner's suit, lead LOW from 3+ whether you have an honor or not.

.... You don't want to lead a high ( or middle ) and then a lower one from x x x and partner takes the A and K and leads another thinking you can ruff ( or take ) >>>>> Declarer may just get a ruff/sluff.

 

If you HAVE supported partner's suit, then lead LOW from H x x ( promising an honor ) and lead HIGH from x x x .

[MrAce]

xxX leads (lowest) makes it easier for pd to figure how many pieces you have in this suit. But pd will not know whether you have an honour card or not.

Xxx leads (highest) makes it easier for pd to figure whether you have an honour or not. But pd will not know how many piece.

 

The criticism about MUD was, it would make easier neither the count nor the honours of this suit for pd to figure. It sounds logical at the first glance to think that MUD leads are the worst.

 

However you have to understand 1 thing, which is very important imo. Adv or int players play MUD mostly because they do not feel comfortable leading smallest from xxx w/o a top card. At the same time they do not feel comfortable leading top from xxx either and scared that pd will think they have a doubleton, after all thats what they would lead from a doubleton. The names given in above posts DO NOT use MUD for the same purposes. These are probably the least reasons in the list why they use MUD(if they are any reason at all for them) Do not take my word for it, i did not ask them personally why, but i am guessing.

 

Look at those names given in above posts, except one of them all are top of the top players, real card sharks when it comes down to declare and/or defend. There are other reasons for them to use MUD, probably more than i can list but among them

 

- Not comitting in giving a clear info about the suit they are leading, before they know who will use this info the most

- Maintaining flexibility to falsecard later if needed etc etc

 

Now these guys can defend well, i mean very well. No need to mention they (most of them at least) figure it out real quick too. And they have tons of experience when to shift the defense from a legit defense to a deceptive defense or vice versa, or both at the same time and how to do it.

 

My point is, just because some really big names are using it, doesn't mean it is suitable method for everyone. Also just because it doesnt give the info as clear as other methods to pd, doesn;t mean it is a bad thing. Finally, MUD is being used by intermediate or some adv players for the wrong purposes imho.

[gnasher]

Even for Zia and Rosenberg, I suspect that a significant factor is that they both played MUD in their early years as players. Rosenberg comes from Scotland. Zia was educated in England, and he's played lots of bridge in England.

 

For what it's worth, I prefer to play MUD. I do it because it's what I'm used to.

[Finch]

MUD is commonly played in the UK and, I think, Ireland. Pairs that lead middle from xxx include Forrester-Gold and Hackett-Hackett

 

I wouldn't be so certain about Forrester/Gold. Their card for the Camrose (just posted) does not define at all what they lead from three low, other than the general heading 'third and fifth'. This is a change from the card you posted which had MUD from 3 low marked.

 

Ask David at the next LSL match.

[WGF_Flame]

Ok I understand that some experts play MUD, but even here it implies that most or many experts (maybe USA or Italian ?) do not play MUD.

So what do they lead ? always low ?

[dake50]

Another popularity contest instead of something even remotely near an analysis.

Where are the sim guys?

Even a listing of cases for partner/opponents of xxx?

"Listing is not analysis" but at least these cases should be compared.

I like 3rd. That at least has a definite count meaning.

What is a 5? 54? K65? 5.?

Will those times it is unclear be contained by 3rd hand?

Or is a defense just lost?

[MickyB]

I am surprised J+J play/played MUD as well, I know Jason dislikes 4th+2nd vs suits. I am inclined to agree - count-based methods [including 3rd+low] vs suits make MUD irrelevant, while top from xxx playing 4th or attitude vs NT is a no-brainer, at least until you are dealt 9xx.

[gnasher]

I am surprised J+J play/played MUD as well

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood their card. It says "2nd from poor suit", but doesn't explicitly mention xxx.

[JLOGIC]

Hamman is another MUD guy (at least with Zia). FWIW I refused, only because I never played mud and I just feel like I can't figure out anything even when its a non mud lead because I am thinking about the possible MUD combos and it messes with my head. But we now lead low from 3 small so our low lead does not promise an honor which is fine with me but Bob is not really happy with that.

[JLOGIC]

Ok I understand that some experts play MUD, but even here it implies that most or many experts (maybe USA or Italian ?) do not play MUD.

So what do they lead ? always low ?

 

Most US experts play 3/5th vs suits, especially ones under the age of 60. When I learned bridge I started with 3/5th vs suits and 4th vs NT. The idea with playing 3/5th vs suits is that it is easier to read the count (compared to 4th, not compared to polish style), but against NT 3/5th wastes an important spot too often when you're leading 3rd from 4. Also, imo knowing the count vs suit immediately is more important than the attitude since things like ruffs and cashing out are in play.

 

In fact of the "Americans" I think of playing MUD, I think of like Fallenius, Zia, Rosenberg who all learned the game in a different country. Hamman is in his mid 70s which explains why he probably learned things differently and then stuck with them.

[jogs]

The following from Phillip Alder ... bridge columnist :

 

If you have NOT supported partner's suit, lead LOW from 3+ whether you have an honor or not.

.... You don't want to lead a high ( or middle ) and then a lower one from x x x and partner takes the A and K and leads another thinking you can ruff ( or take ) >>>>> Declarer may just get a ruff/sluff.

 

If you HAVE supported partner's suit, then lead LOW from H x x ( promising an honor ) and lead HIGH from x x x .

 

I thought MUD only applies to auctions

where our side did not compete.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I thought MUD only applies to auctions

where our side did not compete.

You are partially correct.

Our side can compete, but MUD refers to your lead of a suit that partner has NOT bid .

[debrose]

Michael Rosenberg and Zia have always been a high profile supporters of MUD, with an exception when you are leading partner's suit. Most of us would be happy to have their bridge careers.

 

Correction - Michael-Zia don't (didn't) make an exception when leading partner's suit in their partnership, and Michael doesn't with other partners. The exception would only be the obvious - when having already denied a doubleton, one leads high. There is no case where Michael, playing MUD leads, would lead low from xxx.

 

When I first played with Michael, it took a while for him to convince me to give MUD a try. Since then I played it for years in two other regular expert partnerships, and have become very comfortable with it (though one of those partners did insist on low in partner's unsupported suit, the exception suggested in the above quote and by others).

 

 

Edited: Here's a link to a Bridgewinners article where Michael made a few comments on why he prefers 4th best w/ MUD to 3rd/5th: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-basic-why-question/

 

I'm pretty sure he's written more about this elsewhere, including the falsecarding potential with MUD, but can't say where right now.

[JLilly]

Correction - Michael-Zia don't (didn't) make an exception when leading partner's suit in their partnership, and Michael doesn't with other partners. The exception would only be the obvious - when having already denied a doubleton, one leads high. There is no case where Michael, playing MUD leads, would lead low from xxx.

 

When I first played with Michael, it took a while for him to convince me to give MUD a try. Since then I played it for years in two other regular expert partnerships, and have become very comfortable with it (though one of those partners did insist on low in partner's unsupported suit, the exception suggested in the above quote and by others).

 

 

Edited: Here's a link to a Bridgewinners article where Michael made a few comments on why he prefers 4th best w/ MUD to 3rd/5th: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-basic-why-question/

 

I'm pretty sure he's written more about this elsewhere, including the falsecarding potential with MUD, but can't say where right now.

 

Rosenberg offers his thoughts on MUD here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-worst-convention-ever/

[Wainfleet]

I am a novice/improver so this forum is above my pay grade, but its very interesting.

 

Andrew Robson is not a MUD fan. He does not teach it as such. From what I can gather, with most of his partners he won't ever play it vs a No Trump contract, and vs a suit contract he will take a nuanced view on which card to play from three spots depending on auction and the cards.

 

Vs No Trumps he will usually lead the highest spot. From 863 he will lead the 8. If he leads the 6, partner might assume its 4th highest to an honour (and maybe apply the Rule of 11).

 

Vs a suit contract with 873, 874, 875 in an unbid suit he will lead the 7 (which happens to be MUD), but with 852, 842 or 843 he will lead the 8, so as not to suggest he is leading low from an honour. His priority is to get across his dislike for the suit.

 

I hope I have not misrepresented him - but that's the gist of what I think he replied when I asked him.