[JLilly]

debrose, on 2013-February-05, 10:48, said:

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...c-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...onvention-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.