Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Andrew Gumperz

Andrew Gumperz
Andrew Gumperz
  • 64
  • 349
  • 72
  • 199

Basic Information

Member Since
Sept. 18, 2010
Last Seen
3 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me
Andrew Gumperz is a part-time bridge professional based in the SF bay area. He has numerous regional victories, but his proudest bridge accomplishment was upsetting the CAYNE team at the 2009 Spingold in Washington DC. In his spare time, Andrew enjoys musical theater, especially when his daughter is performing.
United States

Bridge Information

Regular Bridge Partners
Adam Kaplan, Michael Crawford
BBO Username
ACBL Ranking
Gumperz and Brenner
2 over 1
Copy to my cards View/Print
Gumperz CC
Copy to my cards View/Print
Gumperz and Wagner
Copy to my cards View/Print
Intervention of our miniNT
Dave, I read the K-S book too and played my share of weak NT. But look at the methods expert players play today. How many are playing K-S? In round numbers? Chip and Lew are no longer playing together, so at the expert level, that number is either zero or ...
Intervention of our miniNT
Mike, Don't ask me, do the experiment yourself. Play negative doubles for 3 months and count the number of negative doubles you make, plus the number of penalty doubles that you miss when partner fails to reopen. You may need a 3-month trial, but i am confident you'll ...
Intervention of our miniNT
This isn't even close. Takeout doubles win by a mile. When the auction begins 1NT (10-12) -- 2X, the auction is usually a partscore battle. Takeout doubles are far more effective at allowing you to compete for the partscore, and they also allow you to collect some penalties. And when ...
Intervention of our miniNT
1NT -- (2H) -- ? you hold: ATxx, xx, KQxx, JTx. Your bid. If you must pass this type of hand you are losing partscore battles. The reason to play weak NT is not to collect penalties and it isn't to improve your game bidding. It is to win partscore battles. That ...
Intervention of our miniNT
Phil may have understated the case. using shortness based doubles is not equally effective to penalty doubles; it is far more effective than penalty doubles--in the "not even close" category. If you play weak NTs, I suggest giving negative doubles a 3 month trial. You won't go back.
Intervention of our miniNT
The weaker the NT opening, the stronger the argument for negative doubles. The weaker the NT, the less likely your side is to hold game values. In turn, the more likely the deal will be a partscore battle, and the more important it becomes to get the declare/defend decision ...
Thorvald Aagaard's bidding problem: AQT762 K986 x KJ
I would have bid 6 the first time.
Oren Kriegel's lead problem: 9xxx KJ9x Ax Txx
A to look at dummy. A club lead could establish a pitch for declarer and a heart lead could easily blow a trick. So i' rather decide which round suit to attack after I see dummy.
Jannes van 't Oever's bidding problem: Q5 QJ72 QT4 AKQ9
Dbl looks extremely obvious but I think there is more going on than meets the eye. Unless we are playing with a pinochle deck, there is a lot of hidden shape on this deal. Partner must have some shape to justify his 3NT since he can't be bidding it ...
Which 2 suits
2NT could still be played as primary diamonds and secondary clubs. --, xx, AKJTxx, Qxxxx = delayed 3 x, xx, AKJTxx, AQTx = delayed 2NT (less shape, more values) x, Kxxx, AKJTxx, Ax = delayed 3 But frankly, we are counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. We'll wait ...

Home Back to Top