DOCSLIB.ORG

Recommendations for Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Bridge Approach Slabs URL: 16

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-11/0-6022-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND September 2011 MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE APPROACH SLABS Published: May 2012 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Anand J. Puppala, Ekarut Archeewa, Sireesh Saride, Soheil Nazarian Report 0-6022-2 and Laureano Hoyos 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil Engineering The University of Texas at Arlington 11. Contract or Grant No. Arlington, Texas 76019 Project 0-6022 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2007–August 2011 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Recommendations for Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Bridge Approach Slabs URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6022-2.pdf 16. Abstract Settlement and heave related movements of bridge approach slabs relative to bridge decks create a bump in the roadway. Several problems arise from these bumps, which include poor riding conditions, potential vehicle damage, loss of vehicle control causing injuries or even casualities, lowered perception of the department’s road works, increased maintenance works, and constant delays to rehabilitate the distressed lanes. All these make this bump problem a major maintenance problem in Texas. Several mitigation methods have been employed, and the results are not always satisfactory. In the present research, two treatment methods are investigated for controlling settlements of approach slabs of new bridge construction. Researchers from UTA and UTEP performed two phases to accomplish these studies. During the first phase, the documented information that covers various methods used so far for approach slab settlement mitigation technologies is compiled and presented. The second and final phase focused on field evaluation studies of deep soil mixing and light weight embankment fill treatment methods in reducing settlements. A few other technologies were also evaluated for reducing settlements of existing bridge approach slabs. Both design and construction specifications of the new methods that provided effective treatments in field conditions are presented. 17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement Bridge Approach Settlements, Deep Soil Mixing, No restrictions. This document is available to the Expanded Clay Shale, Embankment, Clay public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service Alexandria, Virginia 22312 http://www.ntis.gov 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 386 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE APPROACH SLABS by Anand J. Puppala, Ph.D., PE Professor The University of Texas at Arlington Ekarut Archeewa, Ph.D. Former Doctoral Student The University of Texas at Arlington Sireesh Saride, Ph.D. Former Post-Doctoral Fellow The University of Texas at Arlington Laureano Hoyos, Ph.D., PE Associate Professor The University of Texas at Arlington and Soheil Nazarian, Ph.D., PE Professor The University of Texas at El Paso Project 0-6022 Report 0-6022-2 Project Title: Recommendations for Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Bridge Approach Slabs Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration September 2011 Published: May 2012 The University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas 76019 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors/principal investigators who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear here solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by TxDOT under Research Project No. 0-6022. The authors acknowledge the following individuals and companies: Richard Williammee, Jr., Project Director, for his guidance and help. Several project management committee members including David Head, Dr. German Claros, Behman Afsheen, Bernie Holder, Darrell Anglin, Jon Holt, Mark McClelland, Stanley Yin, Taya Retterer, and Mark McDaniel. Graduate students, Raja Yenigalla, Varagorn Pulijan, Minh Le, and Dr. Bhaskar Chittoori for their help with research and report preparation. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES............... ..................................................................................................... XI LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... XXI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 4 1.3 RESEARCH REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................ 4 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 DEFINITION OF THE BUMP AND THE BUMP TOLERANCE .............................................................. 7 2.1.1 Definition of the Bump ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Bump Tolerances ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 MECHANISMS CAUSING THE FORMATION OF THE BUMP ............................................................. 9 2.2.1 Consolidation Settlement of Foundation Soil ........................................................................ 14 2.2.2 Poor Compaction and Consolidation of Backfill Material .................................................... 16 2.2.3 Poor Drainage and Soil Erosion ........................................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Types of Bridge Abutments .................................................................................................... 19 2.2.5 Traffic Volume ....................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.6 Age of the Approach Slab ...................................................................................................... 24 2.2.7 Approach Slab Design ........................................................................................................... 25 2.2.8 Skewness of the Bridge .......................................................................................................... 25 2.2.9 Seasonal Temperature Variations.......................................................................................... 27 2.3 MITIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR APPROACH SETTLEMENTS OF NEW BRIDGES ........................... 29 2.3.1 Improvement of Embankment Foundation Soil ...................................................................... 29 2.3.2 New Foundation Technologies .............................................................................................. 49 2.3.3 Improvement of Approach Embankment/Backfill Material ................................................... 64 2.3.4 Geosynthetic Reinforced Soils (GRS) .................................................................................... 71 2.3.5 Design of Bridge Foundation Systems ................................................................................... 78 2.3.6 Design of Approach Slab ....................................................................................................... 86 2.3.7 Effective Drainage and Erosion Control Methods ................................................................ 95 2.4 MAINTENANCE MEASURES FOR DISTRESSED APPROACH SLABS ............................................ 101 2.4.1 Replacement Method ............................................................................................................ 103 2.4.2 Mud/Slab Jacking ................................................................................................................ 104 2.4.3 Grouting ............................................................................................................................... 105 2.4.4 Other Methods ....................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Alastair White & Norman Lazonby 2-Over-1, Weak No-Trump (12-14)

    Alastair White & Norman Lazonby 2-Over-1, Weak No-Trump (12-14)

    System Card— Alastair White & Norman Lazonby 2-over-1, Weak No-Trump (12-14), 5-card Majors and 3 Weak twos Neg. Arti- Min. Modifications over Competition Opening Bids Dble. Description Meaning of Responses Subsequent Auction ficial? Cards and Passed Partner (also see notes) Thru 11+ HCP or 5+ playing tricks Limit Raises, natural except: New Suit by responder After overcall: raises pre-emptive, cue-bid Longer minor—1. with 3-3, ‘Inverted’ raises to 2 and 3 forcing for 1 round (F1) strong support, jump cue=splinter 1. 1 3 3 1 with 4-4 in the minors Jump to 2/2/2 = weak jump shift 3rd/4th Suit Forcing (F1) After double: raises pre-emptive, Unsuitable for another opening New suit double jump = Splinter GF Trial bids show Stoppers redouble strength not support 1NT 5-11 HCP F1 unless passed; 11+ HCP or 5+ playing tricks As above but trial bids Generally as above. 2NT = ‘Jacoby’ with good support; 1 1 5 3 Usually at least 5 cards but now ask for help to bid 2. response by passed hand is ‘Drury’ (max 2 over 1 mostly GF; may be light/4 cards in 3rd game in the major pass, agrees major, game try with support) Jump Shift = ‘Mini Splinter’ (F1) 2. Stayman, 2 2 2NT transfers After opening and re- Simple ‘Wriggle’ if 1NT doubled. 12-14 HCP Balanced 1NT 2 2-way (range enquiry or clubs) sponse mostly natural , (see notes). Otherwise natural, (11-14 in 4th after 3 passes) 3. 33 3 GF (see notes) descriptive (see notes) Doubles suggest Penalty After 2NT rebid responses Control Showing: 2=negative Pass=negative response Artificial, Strong and forcing with as for 2NT opening.
  • Bridge Glossary

    Bridge Glossary

    Bridge Glossary Above the line In rubber bridge points recorded above a horizontal line on the score-pad. These are extra points, beyond those for tricks bid and made, awarded for holding honour cards in trumps, bonuses for scoring game or slam, for winning a rubber, for overtricks on the declaring side and for under-tricks on the defending side, and for fulfilling doubled or redoubled contracts. ACOL/Acol A bidding system commonly played in the UK. Active An approach to defending a hand that emphasizes quickly setting up winners and taking tricks. See Passive Advance cue bid The cue bid of a first round control that occurs before a partnership has agreed on a suit. Advance sacrifice A sacrifice bid made before the opponents have had an opportunity to determine their optimum contract. For example: 1♦ - 1♠ - Dbl - 5♠. Adverse When you are vulnerable and opponents non-vulnerable. Also called "unfavourable vulnerability vulnerability." Agreement An understanding between partners as to the meaning of a particular bid or defensive play. Alert A method of informing the opponents that partner's bid carries a meaning that they might not expect; alerts are regulated by sponsoring organizations such as EBU, and by individual clubs or organisers of events. Any method of alerting may be authorised including saying "Alert", displaying an Alert card from a bidding box or 'knocking' on the table. Announcement An explanatory statement made by the partner of the player who has just made a bid that is based on a partnership understanding. The purpose of an announcement is similar to that of an Alert.
  • Gateway to the West Regional Sunday

    Gateway to the West Regional Sunday

    Sunday July 14-19 Hi 92°F Low 75°F Daily Bulletin Gateway to the West Regional All St. Louis Regional Results: for coming to St. Louis and we’d like www.acbl.org & www.unit143.org, to see you right back here again next Unit 143 includes links to the week’s Daily Bulletins. year. We appreciate that you chose to attend our Regional ’coz we do it all for you! to our Caddies, We appreciate your fine work this week! Jackson Florea Anna Garcia Jenna Percich Lauren Percich Clara Riggio Frank Riggio Katie Seibert Kate Vontz Our Date Back to August 15-21, 2016 Come back and join us next August. Please put us on your Regional tournament calendar today. Charity Pairs Series Raises $ BackStoppers will receive the $$$$ that you helped us raise in the Saturday morning Charity Open Pairs Game and will be added to what Last Chance for Registration Gift & was raised in the Wednesday evening Swiss event. We support this To Pick Up Your Section Top Awards organization to express our appreciation for lives given on behalf of Sunday, from 10:00 – 10:20 AM before the Swiss Team session others. Unit 143 will present the check at their October Sectional. begins, and 30 minutes after the sessions end, will be the last opportunity to pick up your convention card holder and section Thanks for playing in these events and showing your support! top awards. Daily Grin How can you tell if someone is a lousy bridge player? No Peeking, Lew! He has 5 smiling Kibitzers watching him play.
  • 7Th EUROPEAN OPEN BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS Tromsø, Norway

    7Th EUROPEAN OPEN BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS Tromsø, Norway

    [O,<967,(567,5 )90+.,*/(47065:/07: Daily Bulletin Tromsø 27th June-11th July Editor: Mark Horton Co-Editor: Jos Jacobs Lay-out Editor & Photographer: Francesca Canali Journalists: Snorre Aalberg, David Bird, John Carruthers, Patrick Jourdain, Fernando Lema, Micke Melander, Barry Rigal, Ram Soffer, Ron Tacchi THE WHITE HOUSE RULES WEDNESDAY, JULY 1 2015 12 °C Issue No. 4 CONTENTS CLICK TO NAVIGATE Mixed teams, runners up photos, p. 2 Inference or Hypothesis Mark Horton, p. 3 A brace of Grand Slams Barry Rigal, p. 4 Prince Henrik’s Prize MMIXEDI X E D TTEAMSE A M S WINNERSW I N N E R S p. 5 Team White House - Koos Vrieze (President NBB), Meike Wortel, Small is beautiful Jacco Hop, Christina Lund Madsen, Ton Bakkeren A. Roth & F. Lema, p. 6 In a final where most of the significant action took place in the first Caption contest session it was the transnational White House team that assumes the p. 7 mantle of European Mixed Teams Champions. Ton Bakkeren and Lillebaluba vs A J Diamonds I Meike Wortel were winning their second titles (and their third medals) Barry Rigal, p. 8 in the Open Championships. Lillebaluba vs A J Diamonds II Sylvie Willard’s bronze medal was her eighth medal in the Open Ram Soffer, p. 12 Championships, a new record. Philippe Cronier’s bronze makes him the first man to have secured five medals (the same number that his Zimmermann vs Casino Floor Ron Tacchi, p. 16 wife has!). Christina’s action double [O,<967,(567,5,5 )90+.,*/(47065:/07:/07: Daily Bulletin Tromsø A.
  • Post Mortem Secretary: Mary Paulone Carns Treasurer: John Alioto Associates: Phyllis Geinzer……

    Post Mortem Secretary: Mary Paulone Carns Treasurer: John Alioto Associates: Phyllis Geinzer……

    Editor: Arlene Port 220 N Dithridge #404 Unit 142 ` Pittsburgh, PA April, 2021 WEBSITE AT www.pittsburghbridge.org Pgh.PA. 15213 c President: Chris Wang Tel: 412-521-3637 [email protected] Vice President: Craig Biddle Post mortem Secretary: Mary Paulone Carns Treasurer: John Alioto Associates: Phyllis Geinzer……. Memoriam Club Manager: Mary Carns Chris Wang………...First At The Post Unit Recorder: Judi Soon ([email protected]) All the news that fits in print BRIDGE BYTES ……….by arlene port ………..By Ernie Retetagos The very good news is that almost all of those people at a certain BIDDING SYSTEMS age (which I won’t mention) have received one or both of their vaccine shots. This is very good news because most of our peer group in the bridge The bidding systems that we use today are the product of decades of evolu- world is of that certain age. I won’t mention it. We You know who we tion. The early days of contract bridge featured the Ely Culbertson method of hand are. evaluation. The strength for an opening bid was determined by honor tricks, or what Also very good news is that bridge, while not at the present time, we call quick tricks. Charles Goren later popularized the 4-3-2-1 high card point will be restored to our face-to-face games sooner than later. The ACBL has count method for opening bids. This forerunner of Standard American bidding also continued to have their nationally ranked games virtually, so if you’re look- added points for distribution, one for a doubleton, two for a singleton.
  • The Minor ALT INVITATIONAL IV & Tampalt Qualification

    The Minor ALT INVITATIONAL IV & Tampalt Qualification

    Minor ALT IV BULLETIN 4 • Friday November 20 • editor Christina Lund Madsen • [email protected] The minor ALT INVITATIONAL IV & TampAlt Qualification NOVEMBER 16-20 2020 WORLD CLASS ONLINE BRIDGE EVENTS The Mugs made it Yesterday we said goodbye to 28 teams. In the Minor Alt the four remaining teams are Fredin vs. Red Devils and Moss vs. Gupta. Honourable mention goes to Black, defeated by the Red Devils, De Michelis who succombed to Fredin, Eastwest who ran into the Moss wall and Wilson, who need 11 more IMPs against Gupta. The Mugs (Jon Cooke, Kay Preddy, Norman Selway, Cameron Small, Jeremy Willans) and Vinita (Dennis Bilde, Soren Bilde, Alon Birman, Vinita Gupta, Hemant Lall) hung on to their positions as first and second respectively on the final day of the TampAlt Qualification. Both teams win a free entry to the TampAlt main event Photo: Peter Hasenson December 14-18. Congratulations! To the left is Kay Preddy, one of the Mugs. Important Notice Today’s Schedule Minor Alt All players should enter BBO 10 Friday November 20 minutes before their match starts at 10:00 EST / 16:00 CET – Semifinal (28 boards) the latest. Tournament director Denis Dobrin is waiting for you and will 14:30 EST / 20:30 CET – Final (32 boards) instruct you where to sit. - 1 - Results Minor Alt Invitational IV Round Robin Quarterfinals Semifinals All Results - 2 - Final Result TampAlt Qualification Next ALT event The TampAlt main event takes place December 14-18. This is a Major Alt event for up to 32 teams and still open to new entries.
  • Bridge Capital Program

    Bridge Capital Program

    Appendix A BRIDGE CAPITAL PROGRAM East River Bridge Rehabilitation Plans A-1 Bridges Under Construction A-2 Component Rehabilitation A-3 Bridges Under Design A-4 170 2009 BRIDGES AND TUNNELS ANNUAL CONDITION REPORT APPENDIX A-1 MANHATTAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION ITEMS TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Est. Cost ($ in millions) • Repair floor beams. (1982) 0.70* • Replace inspection platforms, subway stringers on approach spans. (1985) 6.30* • Install truss supports on suspended spans. (1985) 0.50* • Partial rehabilitation of walkway. (1989) 3.00* • Rehabilitate truss hangers on east side of bridge. (1989) 0.70* • Install anti-torsional fix (side spans) and rehabilitate upper roadway decks on approach spans on east side; replace drainage system on approach spans, install new lighting on entire upper roadways east side, including purchase of fabricated material for west side of bridge. (1989) 40.30* • Eyebar rehabilitation - Manhattan anchorage Chamber “C”. (1988) 12.20* • Replacement of maintenance platform in the suspended span. (1982) 4.27* • Reconstruct maintenance inspection platforms, including new rail and hanger systems and new electrical and mechanical systems; over 2,000 interim repairs to structural steel support system of lower roadway for future functioning of roadway as a detour during later construction contracts. (1992) 23.50* • Install anti-torsional fix on west side (main and side spans); west upper roadway decks, replace drainage systems on west suspended and approach spans; walkway rehabilitation (install fencing, new lighting on west
  • VI. Slam-Bidding Methods

    VI. Slam-Bidding Methods

    this page intentionally left blank We-Bad System Document January 16, 2011 “We-Bad”: Contents IV. Competitive-Bidding Methods page numbers apply to PDF only A. Competition After Our Preempt 32 B. Competition After Our Two-Club Opening 32 Introduction 4 C. Competition After Our One-Notrump Opening 33 I. Definitions 5 D. Competition After Our Major-Suit Opening 34 II. General Understandings and E. Competition After Our Minor-Suit Opening 35 Defaults 6 F. Competition After Any Suit One-Bid 36 III. Partnership-Bidding Methods V. Defensive-Bidding Methods A. Opening-Bid A. Initial Defensive-Action Requirements 39 Requirements 10 A2. All-Context Actions 46 B. Choice of Suit 11 B. After Our Double of a One-Bid 46 C. After Our Preempt 12 C. After Our Suit Overcall of a One-Bid 47 D. After Our Two Clubs 13 D. After Our One-Notrump Overcall 48 E. After Our Two-Notrump- E. After We Reopen a One-Bid 48 Family Opening 14 F. When the Opener has Preempted 48 F. After Our One-Notrump G. After Our Sandwich-Position Action 50 Opening 16 G. Delayed Auction Entry 50 G. After Our Major-Suit VI. Slam-Bidding Methods 51 Opening 20 VII. Defensive Carding 59 H. After Our Minor-Suit VIII. Related Tournament-Ready Systems 65 Opening 25 IX. Other Resources 65 I. After Any Suit One-Bid 26 Bridge World Standard following 65 3 of 65 1/16/2011 9:52 AM 3 of 65 We-Bad System Document Introduction (click for BWS) We-Bad is a scientific 5-card major system very distantly descended from Bridge World Standard.
  • C:\My Documents\Adobe

    C:\My Documents\Adobe

    American Contract Bridge League Presents Beached in Long Beach Appeals at the 2003 Summer NABC Plus cases from the 2003 Open and Women’s USBC Edited by Rich Colker ACBL Appeals Administrator Assistant Editor Linda Trent ACBL Appeals Manager CONTENTS Foreword ..................................................... iii The Expert Panel ................................................ v Cases from Long Beach Tempo (Cases 1-11) .......................................... 1 Unauthorized Information (Cases 12-20) ......................... 38 Misinformation (Cases 19-31).................................. 60 Other (Cases 32-37) ........................................ 107 Cases from U.S. Open and Women’s Bridge Championships (Cases 38-40) . 122 Closing Remarks From the Expert Panelists ......................... 138 Closing Remarks From the Editor ................................. 141 Advice for Advancing Players.................................... 143 NABC Appeals Committee ...................................... 144 Abbreviations used in this casebook: AI Authorized Information AWMW Appeal Without Merit Warning BIT Break in Tempo CoC Conditions of Contest CC Convention Card LA Logical Alternative MP Masterpoints MI Misinformation PP Procedural Penalty UI Unauthorized Information i ii FOREWORD We continue our presentation of appeals from NABC tournaments. As always our goal is to inform, provide constructive criticism and stimulate change (that is hopefully for the better) in a way that is instructive and entertaining. At NABCs, appeals from non-NABC+
  • The-Encyclopedia-Of-Cardplay-Techniques-Guy-Levé.Pdf

    The-Encyclopedia-Of-Cardplay-Techniques-Guy-Levé.Pdf

    © 2007 Guy Levé. All rights reserved. It is illegal to reproduce any portion of this mate- rial, except by special arrangement with the publisher. Reproduction of this material without authorization, by any duplication process whatsoever, is a violation of copyright. Master Point Press 331 Douglas Ave. Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5M 1H2 (416) 781-0351 Website: http://www.masterpointpress.com http://www.masteringbridge.com http://www.ebooksbridge.com http://www.bridgeblogging.com Email: [email protected] Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Levé, Guy The encyclopedia of card play techniques at bridge / Guy Levé. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-55494-141-4 1. Contract bridge--Encyclopedias. I. Title. GV1282.22.L49 2007 795.41'5303 C2007-901628-6 Editor Ray Lee Interior format and copy editing Suzanne Hocking Cover and interior design Olena S. Sullivan/New Mediatrix Printed in Canada by Webcom Ltd. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 10 09 08 07 Preface Guy Levé, an experienced player from Montpellier in southern France, has a passion for bridge, particularly for the play of the cards. For many years he has been planning to assemble an in-depth study of all known card play techniques and their classification. The only thing he lacked was time for the project; now, having recently retired, he has accom- plished his ambitious task. It has been my privilege to follow its progress and watch the book take shape. A book such as this should not to be put into a beginner’s hands, but it should become a well-thumbed reference source for all players who want to improve their game.
  • Weak Two Bids

    Weak Two Bids

    7-2-1 WEAK TWO BIDS A weak two bid opening implies a hand that has a good six-card suit, but not enough in high cards to definitely call for an opening bid. Vulnerable vs non-vulnerable, weak two bids are often hands that might be opened with one of a suit if not playing weak two bids. Also, with unfavorable vulnerability a seven-card suit is permissible. It is difficult to have enough tricks for a weak two bid with this vulnerability and yet lack opening bid strength. Requirements -- 6-12 HCP, varying with seat position and vulnerability -- Weakest suit K109xxx, usually better -- Most of the strength in the suit opened -- No side suit of four or more cards Flaws: -- Five-card suit (only in third or fourth position, please) -- Singleton or void in a minor, or major suit void -- Support for a side major -- Only one of the top three honors in the suit opened Do not open a badly flawed hand. Not vulnerable, the hand should have 1-1/2 to 2+ defensive tricks, vulnerable 1-1/2 to 2-1/2. Partner will count on more than one trick from you on defense if she has a singleton in your suit. Playing trick strength requirements vary with vulnerability: Favorable 5 to 6 playing tricks Nobody vul. 5-1/2 to 6-1/2 Both vul. 6 to 7 Unfavorable 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 With a suit like AKQ10xx or KQJ9xx, six playing tricks are enough with unfavorable vulnerability. These requirements may be relaxed somewhat in third or fourth seat.
  • The QBA Bulletin November - January 2021 2

    The QBA Bulletin November - January 2021 2

    HE ULLETIN TPublished by the QueenslandQBA Bridge Association B November-January Volume 46 No www.qldbridge.com.au Email: [email protected] 4 report tells us that playing bridge In addition to analytical thinking, From the lowers the chance of Alzheimer’s elite players learn and practice by as much as 75%, perhaps more. interpersonal skills, resilience and President The researchers compared the emotional self-control. They put reasoning capacities of two groups personal feelings aside in order to of 60+ year-old Alzheimer’s patients get the best for the partnership, – the first included bridge lessons in and they keep calm in the face of of their regular therapy program whilst setbacks (their own mistakes and the second did not. After one year, their partner’s) … Elite bridge players Richard the first group’s overall cognitive are displaying the capacity to make Ward ability was more than two times crucial gameplay decisions based greater than that in the other group. on incomplete information …. At the OR decades academics have That was impressive but apparently same time they need to be able to Fbeen researching and analysing insufficiently statistically significant control their irritation with their own the health and cognitive benefits of to be conclusive. More research is failings or those of their partner so our game of bridge. These studies being done. 1 as not to give their opponents an 2 fall into two core categories: 1 the 2. There is no doubt that bridge is advantage.” well-being of players, especially with a challenging, multi-faceted and To summarise, my advice to self for regards to ageing; and 2 the skills fascinating game.