[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 1 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

david_c, on Jul 1 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

I think if a team has told the organisers in advance of the event that they have a problem, then no further action needs to be taken. You can't accept their entry, knowing of the problem, and then chuck them out. But a team can't just choose not to turn up - now they do have to be disqualified I think.

I agree with David. If it is too much hassle to have it on print in the CoC, then perhaps the EBL could send the federations an e-mail after they sign up. Then this may come back from Lebanon:

EBL: "Are you going to play against every other nation?"
LBF: "No, we will not play against Israel."
EBL: "Sorry, then your entry will not be accepted."

End of story, although I find this much more complicated than having it in the CoC.

Roland

Good discussion

Excellent point about accepting the entry.

No one has mentioned who gave the order to boycott or what the reasons given, if any were.

We have discussed the issue that the players involved, baring something truly horrible, had the option to resign if they disagreed with the order. This also applies to the NBO authorities. IF NBO's are going to boycott WBF events the WBF needs to look at the facts and what penalties such as suspension should be considered.

For example if it is illegal for a country and its citizens to play in bridge events against Israel, then the WBF needs to respond.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jul 1 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

david_c, on Jul 1 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

I think if a team has told the organisers in advance of the event that they have a problem, then no further action needs to be taken. You can't accept their entry, knowing of the problem, and then chuck them out. But a team can't just choose not to turn up - now they do have to be disqualified I think.

I agree with David. If it is too much hassle to have it on print in the CoC, then perhaps the EBL could send the federations an e-mail after they sign up. Then this may come back from Lebanon:

EBL: "Are you going to play against every other nation?"
LBF: "No, we will not play against Israel."
EBL: "Sorry, then your entry will not be accepted."

End of story, although I find this much more complicated than having it in the CoC.

Roland

Roland: Did the Lebanese team ever state that they refused to play against Israel?

As I recall, you wrote the following

Quote

Too funny for words really. Lebanon even had a line-up for the match - a pro forma line-up obviously. They did not arrive late in Pau, and the players were not taken ill. They just stayed away because they had strict orders not to turn up.

From the sounds of things, the Lebanese team claimed that they were going to play against Israel but something [mysteriously] went wrong and they were unable to make the match.

You can recommend whatever set of rules you want, but its not going to matter one bit. The opposing teams are simply going to claim travel problems, illness, or whatever other excuse that they can think up to avoid both the match and disqualification.

Furthermore, unless you want to create a diarrhea patrol that is chartered to go around collection stool samples to verify whether that really was a bad case of food poisoning you're not going to be able to enforce squat... [Maybe they can share office space with the cell phone patrol and the drug testing squad]

I think its a lot better to get of your high horse and recognize that life is far from perfect and that the costs of trying to fix this stupid little problem are a hell of a lot worse than just ignoring it all. [At the end of the day, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the Lebanese team does / does not compete against Israel]

Your central argument seems to be about the politicization of the contest. I would argue that a rule set that tries to distinquish between acceptable reasons to miss a match and unacceptable reasons to miss a match is going to be MUCH more political than a system that creates a single uniform penalty for missing a match and imposes this penalty in a consistent manner regardless of why a match might be missed.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Roland: Did the Lebanese team ever state that they refused to play against Israel?

If you have followed international championships like I have, you will have noticed the following:

- 1. If they have two groups, they will put Israel in one and Lebanon in the other. Then at least they will avoid the problem until both qualify for the next stage. They did not have that problem this time, because the Lebanese open team withdrew at the last minute and was taken off group B (Israel was in group A).

- 2. With only one group the organisers would always let Israel and Lebanon meet in round 1 in order to give the Lebanese an excuse to stay away. Delay of flight, illness, whatever.

Now, they are only pro forma excuses since the Lebanese are at the venue well in advance and are able to name their line-up the night before as they must for a morning match. I gave a link to the line-ups if you scroll back.

Coincidentally, the players are not there when they should be and the match is never played. The Israelis sit down and wait for a while until one director tells them that they can leave because their opponents will not show.

The organisers know that in advance of course and have already stated that Lebanon will get 12 VPs for not turning up, Israel 18 VPs + some compensation if/when. 12-18 was actually on the official results page even before the match had started!

The latter is what disturbs me as I have pointed out several times now. You can't award a team 12 VPs for forfeiting a match. If you don't disqualify that team (and the EBL politicians have decided that this will not happen), then at least you must show that you disapprove by giving them zero.

Roland

[Echognome]

I personally don't have a big issue with how they choose to handle it at the moment. It's obviously an unfortunate occurence, but it seems as though the organizers try to handle it the best they can. I was taught once that people hate countries, not other people. It is sad that the governments do not allow their respective players to participate, but it doesn't say that the players themselves have a particular issue. We often do things our government tells us even if we do not agree with it. So I think having some penalty for a no show is fine. The degree of that penalty... well can't we argue until we are blue in the face as to what is the appropriate punishment? It just seems that some people are arguing it should be a bit harsher than it is. In practicality, I don't think it has a great effect on the standings and that seems about right to me. I'll leave it to others to figure out the exact best formula, but frankly I'm not too bothered.

[skjaeran]

This matter was brought to the attention of the EBL Grand Assembly during the championship.

Of course, this is not a case for the Grand Assembly, rather for the Executive Committee.

However, the actual match in this championship should be treated according to the CoC. As far as I know, this means Lebanon should have been awarded 0 VPs and Israel the highest of 18 VP, their own average VP vs the rest of the field or the average of the two teams right ahead of and right after Israel in the total rankings against Lebanon.

The Lebanese ladies were present at the opening ceremony and team presentation the night before the opening match, and did give their line-up for the match. What we were told was that the team captain received a telephone call from the Lebanese autorities in Amman refusing them to play the match against Israel.

[hotShot]

A country that is well known for its high legal standards, imprisons suspected terrorists for years, without a trial (because the are no criminals), without the rights of prisoners of wars (because they ain't part of a regular army). I don't even want to imagine what a country with lesser legal standards could do to its people.

I doubt that the ladies where told, what exactly the punishment would be, if they did not obey, it is much more effective to leave that to their own imagination. The withholding of information is a standard tool in suppression.

The EBL is not the platform to solve the conflict, and we should not put tasks on athletes or sport organizations they can't perform.

Technically the problem should be dealt with - like any other missed game.
(Otherwise the team will just get stuck in the elevator next time.)

[mike777]

I disagree that it should be treated as just another missed game.


However I would have thought that for WBF events and assuming a team agrees to play all other teams that CofC are set up to handle refusal to play issues. This is hardly a new issue.

Based on some posts it appears the WBF or sponsors of tourneys have chosen to basically impose no additional penalties and in fact close their eyes.

For this thread I would ask the captain why they did not show up and follow the CofC.

If the team in fact wants to lie or have no honesty about the reason and there is no pattern of evidence to contradict them, so be it.

[Walddk]

skaeran, on Jul 1 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

However, the actual match in this championship should be treated according to the CoC. As far as I know, this means Lebanon should have been awarded 0 VPs and Israel the highest of 18 VP, their own average VP vs the rest of the field or the average of the two teams right ahead of and right after Israel in the total rankings against Lebanon.

In that case there is a "Lex Lebanon" we don't know about. They got 12 VPs, other teams would get a sorry zero. Imagine (this is pure speculation) that three of the Danish team members were taken ill overnight and that Denmark therefore would be unable to field a team against Norway in the last match. Then what?

They should get zero of course (Conditions of Contest), but they may point to the fact that Lebanon got 12 VPs for not turning up. Then why not us? This would have been a farce beyond compare because that would have meant that Denmark qualified for the World Championships at the expense of the Netherlands.

Don't tell me that there should be a special rule for one nation and something completely different for all others.

Roland

[rona_]

hotShot, on Jul 2 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

A country that is well known for its high legal standards, imprisons suspected terrorists for years, without a trial (because the are no criminals), without the rights of prisoners of wars (because they ain't part of a regular army).  I don't even want to imagine what a country with lesser legal standards could do to its people.

I doubt that the ladies where told, what exactly the punishment would be, if they did not obey, it is much more effective to leave that to their own imagination. The withholding of information is a standard tool in suppression.

The EBL is not the platform to solve the conflict, and we should not put tasks on athletes or sport organizations they can't perform.

Technically the problem should be dealt with - like any other missed game.
(Otherwise the team will just get stuck in the elevator next time.)

Are you and some other guys that have posted here serious? There is nothing to imagine. Lebanon is the one and only country in the Middle East that was and still is a Democracy. Hezbollah has not taken over yet!! What do you know about Lebanon, absolutely nothing?..

It is not an oppressive government, as someone else has said, it does not put people under house arrest for playing or not playing in a bridge game, there is freedom of speech, freedom of dress, freedom of drink what you like any time of the day or night, play whatever games you like and party as hard and as long as you like. Don't confuse it with Myanmar or Saudi Arabia. The Lebanese Authorities are usually in Beirut and not Amman, because Amman is the capital of Jordan but if the phone call came from Amman, that is another issue. There are oppressive governments in the ME, and those are the friends of the US. I will leave it to your imagination because I am not going to post names of other countries here.

Personally I think the Lebanese ladies would have been creamed by Israel, and if they were not going to play that match they shouldn't have gone. Since they went and did not show up for their match, they should have been penalised. Taking a stance, while still in their country would not have harmed them in any way at all.They could have stayed home and no one would care. I suspect the authorities have more important things to worry about. I also think that if some of those ladies read these posts they would be laughing hysterically!

Read hrothgar's posts. He seems to be the only person here who understands the politics of the ME.

Quite frankly, your post is scary.

[Walddk]

rona_, on Jul 2 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

Lebanon is the one and only country in the Middle East that was and still is a Democracy. .

Interesting. The definition of democracy is that it's a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives.

I won't dispute that Lebanon is a democracy, but so is Israel. The country's representatives are elected by the people of Israel.

That aside, it has nothing to do with the topic, and I note with interest that the Lebanese women could have stayed at home without consequences. What you do not tell us, however, is what would have happened if they had played the match against Israel.

Then what would have happened to democracy in Lebanon?

Roland

[rona_]

Quote

That aside, it has nothing to do with the topic, and I note with interest that the Lebanese women could have stayed at home without consequences. What you do not tell us, however, is what would have happened if they had played the match against Israel?

I don't know but if you really want to know, give me a few days and I can find out.

[rona_]

Quote

That aside, it has nothing to do with the topic, and I note with interest that the Lebanese women could have stayed at home without consequences. What you do not tell us, however, is what would have happened if they had played the match against Israel.

The topic doesn't particularly interest me. What interests me, is the fact that posters here are having a field day misrepresenting the Lebanese government and no one is correcting them.

[Walddk]

rona_, on Jul 2 2008, 12:31 AM, said:

Quote

That aside, it has nothing to do with the topic, and I note with interest that the Lebanese women could have stayed at home without consequences. What you do not tell us, however, is what would have happened if they had played the match against Israel.

The topic doesn't particularly interest me. What interests me, is the fact that posters here are having a field day misrepresenting the Lebanese government and no one is correcting them.

Who else but hotshot has expressed that view? Please be specific with "posters".

Roland

[rona_]

Walddk, on Jul 2 2008, 01:33 AM, said:

rona_, on Jul 2 2008, 12:31 AM, said:

Quote

That aside, it has nothing to do with the topic, and I note with interest that the Lebanese women could have stayed at home without consequences. What you do not tell us, however, is what would have happened if they had played the match against Israel.

The topic doesn't particularly interest me. What interests me, is the fact that posters here are having a field day misrepresenting the Lebanese government and no one is correcting them.

Who else but hotshot has expressed that view? Please be specific with "posters".

Roland

Brianshark..codo, not sure about jtfan. It's almost 2 am and I don't feel like reading this thread again.

[the hog]

jtfanclub, on Jul 1 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2008, 07:57 AM, said:

I wouldn't be adverse to a more complicated metric like the one that Gerben has proposed.

I'd go for the complicated metric of 30-0. This would be especially nice when Israel stands on the podium and says "I want to thank the Lebanese team for our being here. Had they played us and made even 5 victory points, we wouldn't have made it".

Maybe that would change the mind of the Lebanese government.

As for punishing the Lebanese team in some other way, um, no. Don't want their blood on my hands.

JT this is very naive. It would change nothing at all. How much clout do you think Bridge has in Lebanon? These situations will always occur. Do you remember the Olympic boycotts by any chance.
Unfortunately politics and sport are not divorced.
By the way I would let neither Israel nor Lebanon play in the European Championships - from a regional point of view.

[MikeRJ]

Just to clarify the conditions of contest (http://eurobridge.or...Regulations.pdf), last paragraph of section A 2 "No team will be permitted to refuse to play against any other team and such refusal to play will result in disqualification". Which seems to conform to Roland's original suggestion.

[NickRW]

MikeRJ, on Jul 2 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

Just to clarify the conditions of contest (http://eurobridge.or...Regulations.pdf), last paragraph of section A 2 "No team will be permitted to refuse to play against any other team and such refusal to play will result in disqualification". Which seems to conform to Roland's original suggestion.

Well, that seems very strange. Apparently the organisers don't follow their own rules!

[hotShot]

NickRW, on Jul 2 2008, 04:03 AM, said:

MikeRJ, on Jul 2 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

Just to clarify the conditions of contest (http://eurobridge.or...Regulations.pdf), last paragraph of section A 2 "No team will be permitted to refuse to play against any other team and such refusal to play will result in disqualification". Which seems to conform to Roland's original suggestion.

Well, that seems very strange. Apparently the organisers don't follow their own rules!

The organizers followed their own rules.

Nobody refused to play, there is even a lineup.
They just did not make it to the playing site.

There is a different rule for that.

[paulg]

NickRW, on Jul 2 2008, 02:03 AM, said:

MikeRJ, on Jul 2 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

Just to clarify the conditions of contest (http://eurobridge.or...Regulations.pdf), last paragraph of section A 2 "No team will be permitted to refuse to play against any other team and such refusal to play will result in disqualification". Which seems to conform to Roland's original suggestion.

Well, that seems very strange. Apparently the organisers don't follow their own rules!

Of course the EBL follows its own rules.

Quote

P.
CHANGES TO REGULATIONS
These Rules and Regulations may be amended and augmented at the discretion of the EBL if circumstances so warrant so as to ensure the smooth efficient and enjoyable running of the Championships

Israel and Lebanon are always drawn in separate groups, when there are groups. In a round robin, they are always drawn to play each other in the first or last match.

It is recognised by everyone, including the EBL, that this is a difficult situation. There are some things more important in the world than bridge and I am surprised at some of the comments in this thread.

Chatting to the teams and captains in Pau, it was clear that they just wished to play bridge but are just pawns in a bigger game.

Paul

[Walddk]

cardsharp, on Jul 2 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

In a round robin, they are always drawn to play each other in the first or last match.

That is not quite true, Paul. Look here ...

http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/02S...=96&qroundno=25

From the Open teams in Salsomaggiore 2002 (no Lebanese women in that event). Israel and Lebanon were to meet in round 25 out of 37. The EBL did not realise the problem until the Lebanese did not turn up. A strange result of 18-15 to Israel was awarded.

I was there, and it created some confusion. The organisers acknowledged that they had a problem and for the 2004 championships in Malmö (only the Lebanese women took part) they had wisely made sure that Israel vs Lebanon was a round 1 encounter. Then another strange result appeared. Israel by 21-9.

The official Lebanese excuse then was that there was a delay to their flight out of Beirut. Interesting since the women were present at the opening ceremony the evening before.

No Lebanese participation in 2006 in Warsaw.

From 18-15, over 21-9 to 18-12 in 2008. I wonder what strange result they will come up with next time. Because there will be a next time, and then we are in the same ridiculous situation. Unless Lebanon and Israel are no longer at war by then. One can always hope.

Roland