[Codo]

Besides all the obvious things like: you have to play, else you get a zero, I really want the Lebanon to play i their area and not in Europe.

I want Israel to play in ther araibian zone too, but I can understand that they are better placed here. But if the Lebanese don't want to play Israel, why don't they stay with their arabian cousins?

I think it is plain silly to blame the lebanese women for their failure to protest against their governement. Do you remember what happen to the US Sportsmen who protested? Do you believe that there will be lesser punishments in Lebanon?

[HedyG]

Brian i think you haven't read carefully enough. we all have a lot of sympathy for the Lebanese ladies, except maybe Mike.
we realize fully well that they were in a no win situation and i believe that protesting and staying at home might have caused them problems as well.

[mike777]

I dislike assuming sympathy for the ladies based on no facts. No one has cited what the true facts of the ladies not showing up to be. I certainly do not know any facts which show they are in a no win situation.

1)If they agree with the policy or simply could care less, I have little sympathy.

2)If they disagree but face bridge penalties then I have a little sympathy but they still could have resigned in protest. In any event they choose.

3)If they disagree but face torture or death of course we all have sympathy but perhaps the WBF should let us all know, people will die if they resign or do not show up to play.

[TimG]

I know this is a different venue than the World Championships, but when a member of the US Women's team made a political statement at the award ceremony, many people thought she should be sanctioned. Aren't the Lebanese women also making a political statement with their refusal to play? Should they be sanctioned as well?

[HedyG]

not quite the same situation, Tim. these woman didn't want to make a statement.they actually had only 2 choices. take part and not play against Israel or stay at home and suffer consequences.
remember that when as a player of the team you say: "if i am not allowed to play against Israel i wont go" this might be looked upon very badly.
so whom do you want to punish here? the ladies? i believe they had no personal objections to playing. the Lebanese Federation? it wasn't their decision either.
the people who are actually pulling the strings in Lebanon?
i wish you good luck!

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jul 1 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

I know this is a different venue than the World Championships, but when a member of the US Women's team made a political statement at the award ceremony, many people thought she should be sanctioned. Aren't the Lebanese women also making a political statement with their refusal to play? Should they be sanctioned as well?

I always maintained that the US Women's Team shouldn't have been sanctioned.

I also don't believe that the team from Lebanon should be sanctioned for refusing to play against Israel. They should, of course, face a penalty for missing a match.

Personally, I think that this is the most elegant way to handle these sorts of issues. My understanding is that the powers that be prefer to maintain a polite legal fiction that the reason that Arab teams consistently fail to show up for matches versus Israel has nothing to do with a political protest, but rather, is a remarkable string of bad luck.

As I recall, Zia addresses this issue (obliquely) in his book... There was some mention of a team mate who [regretfully] managed to get himself stranded on an island in the Mediterrean shortly before the Pakistani teams match versus Israel. Luckily, said player was able to make it back in time for later matches.

[jtfanclub]

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.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Jul 1 2008, 05:35 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.

I have no problem with awarding the team that forfeits a zero.

I have a big problem with awarding the team that didn't forfeit a 30. Yes, you might be punishing the team that forfeited. but you are also punishing every other team in the field by awarding the non-offending side an undeserved blitz.

This strikes me as completely unreasonable

[geller]

Here in Japan we give the forfeiting team 0 VP. The winner by forfeit gets the best of (i) 18VP, (ii) their average VP, or (iii) the average VP won by the opponents of the forfeiting team. Obviously (ii) or (iii) can only be evaluated at the end of the round robin so (i) is the interim score.

Giving the forfeiting team 12VP (AVE minus) as was apparently done for Lebanon is absurd.

[NickRW]

My 2 cents worth. Make it a condition of contest that all matches must be completed. Any team that does not complete a match for any reason whatsoever (be it personal decision, illness, political direction from your NBO or government or whatever) is automatically disqualified from the entire contest. Any results that may have been obtained by other teams against the offending team are cancelled - the contest continues as if the offending team was never there.

In the case of the Lebanese ladies who have may have consequences if they refuse to turn up at all as a result of their government's decision - well - this removes all blame from them as it is not their decision. It is a matter between the EBL's rules and the Lebanese government's directives.

This also handles any possible questions over what is a fair score - there simply isn't any score at all. The offenders never existed.

Nick

[Walddk]

geller, on Jul 1 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

Here in Japan we give the forfeiting team 0 VP. The winner by forfeit gets the best of (i) 18VP, (ii) their average VP, or (iii) the average VP won by the opponents of the forfeiting team. Obviously (ii) or (iii) can only be evaluated at the end of the round robin so (i) is the interim score.

Giving the forfeiting team 12VP (AVE minus) as was apparently done for Lebanon is absurd.

Exactly how it is tackled in Denmark too. A delay of 30 minutes or more is regarded as a forfeit. Delays from 5-25 minutes are penalised with 1 VP per 5 minutes.

Roland

[Cascade]

geller, on Jul 2 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

Here in Japan we give the forfeiting team 0 VP. The winner by forfeit gets the best of (i) 18VP, (ii) their average VP, or (iii) the average VP won by the opponents of the forfeiting team. Obviously (ii) or (iii) can only be evaluated at the end of the round robin so (i) is the interim score.

Giving the forfeiting team 12VP (AVE minus) as was apparently done for Lebanon is absurd.

12 VPs is not average minus
18 VPs is not average plus

3 IMPs per board is average minus/plus for a board that cannot be played owing to a an irregularity.

It seems to me that choosing not to play is such an irregularity. Therefore the scores should be

8 boards +24 IMPs = 23-7

10 boards +30 IMPs = 24-6

12 boards +36 IMPs = 24-6

14 boards +42 IMPs = 25-5

16 boards +48 IMPs = 25-4

20 boards +60 IMPs = 25-3

24 boards +72 IMPs = 25-2

28 boards +84 IMPs = 25-2

32 boards +96 IMPs = 25-1

36 boards +108 IMPs = 25-0

40 boards +120 IMPs = 25-0

48 boards +144 IMPs = 25-0

The laws say 'at most' for MP play but not for IMP play. Its moot whether the "at most" would apply. I would be happy giving the defaulting team 0 VPs in any case and the defaulted team the scores as per the VP scale at +3 IMPs per board.

[HedyG]

finally a solution that i can live with!and it has always existed in bridge laws. thanks Wayne

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

I have a big problem with awarding the team that didn't forfeit a 30.  Yes, you might be punishing the team that forfeited.  but you are also punishing every other team in the field by awarding the non-offending side an undeserved blitz.

This strikes me as completely unreasonable

Your choices are:

1. Give the non-offending team some blase number like 18-12 which actually punishes them.

2. Give the non-offending team some number based on the most likely result, which gives no incentive for the offending team to play the non-offending team.

3. Give the non-offending team such a high score that they are helped by the offending team, thereby giving an incentive for the offending team to play.

4. Not allow the offending team to play (or cancel the games they have played), which will pretty much force them to stay home. Or be placed in house arrest for the next four years, or somesuch.

Of these choices, it seems to me that #3 is obvious. While it does give a small chance that it would allow an undeserving team to make it, it prevents all sorts of shenanigans, and not just for the Israelis ("I like the Italian team, and they're in the Finals if we don't lose the next match by 25-5 or worse. If we forfeit, it'll count as 22-0, so I'll just call in sick").

[Walddk]

I can also live with Wayne's solution although I would prefer disqualification. The crux of the matter is that you can't award anyone 12 VPs for staying away. That is absurd.

Roland

[MickyB]

jtfanclub, on Jul 1 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

Of these choices, it seems to me that #3 is obvious. While it does give a small chance that it would allow an undeserving team to make it, it prevents all sorts of shenanigans, and not just for the Israelis ("I like the Italian team, and they're in the Finals if we don't lose the next match by 25-5 or worse. If we forfeit, it'll count as 22-0, so I'll just call in sick").

"I like the Italian team, they need a 25 against us in their last match to win. I don't want to have to deliberately throw the match, easier to just not turn up".

No solution will solve that kind of problem, I have a clear preference for #2 of your options.

The current regulations don't adequetely compensate a good team that would be playing against a poor team. If a team is averaging 18 VPs against teams that are averaging (just under) 15, they deserve more than 18 against a team that is averaging 12.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Jul 1 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

I have a big problem with awarding the team that didn't forfeit a 30.  Yes, you might be punishing the team that forfeited.  but you are also punishing every other team in the field by awarding the non-offending side an undeserved blitz.

This strikes me as completely unreasonable

Your choices are:

1. Give the non-offending team some blase number like 18-12 which actually punishes them.

2. Give the non-offending team some number based on the most likely result, which gives no incentive for the offending team to play the non-offending team.

3. Give the non-offending team such a high score that they are helped by the offending team, thereby giving an incentive for the offending team to play.

4. Not allow the offending team to play (or cancel the games they have played), which will pretty much force them to stay home. Or be placed in house arrest for the next four years, or somesuch.

Of these choices, it seems to me that #3 is obvious. While it does give a small chance that it would allow an undeserving team to make it, it prevents all sorts of shenanigans, and not just for the Israelis ("I like the Italian team, and they're in the Finals if we don't lose the next match by 25-5 or worse. If we forfeit, it'll count as 22-0, so I'll just call in sick").

I suspect that the reason that option #3 seems so obvious is that you are framing the choices in a woefully simplistic manner. For example

1. You complete ignore my proposal when constructing your cost benefit analysis

2. You assume that entities who are instigating the political protest are actually motivated by bridge scores or results at the table. I suspect that the Lebanese government couldn't care less whether or not Israel wins the EBU Championships. Conversely, I suspect that they have a very strong interest in recognizing the existence of Israel as a legitimate political entity. Simply put, the decision to award 30 IMPS versus 22 IMPs to the non offending side isn't salient. You risk significantly distort the results of the non-offending side without any clear benefit other than making yourself feel like you're doing something dramatic.

3. You assume that the sole purpose of this rule is to deal with political gimmicks. As I noted earlier, I am arguing in favor of a comprehensive regulation to cover forfeit for any reason. [What happens if one member of a 4 many team suffers from a short bout of food poisoning?]

[Gerardo]

Give Lebanon a 0 in the match AND a noticeable, non symbolic VP fine for failing to show up.

Guess there are VP fines for delay to give line up, delay to show up, etc. Define a number to be applied in forfeits, and apply it.

For Israel: Like Wayne's way. Max (18, average) is fine, too. If that means uncertainty about Israel final score is fine, as long as it is defined before the chsmpionship starts.

[david_c]

Cascade, on Jul 1 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

12 VPs is not average minus
18 VPs is not average plus

3 IMPs per board is average minus/plus for a board that cannot be played owing to a an irregularity. 

Average plus/minus is whatever the tournament organiser wants it to be (see Law 86A - new laws, remember). Besides, tournament organisers have essentially unlimited powers to come up with their own methods of scoring, and so if they want unplayed matches to be VPed differently to the sum of 20 unplayed boards, that's up to them. I actually don't think there's any implication that "average plus" for a match is related to "average plus" for a board. They are analogous ideas but entirely independent.

Put me down for 0 VPs for the offending side, and some complicated formula (not less than 18) for the non-offending side.

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.

[Walddk]

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