Walddk

22.6.2008 Memorandum to the EBL General Assembly From the Israel Bridge Federation On behalf of the IBF we would like to raise again the subject of matches of Lebanon vs. Israel in EBL Championships. As you may well know, Lebanon does not show up to their matches against Israel. Till now a draw has been made by which Israel meets Lebanon in the first match. In the last 15-20 years Lebanon has never shown up using the excuse of late flights, etc. This year the Lebanon women team was presented in the opening ceremony and the line-up form was filled up on time, but again no players from Lebanon have shown up at the table. We have been told by the organizers that the captain of the team was prohibited, in a phone call to Beirut, to show up to this match. This means: a political refusal to compete against Israel. We hereby draw your attention to the disciplinary code of these championships and we quote from the introduction on page 41 : "….In view of these principles, the statutes prohibit political, religious or racial discrimination and any violation of human rights by the NBOs." "in order to guarantee ….. to deal with any breach of the principles in question…" On page 42, the sanctions liable to be imposed by the EBL according to 32(h) of the Statues are listed. We think that the results in Bridge should be decided at the Bridge table and therefore we propose to play against Lebanon at any time before the end of this championship. If Lebanon turns down this proposition – we ask you to set the results of this match to 25:0. In addition we ask you to impose the sanctions listed in the code and to find a solution to prevent this from happening again. Zvi Ben Tovim ---- Gadi Leibovits IBF President ---- Chairman IBF

A few minutes ago I received an e-mail from Zvi Ben Tovim, President of the Israeli Bridge Federation. He has asked me to post the following in this thread: I, herewith, attach my memorandum to the Delegates of the NBO's that participated in the EBL Congress held in Pau on 22/6/08, which I also read out and added a few sentences that are not included in the memorandum. A short debate followed; it was clear to me that the Congress cannot decide on the matter. Nevertheless I found it necessary to raise the point in order to create some pressure on the Executive to discuss the matter further on. In conversations in Pau I have pointed out that there are 3(!) non-European NBO's that are located in the Middle East and belong to the EBL (no participant in the Forums noticed that about 98% of Turkey is on the Asian continent. Let it be clear that we have no objection to Turkey's membership in the EBL). As to Israel, I guess it is quite obvious why the EBL accepted us as a member of the EBL. We are in no position to advise the EBL Executive how to act, but we verbally hinted that in order to prevent mixing sports with politics, Lebanon can be transferred to Zone 4. My friend Mazahr Jaffri (president of BFAME) will be glad, I am sure, to accept them. The problem is, as rumors say, that members of the Lebanese National Teams live in Paris and not in Beirut. .... The IBF memorandum to follow below.

There is a (good I think) reason for that. The issue was never brought before the EBL, so there was nothing for them to consider. If it had been brought forward, I would surely have commented. With regard to the Israel-Lebanon issue, however, it is indeed an EBL concern when a team, time after time, does not turn up for a scheduled match. By now no one can doubt that I think the EBL has handled the issue poorly. Roland

Irrelevant. I showed how it did affect the outcome of the Open series in 2001 when Israel qualified for the BB whereas Denmark and France did not. <snip> I found it very interesting and was even the topic starter ("Interesting behaviour"), so perhaps you could be more specific when you write "same people thought it not interesting to deal with the Norway-Italy incident(s)." Roland

I am surprised by this rule, or maybe I misunderstand this. For example, I don't think 1S 1N 2C 2S is a trump lead auction at all. (On the other hand, against 1S 1N 2C P I would need a very good reason not to lead trump - and no, a trump holding of QTxx or Kx doesn't count as a good reason.) I echo Arend's thoughts and would like to add that in my view the same applies if either declarer or dummy, perhaps via a gadget (often a 2♦ opening), has shown a 4441 hand. Then a trump lead is almost mandatory, regardless of your holding. Roland

I cannot and will not speak on behalf of the Israeli Bridge Federation, but I have now forwarded all posts in this thread to Ilan Shezifi and David Birman, my contacts in the IBF. Perhaps they want to reply, perhaps not. We shall see. Roland

Rules and Regulations: "If for whatever reason a team is unable to produce four players, the Chief Tournament Director is empowered to designate a substitute to complete the team. A substitute so designated need not be a national of the country in whose team he or she substitutes. A substitute cannot be a player of another team. A substitute in the Women’s Series must be female. A substitute in the Senior Series must be a Senior (see A.3.C). The decision as to whether the result shall stand of a match in which a substitute has played for some or all of the boards, and what, if any, penalties shall be imposed, shall rest with the Appeals Committee, which will adjudicate upon every instance in which a substitute plays."

Common error; I am sure you mean EBL (European Bridge League). EBU is an abbreviation for English Bridge Union, and they can't be blamed for anything they are not involved in. Roland

No, I have consistently criticized the EBL, but I reserve the right to criticize the WBF too if appropriate. The answer to your last question is that this has only happened with regard to Lebanon and Israel. I have been through all books regarding the European Championships. Every time they were scheduled to play (except once when ME peace was on the horizon), Lebanon stayed away. "No team will be permitted to refuse to play against any other team and such refusal to play will result in disqualification", it reads in the CoC. You may claim that you don't refuse to play when you tell the organisers that you were caught in traffic, stuck in the lift, were taken ill, etc., etc. I would call it excuses for not using the word "refuse". So something needs to be added to that paragraph. I am not holding my breath. We have the bridge politicians we deserve I suppose. Roland

But you missed a key point, this was not a simple forfeit, this was a refusal to play. If we were talking about a one time fluke where all the teammembers got hit by a bus and had to forfeit we would not have this thread. :P If the owners of the Yankees tell the team they must never play against the RedSox you do not just assign a score. If the Yankees simply show up and throw all the games against the RedSox you do not just sigh and so no problem.........All of this goes to the heart and integrity of the season and sport/game. OTOH if as some posters suggest, the sponsors of the tourney or WBF simply do not care if teams do not follow the CofC which mandate you agree to play against all the teams if you accept an invite; then no problem....CofC and the tourney is a joke. Mike Can you point me to any communique where the Lebanese team stated that the refused to the Israeli team? As far as I understand matter the Lebanese team had every intention of playing in the match. They even submitted their team line up. I can't imagine why they were unable to actually make the event. I suspect that it probably had to do with traffic. Richard, did you read skaeran's post? If you did, you must have seen that the Lebanese women were present at the opening ceremony the evening before. Caught in traffic? Stuck in a lift perhaps? The fact is that they did not show for round 1, but very conveniently they had overcome all hurdles in time for round 2. You may of course name it coincidental, but you can't deny that previous teams did not turn up either. And it would be naive to think that anything different will happen next time. Coincidence is not an appropriate word if it happens every time, and it has so far. skaeran writes that the women got a phone call from Amman (more likely from Beirut) the evening before. They were told not to play, and that is what I call "refuse to play" (translated to "forfeit") whether that order came from the federation or the government. We still have not heard from rona as to what would have happened if the Lebanese had played the match regardless of which orders they got. She told us that she could find out within a few days. rona also told us that Lebanon is the only democracy in the Middle East. In that case I can't imagine that the consequences would have been serious. Roland

Basically, you should ask one, perhaps two questions: - 1. Is it reasonable to accept an entry from a country that is not prepared to play against every other team? If the answer to that question is 'No', end of story. Then that country can't take part in the championships. If on the other hand the answer is 'Yes', then you need to ask a further question: - 2. How many VPs should you award a team that forfeits a match? For years, in casu Lebanon vs Israel, it has been a fact that the EBL has answered 'Yes' to question 1, and after years of deliberation and confusion they have awarded Lebanon 15, 9 and now 12 VPs as their answer to question 2. Results of Lebanon vs Israel the last three times they did not play have been 15-18, 9-21 and 12-18. Pro forma results needless to say since they never played one card. Roland

Impressive, congrats!

and you replied : Maybe your ability to multiply also bothered him; he just did not say :rolleyes: Why would you delete a relevant part of his post in your quote to make him look like an idiot? 10+ (4*8) does in fact equal 42, believe it or not. I stand corrected, I forgot the 10 minutes before 4*8. Apologies to Rossoneri. Roland

Maybe your ability to multiply also bothered him; he just did not say :rolleyes:

And she did, convincingly even. The opponents conceded with 8 boards to play, 80 IMPs behind. Congrats Frances! Roland

Frances Hinden, one of our regular and much appreciated forum members (4281 posts), will be on BBO vugraph Sunday when we broadcast from the Young Chelsea Knockout Teams in London, England. Finals, six segments of 8 boards. Check your bookmarked vugraph schedule web page for session start times. We wish Frances and her team the best of luck! Roland

I have enough for 3♠ when I did not bid over 2NT. Partner has a strong, rather balanced hand. Roland

I have just been watching and commentating on the first session of the YNABC. Players aged 9-18 on vugraph. Was great fun! If you can, please join for the second session at 3 EDT, 12 noon PDT, 21.00 Paris, 8 pm London. I am sure you will love it. Roland

In that case 19 balanced or 20-21 unbalanced (no 2NT opening). Indeed playable. Roland

Good point. After 1MA pass pass 1NT (12-16) and let double followed by 2NT be 17-18. A direct 2NT 19-21. Roland

No, game is poor, but in real life I think it's hard to stop short. Roland

1. 15-18 2. 18-19 3. 15-17 4. 11-14 Roland

I double and lead a low heart from the West hand. That rates to be a bad idea, given that East is on lead ;) Roland

There is not a lot wrong with 2♠, although some would have rebid 3♠. Perhaps it's a 2.5♠ rebid, but 4441 hands don't play all too well. Even if you have bid 3♠, it is not at all certain that your partner would have raised to game. Passing is definitely best, because on a normal defence you have no chance of making 4♠. You even have to play the hand very well to make 9 tricks after two rounds of diamonds. Roland

From the ACBL Bulletin, January 2003. http://www.bridgeaholics.com/articles/clas...kantar_rkb.html Here is why Eddie Kantar believes that 1430 is superior. I have no stats to back it up, but I have a feeling that most top pairs prefer this method to 0314. Roland