Walddk

But what do they risk if they sat down to play? We are waiting for rona to come back with the answer. She said she could find out within a few days. Roland

That is indeed sad news. I first met John Armstrong when he started playing with Graham Kirby in the late 70's. He did not change one bit over the years. A great player, a dream partner, a loyal team-mate, and a wonderful opponent! A true English gentleman in all respects. Last time I had the pleasure of being on a team with John was in 2005 when a Mike Lawrence All Star Team played against Scotland in Edinburgh. I remember how I apologised for a very bad result Iain Sime and I had on our card. John's reply, with a wry smile on his lips, was: "Don't worry Roland. I have done much worse several times". That helps a lot when you're feeling down. RIP. Roland

Fine, USA boycotted the Soviet Union in 1980, so they stayed away. A decision I can accept. USA and the Soviet Union were not even at war. Lebanon and Israel are, and yet Lebanon decides to participate as long as they don't have to play against Israel. That is the unacceptable part in my opinion. Your last point is moot because Israel has never refused to play against any nation. As I stated in my initial post, if they ever do, the same punishment must obviously apply for the Israelis. Take it or leave it. So this is not a matter of taking sides. It's merely a question of whether it's acceptable to say: OK, we will play against 23 nations in Pau, just not the 24th, and we will find whatever official excuse it takes in order not to be penalised too severely. Everyone knows why they don't turn up. As the late Allan Truscott wrote in the NY Times in 2001: "The Lebanese automatially default against the Israelis". This is not new; it's standard procedure every time. I don't think that is acceptable. The EBL executives think it is when they award Lebanon 12 VPs for staying away for the umpteenth time. That deserves no respect. Roland

To illustrate fred's point regarding the risk of getting too high if you splinter with that hand, let me give responder these cards: ♠ Kx ♥ AJxxx ♦ Qxx ♣ xxx If my partner splintered 4♣ over 1♥, I would think I have a very suitable hand for slam. We are only off one keycard, we have ♥Q and yet 6♥ has (virtually) no play. However, if he has full value for his splinter, say ... ♠ AQxx ♥ KQxx ♦ AKxx ♣ J slam is almost cold. So my conclusion is that you are at least ♦K short of a splinter. Roland

Not quite good enough for me. Add ♦K for example and I would splinter. I don't think the actual hand justifies a bid that forces the partnership to game. 3♥ seems right. Often 4441 hands don't play particularly well. Roland

Thanks for adding a word to my English vocabulary. I had no clue re "cooee" until I looked it up. An expression "within cooee of" has developed. It means "not far from", and seems to be confined to New Zealand and Australian English. Roland

I can't see why not, but I would not recommend it. You will have a harder time in Europe than against French Polynesia and New Caledonia in Zone 7. And remember, you may have to forfeit the match against Denmark because we "imported" one of your citizens and made her our crown princess :huh: From a geographical point of view, however, Australia belongs to Europe as much as Lebanon and Israel do. As a bonus, you could perhaps teach Europeans (including England) to play world class cricket. Roland

No, this is still not a reverse in my books, but it is definitely better than the one opener actually had. Roland

Borderline hand. I have no strong feelings; 1NT and 2♥ could both work out well. Jx is often a good holding for NT, so I think I will rebid 1NT. If my hand had been xx QJx KQ10xx AJx I would prefer 2♥. Roland

If this is a 2♥ rebid after 1♣-1 any, I have not grasped one word of the reverse concept. With that hand you have three options: pass, 2♣, or 2NT if you take a very optimistic view. But 2♥? That would not cross my mind. Roland

The First Youth North American Bridge Championships are under way in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a pleasure for us to welcome the youngsters to BBO vugraph Saturday the 5th (pairs). 36-42 boards in total. Tom Carmichael, who is one of the organizers, wrote: Any commentary you can provide would be welcome. Keep in mind that these are kids 19 and under, so be gentle :-) Sure we will. We all want to encourage the players, not chase them away from the game. Read more about the championships by clicking on the following link ... http://www.youthnabc.org/ Roland

I have a minimum opener with an extra club but the dreaded 7222, so I pass. By the way, does support double apply this high? Not for me. It doesn't matters much anyway since I am not going to double - whatever that means. Roland

I don't loathe 1NT as much as 3♣. That is a serious underbid unless you agreed that opener must bid again after a reverse (I don't like that method). Even then it would be hard to catch up, so the simple solution is to bid 4♣ over 2♥. OK, so I did bid a NF 3♣ and yet partner was able to proceed with 3♠. In an ideal world, playing with myself, I would want 4♦ now to be the enormous hand I denied before with many good cards for a high club contract. Since I might not even understand 4♦ myself, I had better jump to 6♣. I am not concerned that this is too high, just a little worried that we might have missed a grand slam when partner is 4-4-0-5 or particularly 3-4-0-6. Roland

You are right, and the same applies for Israel, but ... 'Europe' means the continent of Europe together with those islands (including the British Isles, Ireland and Iceland) which are regarded as being part of Europe and also together with such countries outside Europe which for geographical or other reasons are designated as being within the ambit of influence of the European Bridge League by the World Bridge Federation. Note "other reasons" in this context. Geographically, both countries belong to Zone 4 (Bridge Federation of Asia & the Middle East, also known as BFAME). The current members are India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, Syria, Sri Lanka and Qatar. However, Lebanon became an EBL member back in 1949 where there was no such thing as BFAME. Israel applied for EBL membership in 1963 (the year after the European Championships took place in Beirut). Egypt, still an EBL member then, and Lebanon protested vehemently, but little did it help. You can argue that they could now transfer Lebanon and Israel to BFAME, but traditionally both countries, as far as bridge is concerned, have belonged to Europe and they have no desire to be moved. A further problem would arise if Israel were to join BFAME. Except India perhaps (not sure), no country would want to play against Israel, and then it makes little sense to let them join. The Lebanese automatically default against the Israelis. A curious example was in Tenerife, Spain, in 2001. Israel got 18 VPs when Lebanon did not show. This helped Israel to earn the vital fifth position and qualify for the World Championships in Bali, Indonesia. They just nosed out the Danes and French, who were not pleased. Lebanon and Israel did in fact play once (I can't recall the year). It seemed like peace in the region was a possibility through intensive negotiations, but when that came to nothing, everything was back to "normal". Roland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is apparently a never ending story. I wonder what will happen in Beijing when for instance Pakistan and Indonesia are to play Denmark. Will they not turn up because their governments do not approve of the Mohammed cartoons? Perhaps the players don't either. It would indeed be nice if you could separate sports and politics, Gerben, but it would be naive to think that you can. Bridge is not war; it is, sadly, much more serious than that it seems. Roland

As just a couple of examples, I strongly disagree with the regime in China, and yet I play against Chinese players. I am also strongly against the politics of the Bush administration, but still I sit down to play against Americans. If my government told me that you can participate in various championships if you don't play against China and USA, I would have stayed away. That is my point when I write that the Lebanese women should not have travelled to France. It would also have taken the hot potato off the EBL executive table. Roland

http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/08P...?qmatchid=22312 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. Yes, I feel sorry for the players who wanted to play, but since they were not allowed to, they should have declined the invitation to take part in the event. Roland