Israel vs Lebanon

[hrothgar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[mike777]

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]

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

 

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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