Israel vs Lebanon

[rona_]

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_]

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]

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_]

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]

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.org/competitions/08Pau/RulesRegulations.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]

Just to clarify the conditions of contest (http://eurobridge.org/competitions/08Pau/RulesRegulations.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]

Just to clarify the conditions of contest (http://eurobridge.org/competitions/08Pau/RulesRegulations.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]

Just to clarify the conditions of contest (http://eurobridge.org/competitions/08Pau/RulesRegulations.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.

 

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]

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

[Codo]

Why does the Lebanon partcipate in EBU Events?

 

My memory is fading but they are not really part of Europe, are they?

[Walddk]

Why does the Lebanon partcipate in EBU Events?

 

My memory is fading but they are not really part of Europe, are they?

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

[benlessard]

This is more applied ethics than legislation IMO. The comittee should make a decision based on facts and judgement without relying too much on already written laws.

 

1- Are we making a decision VS the Team (players) or the country (Lebanon) ?

 

I think that what matters is the players and not the country. So im not willing to punish the players if they are not responsible for the boycott. But at the same time i would like to send a signal to the country (but i know its unlikely to give any results)

 

2- Is the no-show deliberate ? What is the responsability of the players ?

 

2a maybe they knew they where going to lose badly and hope that the penalty was less painful then the beating.

2b maybe the call from high above was real and they had no option.

2c maybe a little bit of both.

2D maybe the players just didnt want to play vs Israel.

 

 

I dont know enough about life and politics in Lebanon to answer this question.

But one thing is sure I would not take any risk of retaliation of any kind just to play bridge in a tournament i have no hope of winning.

 

3- If the players had no choice what is a fair score to give them ? what is a fair score to give to their opponent ?

 

Here im sure that giving a fixed score is atrocious. The score given should clearly be based on the overall perfomance of both teams and this can only be done at the end of the tournament.

 

4- Will my decision have an impact for correcting the problem sooner or later.

 

Here i think that having too much mercy will encourage the player to keep forfeiting while being too harsh will have no effect if the country politics is responsible for the no-show. But giving a fair penalty 'after the results are compiled' should be a deterrent strong enough if the fault lies in the players.

[helene_t]

I like Richard's proposal of just treating a failure to show up as a failure to show up and not worry about what reasons they gave. In other threads, alarm-clock-power-supply-failure and "business commitments" have been mentioned as reasons for players not to play.

 

We do not (at least not all of us do) know for a fact whether the decision was made by the players, the BF, the government, a sponsor, Hizbollah or someone else. Much of the speculation going on in this thread is at the level of "Lebanon is in the Middle East so it must have an evil government so the government must be behind this".

 

It would be worse than just waste of time for the EBL to try to establish a consensus about that. Better have rules that don't rely on who made the decision, then.

[david_c]

I like Richard's proposal of just treating a failure to show up as a failure to show up and not worry about what reasons they gave. In other threads, alarm-clock-power-supply-failure and "business commitments" have been mentioned as reasons for players not to play.

I don't agree. You can't have rules which allow people not to show up whenever they don't want to play. 0 VPs is a good starting point, and deals with the cases where it was not the team's fault (e.g. illness), but in more serious cases it may not be sufficient punishment. Like in the examples in this thread where a team could forfeit the match in order to help out another team. I would expect a team that does this to be not only disqualified but its members banned from playing in the next championships as well.

 

So I don't think that writing fixed penalties into the conditions of contest is the way to go. The tournament organisers have to write their rules so that they have the option of disqualification; but in order that they can deal with these politically-sensitive situations they have to give themselves some flexibility.

[hotShot]

This is an issue of politics interfering sports.

 

What if a professional chess player would play chess against the will of his government? Would you see this as a similar situation?

 

The chess player was Bobby Fischer the year 1992. I think the US government issued an international arrest warrant. Fischer never returned to the USA.

[the hog]

This is an issue of politics interfering sports.

 

What if a professional chess player would play chess against the will of his government? Would you see this as a similar situation?

 

The chess player was Bobby Fischer the year 1992. I think the US government issued an international arrest warrant.  Fischer never returned to the USA.

Yes you are correct. Also what about the 1980 US boycott of the Moscow Olympics? Should the boycotting nations be have been expelled from participation in the following Olympics again? Its all well and good to get on one's high horse conveniently forgetting instances when one's own country is guilty of the same or similar action.

[helene_t]

Why does the Lebanon partcipate in EBU Events?

 

My memory is fading but they are not really part of Europe, are they?

I don't see why physical geography should be a criterion. If Lebanon has more flight connections to Europe than to Asia, for example, it may be a reason for them to prefer to play in Europe. BTW Russians from east of Ural are allowed to play for the Russian team in EBL events also.

[the hog]

If you are basing participation on flight connections the whole thing becomes ridiculous. Can Australia participate in the European Championships?

[helene_t]

Can Australia participate in the European Championships?

Why not? They would have to apply for EBL membership first. I wouldn't object.

[Walddk]

Can Australia participate in the European Championships?

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

[ArtK78]

The idea that the Lebanese women's team failed to play against the Israeli team for any reason other than the dictate of the Lebanese government (or whatever entity holds power in Lebanon) is absurd.

 

There is a long history of Arabian teams refusing to play against Israeli teams in international competition, including bridge. This is just the latest in a long list of such occurances. Quite frankly, there are very few instances of any athletic or other competition between an Arabian team (or individual) and an Israeli team (or individual).

 

And I know that Lebanon is, supposedly, a part Christian/part Muslim nation, not an Arabian state. But the facts are otherwise.

 

If the EBU or the WBF chooses to allow this to continue, we will revisit this issue over and over again. The only proper handling of international bridge competition is to require all scheduled matches to be played, and to disqualify any team that fails to play a scheduled match. If the team cannot play all of its matches, it should not be competing. If a team chooses not to play all of its matches, it should not be allowed to compete.

[matmat]

Frankly, I don't see a problem with this, beyond a proper resolution of the score for that particular match.

 

Sports boycotts are nothing new. Even the high-and-mighty US refused to pay a visit to the soviet union in 1980 (yes, i understand it is the whole event and not an individial round or sport or whatever).

 

I suspect that a lot of people would change their opinion had it been Israel that refused to play the match, rather than the other way around.

[TimG]

And I know that Lebanon is, supposedly, a part Christian/part Muslim nation, not an Arabian state. But the facts are otherwise.

I must admit to not knowing much about the Middle East. Does "Arabian" have some religious connotation? It just seems odd to me that you say Lebanon is Christian and Muslim rather than Arabian (which I thought was a geographic designation rather than a religious designation).

[Walddk]

Frankly, I don't see a problem with this, beyond a proper resolution of the score for that particular match.

 

Sports boycotts are nothing new. Even the high-and-mighty US refused to pay a visit to the soviet union in 1980 (yes, i understand it is the whole event and not an individial round or sport or whatever).

 

I suspect that a lot of people would change their opinion had it been Israel that refused to play the match, rather than the other way around.

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