Israel vs Lebanon

[Codo]

To send the Lebanon back to Asia had been mentioned before, but they "belong" to the EBL since the fifties, so they have some reason to stay there.

 

It frightens me that so many intelligent people like to disqualify a team which does not show up for a round.

 

I really think that a zero:18 (or other nice numbers) is more then enough.

This is enough punishment to anybody who takes his holidays to represent his country in a two week bridge event.

 

I have zero understanding for this order from their nbo or from their governement. But I understand that it is right to follow the rules of my nbo or my governement when they send me to represent them.

 

So if you want to save the world, try to change the governement or the politics of the nbo of the Lebanon, but don't punish the ladies.

[Trinidad]

I'm with Codo.

 

If world politics enters bridge, don't make a fuss. There is no need to stir up things that are bigger than yourself. Just ignore it, exactly like the EBL is doing. It is not important for bridge what the score in the Israel-Lebanon match is. I myself would go for Lebanon: 0, Israel: The maximum of (18 or the average of the scores against the four teams placing closest to Lebanon in the final ranking (two above, two below)). This discussion of what to do only becomes interesting if either the Lebanese or the Israelis will be strong enough so that the arbitrary decision actually might influence who will be on the podium or who qualifies for the Bermuda Bowl.

 

Given that, I have a much bigger problem with the Norwegians who (allegedly) gave the Italians a trick they didn't make (and thereby a VP) as part of a negotiation deal to prevent an Italian appeal for bidding after a break in tempo (in the open tournament). Now, that is a bridge problem. It could have easily affected the qualification for the BB. (Luckily it didn't, but at some point during the last match, the scores were so that it would have.) This situation is not bigger than the EBL and it is something the EBL could (should!) do something about.

 

In contrast, the EBL can do very little to prevent the Lebanese authorities to forbid their players to play against Israel. At the same time, the EBL isn't interested because it is hard to imagine that the outcome of the Israel-Lebanon match would seriously affect the deciding positions in the ranking. They could have made it 25-25 and it wouldn't have had any significant effect (Israel would have moved from 17th to 16th position and Lebanon would have finished last in 25th position, no matter what score they would have gotten).

 

It amazes me that the same people who now think that the EBL should do something about the Israel-Lebanon match (or lack thereof :)), thought it not interesting to deal with the Norway-Italy incident(s).

 

Rik

[Walddk]

In contrast, the EBL can do very little to prevent the Lebanese authorities to forbid their players to play against Israel. At the same time, the EBL isn't interested because it is hard to imagine that the outcome of the Israel-Lebanon match would seriously affect the deciding positions in the ranking. They could have made it 25-25 and it wouldn't have had any significant effect (Israel would have moved from 17th to 16th position and Lebanon would have finished last in 25th position, no matter what score they would have gotten).

 

It amazes me that the same people who now think that the EBL should do something about the Israel-Lebanon match (or lack thereof :)), thought it not interesting to deal with the Norway-Italy incident(s).

 

Rik

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

[benlessard]

- 1. Is it reasonable to accept an entry from a country that is not prepared to play against every other team?

 

There is an important key point here. Should we take the point of view of the country or the players. If you see this from the country point of view we should refuse them or impose a hard sanction, because the country over and over showed disrespect by refusing to play against Israel and by not telling in advance that they dont want to play against them. But from the players POV its not clear at all. The players could easily be peace loving hippies :) and be the most ethicals players in the whole tournament.

 

For me i think that the Lebanon gov or Lebanon bridge institutions probably dont care if you disqualify them. For the players however its sucks to be disqualify especially if its not your fault.

 

So imo the primary POV should be from the players. We are judging the players actions and not the country wich impose a boycott.

 

then you need to ask a further question:

 

- 2. How many VPs should you award a team that forfeits a match?

 

We should first calculate the expectency of the teams playing each others. The teams should get the average of theire score X the average of opponents of the other teams multiply by 2

 

Lets just say that Israel average is 17 VP per round and Lebanon 10 VP per round.

 

So lebanon is entitled to 10/30 x 13/30 x2 = 7.666 imps /30

 

Israel is entitled to 17/30 x 20/30 x2 = 22.3333 /30. These are score with no penalty whatsoever and there are just the expectancy based on the average score of the tournament. After that we can impose a penalty depending on the possible players responsability.

 

Another factor that we have to take into account is what we can do to solve the situation for future events. If its the country fault then there is nothing effective we can do (if we decided to banned the country for future events they ll probably just dont care.) But if its the players fault then disciplinary action (banning them from future events) can be a deterrent.

 

 

Its a big disaster in modern society and in many religious society that we rely on laws and rules when applied ethics and judgement is the best way to solve these problems. Too many books, lawyers and judges but not enough brain cells working.

[Trinidad]

In contrast, the EBL can do very little to prevent the Lebanese authorities to forbid their players to play against Israel. At the same time, the EBL isn't interested because it is hard to imagine that the outcome of the Israel-Lebanon match would seriously affect the deciding positions in the ranking. They could have made it 25-25 and it wouldn't have had any significant effect (Israel would have moved from 17th to 16th position and Lebanon would have finished last in 25th position, no matter what score they would have gotten).

 

It amazes me that the same people who now think that the EBL should do something about the Israel-Lebanon match (or lack thereof :)), thought it not interesting to deal with the Norway-Italy incident(s).

 

Rik

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

Roland,

 

I shouldn't have written "the same people". But the impression that I get is that people couldn't care less that Norway and Italy seemed to have negotiated to a match result, without any action from the EBL, despite the fact that this was a bridge issue, could have easily affected the outcome of the tournament, and is very much within EBL's competence.

 

You started the tread about Interesting behaviour. It received 20 replies. In that tread, I pointed out that the negotiation about a trick (seemingly in return for not appealing on another board) was questionable behaviour from both sides that could have had major consequences for the final standing. After that, there were four more contributions to the tread. The first two were:

 

You shouldn't use wouldn't and couldn't as extensively as you thought you could.

and

Imagine that my aunt had synapses, she'd be my uncle!

 

After that, the "negotiating a trick" issue hardly got addressed (other than Skaeran pointing out that Versace would have likely gotten the trick if he would have played it out and LH2650 pointing out that the directors wouldn't have awarded that trick). The tread died.

 

I didn't see a contribution from you about the lack of activity from the EBL on this matter. Instead, the attention is focused on the Israel-Lebanon issue which is political in nature. This tread has received 128 replies and is still going on with quite a few contributors condemning the EBL for its alleged lack of backbone where it seems fairly obvious that there is no good way for the EBL to deal with this problem doing justice to everyone involved.

 

I don't expect the EBL to have a backbone on political issues, it is not their job. Other sports organizations face the same kind of problems and can't solve them either. But I do expect that the EBL can and will deal with inapropriate bridge behavior such as negotiating to a match result. Meanwhile, I am observing that the Italy-Norway tread is dead (with the negotiating for a result issue unaddressed), while the Israel-Lebanon tread is very much alive.

 

Rik

[Walddk]

I didn't see a contribution from you about the lack of activity from the EBL on this matter.

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

[jtfanclub]

So lebanon is entitled to 10/30 x 13/30 x2 = 7.666 imps /30

 

Israel is entitled to 17/30 x 20/30 x2 = 22.3333 /30. These are score with no penalty whatsoever and there are just the expectancy based on the average score of the tournament.

Then why show up?

 

It's a long tournament, lots of rounds. Why not call in sick, take a round off, and relax for a day? It'll improve your score for the rest of the tournament, and you won't be penalized for it.

[helene_t]

So lebanon is entitled to 10/30 x  13/30 x2  = 7.666 imps /30

 

Israel is entitled to 17/30 x 20/30 x2 = 22.3333 /30. These are score with no penalty whatsoever and there are just the expectancy based on the average score of the tournament.

Then why show up?

 

It's a long tournament, lots of rounds. Why not call in sick, take a round off, and relax for a day? It'll improve your score for the rest of the tournament, and you won't be penalized for it.

Agree with jtf. This "own average" thing is more like what one should do if nobody is to blame. Say if the TD got food poisoning.

[hrothgar]

So lebanon is entitled to 10/30 x  13/30 x2  = 7.666 imps /30

 

Israel is entitled to 17/30 x 20/30 x2 = 22.3333 /30. These are score with no penalty whatsoever and there are just the expectancy based on the average score of the tournament.

Then why show up?

 

It's a long tournament, lots of rounds. Why not call in sick, take a round off, and relax for a day? It'll improve your score for the rest of the tournament, and you won't be penalized for it.

I believe that these score only apply if you are the non offending side...

 

If Israel were miss a round, they would score 0, while Lebanon would get an adjusted score based on Lebanon's average performance over the entire round robin.

 

If Lebanon were to miss a round, they would receive a zero for the round, while Israel would receive an average.

[hrothgar]

I didn't see a contribution from you about the lack of activity from the EBL on this matter.

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

Actually Roland, I don't think that any of us have enough information to evaluate the EBL's performance. Its very possible that there are a lot of issues that we're not privy to.

 

This is one of those occasions where I think that the officials are in a really shitty position. I don't really blame them for trying to sweep the entire issue under the rug. I would certainly prefer to see the EBL handle this in a very different manner. However, I'm not going to getbent out of shape over maintaining a polite fiction.

 

I understand that you're incensed. I do, however, question whether you'd consider this nearly as much of an issue if this didn't specifically involve Arab - Israeli relations.

[jtfanclub]

So lebanon is entitled to 10/30 x  13/30 x2  = 7.666 imps /30

 

Israel is entitled to 17/30 x 20/30 x2 = 22.3333 /30. These are score with no penalty whatsoever and there are just the expectancy based on the average score of the tournament.

Then why show up?

 

It's a long tournament, lots of rounds. Why not call in sick, take a round off, and relax for a day? It'll improve your score for the rest of the tournament, and you won't be penalized for it.

I believe that these score only apply if you are the non offending side...

 

If Israel were miss a round, they would score 0, while Lebanon would get an adjusted score based on Lebanon's average performance over the entire round robin.

But he says in his example that Lebanon gets 7.6666... points. Not 0.

 

One point that he makes (and is correct about) is that all of these 12-18 type scores penalize Israel when Israel is above average (which is the only time it matters) and Lebanon is below average. So certainly giving Israel the expected value is much better than what they're currently getting. At least they aren't penalized for their opponents not showing up. But not Penalizing Lebanon gives them no incentive to play.

 

I don't know that I consider this an Israel-Lebanon problem. What if Norway calls in sick the next time they're supposed to play the Italians? What do you think is a fair score to give them? I think 18-12 is horrible.

[Trinidad]

I didn't see a contribution from you about the lack of activity from the EBL on this matter.

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.

 

Roland, You have a very valid point that it (the Norway-Italy negotiation) wasn't brought to the attention of the EBL. But then I have to ask: Why did you get in touch with your contacts in Israel over the Israel-Lebanon issue and didn't you contact the EBL over the Norway-Italy negotiation? It seems to me that you thought the Israel-Lebanon issue deserved more attention, which is pretty much what I claimed in my earlier posting.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. Of course, I don't want to tell you what you should or should not give your attention. But I tried to show that people on BBO gave the Israel-Lebanon issue more attention than the Norway-Italy issue and you seem to have questioned that:

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)."

My observation is that you indeed found Norway-Italy very interesting, but found Israel-Lebanon more interesting while the rest of BBO couldn't care less what happened during Norway-Italy and has considerable interest in Israel-Lebanon.

 

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

Of course, it is a concern when a team consistently doesn't show up for a scheduled match. I don't think anyone in the EBL, or the Israeli or Lebanese team is happy with this situation. But the question is: what is the least of evils?

 

You think that the EBL has handled the Israel-Lebanon issue poorly. I think (while I disagree with the assigned match result, which is a minor detail in the greater scheme of things) that they did the best possible job in keeping politics out of the European bridge championships. But we are each entitled to our own opinion.

 

Let me finish by saying that I very much appreciate what you do for the world of bridge and for the BBO community.

 

Rik

[mike777]

First off no one has proved politics has been kept out. IN fact based on Roland's posts it is all politics.

 

I also note not one poster has cited if the captain and ladies were asked why they forfeited? Are there daily bulletins that stated the reason? In fact it almost appears that Roland is the ony EBL member who even cares about this issue.

 

I believe Roland is a Dane. :) Has the Danish NBO asked the EBL why the team did not show up? I mean if no one even bothers to ask the captain, teammembers and NBO we can only conclude that no wants to know the answer or cares. I mean has the Danish bridge league, as a member of the EBL, bothered to lean the true facts in this issue? If so what are they, if not why not?

 

To use a World Cup example, if the Danes do not show up for a World Cup qualifying match and forfeit against Germany, does no one bother to ask why? IF the team was stuck in an elevator, no problem, but at least ask.

This was a Bridge WC qualifying match, if a team fails to show up and forfeits, does no one care to ask them why?

 

To spend days debating what the best VP score should be but not caring enough to ask the team why they did not show up says it all....

 

I mean if the Yankees do not show up for games against the RedSox, let's not ask why but let us debate the best forfeit score....:blink:

 

 

Again I think it is very unfair to speculate that the captain and ladies and NBO would lie if asked.

[Trinidad]

Mike,

 

Why should anyone ask why the Lebanese didn't show up? After all, we all know the answer. There is no need for anybody to spell it out.

 

And we all know that we can't do anything about it, other than show some muscle or backbone. But that, at best, doesn't help anything, other than that we can tell ourselves that we at least did something and that our principles were upheld.

 

Rik

[geller]

If they really want to prevent forfeits they could warn the forfeiting team for the first offense in a 5 year period, fine them EU2000 for the 2nd offense, EU4000 for the 3rd and subsequent offenses. This would hit the federation, not the players. The fact that they haven't adopted such a rule means they're willing to let the forfeits continue. This presumably means they've decided this is the most practical approach.

[shezifi]

And what is in the "rules and regulations" : (http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/08Pau/RulesRegulations.pdf)

 

5. Byes, Ranking and Ties

5.1

Byes

In the event of a team having a bye in any session it will receive 18 VPs.

 

A team must play against each other team against which it is drawn. A team will score zero if, by its own fault, it is not able to play against another team. Its opponents will receive a figure arrived at by taking the average score obtained against the defaulting team by the eight teams nearest to themselves in the ranking list at the end of the Championship or 18 VPs, whichever is the greater.

 

Ilan Shezifi,

Israel women team captain

[Walddk]

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.

[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

[NickRW]

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:

 

<snip>

 

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).

 

<more snip>

As a point of detail, Russia is also geographically more in Asia than it is in Europe.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any country (Israel, Turkey, Lebanon or Russia) should be removed from the EBL on the grounds of geography - after all, each country has to be in one group or another.

 

Equally, there is no geographical reason for continuing with the current staus quo which is clearly an uneasy compromise.

 

Nick

[Fluffy]

Good point Nick :unsure:

[benlessard]

Then why show up?

 

It's a long tournament, lots of rounds. Why not call in sick, take a round off, and relax for a day? It'll improve your score for the rest of the tournament, and you won't be penalized for it.

 

After that we can impose a penalty depending on the possible players responsability.

I meant that after the expected score we can put a X imps penalty.

 

In the 10 pages of post nobody expressed their position on what IMO is the most important part of the problem. Is the definiton of a team = country representative, a team clearly represent a country so that we are sanctionning the team and the country as a whole. Or a team = a group of players originating for a country that are selected by a process.

 

For example country K is at war and responsible for crimes vs humanity. country all over the world and ONU setup embargo and economics sanctions vs country K.despite knowing that the biggest impact will be the suffering of the population of K and not really toward the leaders. But the sanction is officially imposed on the country of K and their leading class as an entity.

 

But would they allow the players from K to participate at the olympics ?

[mike777]

"For example country K is at war and responsible for crimes vs humanity."

 

 

This is a huge claim for bridge to make...for anyone to make........"crimes against humanity"

 

Please keep in mind for most of history....most war crimes are not crimes

1) massive rape

2) massive pillage

 

Note Stalin killed milllions but no crime against humanity....

Note Mao killed millions but no crime against humanity....

 

I hope you see my point but I have my doubts :blink:

 

I bet many will want to see internet cites and quotes sigh.......

See endless papers and more proof.......

 

 

See endless forum posts where they kill the messenger.....sigh

 

I have repeated my point endless my most make no points........

 

 

NBO breaks..rules......for almost 14 years.....other NBO's say so...what....

membership of NBO's say ...so what?

 

(sorry I should just delete all of this because people will say

1) where are internet cites

2) who cares)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

country all over the world and ONU setup embargo and economics sanctions vs country K.despite knowing that the biggest impact will be the suffering of the population of K and not really toward the leaders. But the sanction is officially imposed on the country of K and their leading class as an entity.

 

But would they allow the players from K to participate at the olympics ?

[NickRW]

In the 10 pages of post nobody expressed their position on what IMO is the most important part of the problem. Is the definiton of a team = country representative, a team clearly represent a country so that we are sanctionning the team and the country as a whole. Or a team = a group of players originating for a country that are selected by a process.

In this competition the players are representing their country. They are NOT, or certainly not in my opinion, just a bunch of players who happen to be from be from one country.

 

Nick

[benlessard]

Abit late but

 

Games hit by crisis over Iran-Israel contest

 

Monday, August 16, 2004

 

Iran's world judo champion Arash Miresmaeili refused to compete against an Israeli on Sunday, triggering a fresh crisis at the Olympic Games where race, creed or colour are not allowed to interfere with sport.

 

The International Judo Federation (IJF) failed to agree how to deal with the politically explosive issue at an emergency meeting and said it hold further talks on Monday.

 

The burning issue was whether any penalty would hit Miresmaeili alone or the entire Iranian team.

 

"There has been no decision and we are considering this situation very carefully," said IJF spokesman Michel Brousse.

 

"This has not been brought to us as an issue and until it is, we would not have any comment," said a spokeswoman for the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which pledges to uphold the ideal of sport transcending national barriers.

 

The official reason for Miresmaeili's non-appearance was failure to make the weight.

 

But judo chiefs were questioning how such a seasoned athlete, who carried Iran's flag at Friday's opening ceremony, would have made such a basic error.

 

A statement by the Iranian National Olympic Committee in Tehran suggested the real reason had nothing to do with kilos.

 

"This is a general policy of our country to refrain from competing against athletes of the Zionist regime and Arash Miresmaeili has observed this policy," it said.

 

Iran has refused to recognise Israel's right to exist since Islamic fundamentalists toppled the Shah in 1979.

 

Right after the draw was made last Thursday there were reports that Miresmaeili, 66kg world champion in 2001 and 2003, might pull out because his opponent was an Israeli, Ehud Vaks.

[benlessard]

Arash Miresmaili was the favourite for the gold medal in the 2004 Summer Olympics, where he was the flag bearer for Iran at the opening ceremonies. Slated to fight Israeli competitor Ehud Vaks in the first round, he was disqualified from competing because he was above the allowable weight limit for his class. It was claimed that Miresmaili deliberately set out to be disqualified rather than compete against an Israeli, which was interpreted from his own comments: "Although I have trained for months and was in good shape I refused to fight my Israeli opponent to sympathise with the suffering of the people of Palestine and I do not feel upset at all." [1] Comments from Iranian officials have somehow supported this view. The Iranian state news agency IRNA quoted then Iranian President Mohammad Khatami as saying that Miresmaeili's actions would be "recorded in the history of Iranian glories" and that the nation considered him to be "the champion of the 2004 Olympic Games." Iranian Olympic team chairman Nassrollah Sajadi told Shargh newspaper that the government should give the athlete $115,000 for his action, the amount the Iranian government awards gold medal winning athletes. [2] Then mayor of Tehran and current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that though Miresmaeili "did not get a gold medal, he earned eternal honor by his refusal". [3] On September 8, 2004, Iran's official press agency announced the government had given him $125,000, the same amount awarded to Iran's two Athens gold medalists.[4]