[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2008, 01:28 AM, said:

Yeah, I remember the Olympics in 1980. When somebody won the 100, he got a gold medal, not 18/30 of a gold medal because the Americans weren't there. What other sport gives a partial win when the opponents refuse to play?

In what other sport is the total of your margins of victory the only factor but how many wins you have completely irrelevant? I mean going by your logic, 18 to 12 is NOT a "partial win", it's a win.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 9 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on Jul 9 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

jtfan, would you like to know scores of forfeits in various sports:

Baseball: 9-0 not infinite
Football: 2-0 not infinite
Basketball: 2-0 not infinite.

although more points can be scored.  The reason to make scores 18 or (average) of there better is to insure fairness.  If not, one could theoretically throw a match, just to allow another team to win.  They still could do that, but the differential is the same.

This is really no different than awarding A+ to the non-offending side.  In a matchpoint event, you don't award a team a top.

However, the other side of the equation should always be 0 for a forfeit.

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.

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

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jul 10 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

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.

Roland:

You seem to have missed my point:

I don't believe that the Lebanese team is ever going to make an official announcement that they refuse to play against the Israelis. Rather, they will continue to pretend that they are a victim of a ridiculous string of coincidences.

I could very well be wrong. That's why I have repeatedly asked whether anyone can point to any kind of official statements from the Lebanese team.

I will note that this strategy by the Lebanese puts the WBF officials in a very tricky situation. Its easy for the WBF to sanction the Lebanese for missing a match. However, if the WBF were to specifically sanction Lebanon for deliberately missing a match against against Israel they would be branding the Lebanese as liars. This is a big non-no in a so called "game of gentlemen" and would kick off a big political ***** storm.

One last question:

Roland has consistently criticized the WBF because the penalty imposed against Lebanon for missing a match seems relatively minor and has varied over time. Can anyone point to other examples where a team has forfeited an individual match during the round robin stages? I'd be interested to understand whether of not the penalties imposed on Lebanon for a forfeit are consistent with other such examples.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

Roland has consistently criticized the WBF because the penalty imposed against Lebanon for missing a match seems relatively minor and has varied over time. Can anyone point to other examples where a team has forfeited an individual match during the round robin stages? I'd be interested to understand whether of not the penalties imposed on Lebanon for a forfeit are consistent with other such examples.

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

[helene_t]

TimG, on Jul 9 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2008, 01:28 AM, said:

It has nothing to do with Bridge.  It has everything to do with helping the Israelis.

You can't help what doesn't exist. Doesn't the refusal to play against an Israeli team have to do with not recognizing the legitimacy of the Israeli state?

I don't think so. My guess is that the Lebanese would be willing to play Scotland and England even if they don't recognize Scotland and England as independent countries.

[hotShot]

helene_t, on Jul 10 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 9 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2008, 01:28 AM, said:

It has nothing to do with Bridge.  It has everything to do with helping the Israelis.

You can't help what doesn't exist. Doesn't the refusal to play against an Israeli team have to do with not recognizing the legitimacy of the Israeli state?

I don't think so. My guess is that the Lebanese would be willing to play Scotland and England even if they don't recognize Scotland and England as independent countries.

I'm quite sure TimG is right, it has to do with that fact.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jul 10 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

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

For what its worth, I think that we are both in agreement about the core issue:

I think that we would both agree that there should be a simple set of rules that are consistently applied.

I doubt that we agree about what that set of rules should be.

I think that it is a mistake to differentiate between "refusing to play versus another team" and some "act of god" (traffic problems, food poisoning what have you).

I don't think that it is reasonable to disqualify a team as a result of a temporary bout of food poisoning. Nor do I believe that the political will exists to start major fights regarding just why the Lebanese weren't able to make it to such and such a match.

I think that the most practical solution would be to strike the disqualification clause from the conditions of contest.

[SoTired]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

I think that the most practical solution would be to strike the disqualification clause from the conditions of contest.

That would be terrible. Now, if Lebenon does not want to play Israel they must invent an excuse and deliberately lie. A distasteful option for disobeying CoC. If the refusal disqualification is removed, then anybody could refuse to play against anybody for any perceived political slight at anytime. The bridge championships would then become just another forum for political activity.

[peachy]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

I think that the most practical solution would be to strike the disqualification clause from the conditions of contest.

I came a little late, haven't read all of the thread, but striking disqualification clause would be a bad thing to do.

I think it would be best not to even ASK or EXPECT TO HEAR the reason a team does not show up for a scheduled match. No show => disqualified. If everyone would leave the politics out of it and stick with the "bridge" and "tournament" facts, it all becomes easy:
CoC specify teams must play matches as scheduled.
When this does not happen, CoC specify the team who did not show up (regardless of prior notice or not) the team is disqualified from the event.

End of problem. Well, the organizers will have some extra work to do and will need to rearrange future matches, but it is doable.

[jeffford76]

geller, on Jul 1 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

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.

This isn't particularly fair to the team being forfeited to. Imagine I'm averaging 20VP/match, and the team forfeiting to me is averaging 10VP/match. That means that they're getting 10VP/match against a field *that is worse than me*. I'm getting 20VP/match against a field *that is better than them*. My expectation against this team is probably at least 25VP and possibly higher.

As a rough approximation, maybe I should get my average VPs + (15 - their average VPs).

[hrothgar]

peachy, on Jul 10 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

I think that the most practical solution would be to strike the disqualification clause from the conditions of contest.

I came a little late, haven't read all of the thread, but striking disqualification clause would be a bad thing to do.

I think it would be best not to even ASK or EXPECT TO HEAR the reason a team does not show up for a scheduled match. No show => disqualified. If everyone would leave the politics out of it and stick with the "bridge" and "tournament" facts, it all becomes easy:
CoC specify teams must play matches as scheduled.
When this does not happen, CoC specify the team who did not show up (regardless of prior notice or not) the team is disqualified from the event.

End of problem. Well, the organizers will have some extra work to do and will need to rearrange future matches, but it is doable.

The problem with this approach is that a blanket disqualification for missing a match is extremely problematic.

For the moment, let's table the entire question of political protests and focus on more mundane events like food poisoning. Suppose that you are running a tournament and a player on a four man team is unlucky enough to eat some bad shellfish one evening. As a result, his four man team is unable to play during the morning session.

What's the best course of action:

1. Throw the entire team out of the event
2. Deal with the missing match

I'd argue that Case 2 is enormously preferrable.

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

What's the best course of action:

1. Throw the entire team out of the event
2. Deal with the missing match

I'd argue that Case 1 is enormously preferrable.

typo 1 for 2?

[helene_t]

How often does it happen that a team fails to play a match because of food poisoning?

My guess is it would be rare, especially if they were allowed to use a substitute in an emergency case. If the alternative is a deault of 0 VPs they might as well let some random supporter play.

[SoTired]

1. Getting anything more than 0 for a forfeit is outrageous.
2. Being damaged because your opponents forfeited is outrageous.
3. I see nothing wrong with disqualification for any missed match. Even if you have a food poisoning or other legitimate emergency, the match can easily be delayed while you find a substitute. Only in the case when too many members are lost and you can't field a team, then you probably have to quit, anyway.

EBU is spineless. And that is the kindest interpretation of their actions.

[awm]

I looked up the Lebanese Football (Soccer) team. Apparently they play in the Asian zone.

Israel is "in Europe" because many of its neighbors in the middle east refuse to recognize its existence. In some ways Israel has closer ties to Europe than to its middle eastern neighbors: in many cases it is easier to travel to Europe from Israel (many middle eastern countries disallow Israeli citizens to enter, and do not have flights from Israel), and a substantial percentage of Israeli citizens do have European heritage (fleeing Europe either just before or after the holocaust, although certainly there are some Israeli families who have been in the country much longer than this).

But none of this applies to Lebanon. And in the most popular sport in the country (and the world), they do play in the Asian zone (Israel's football team plays in the European zone, although they rarely qualify for Eurocup).

[Walddk]

SoTired, on Jul 10 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

EBU is spineless. And that is the kindest interpretation of their actions.

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

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 10 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

What's the best course of action: 

1. Throw the entire team out of the event
2.  Deal with the missing match

I'd argue that Case 1 is enormously preferrable.

typo 1 for 2?

thanks for the catch

corrected in the original post

[hrothgar]

SoTired, on Jul 10 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

3. I see nothing wrong with disqualification for any missed match. Even if you have a food poisoning or other legitimate emergency, the match can easily be delayed while you find a substitute. Only in the case when too many members are lost and you can't field a team, then you probably have to quit, anyway.

Are substitute players allowed in these types of events?

I know that this is relatively common in local tournaments, but I'd be shocked if you could sub in a new player for a round during a championship ...

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 09:31 PM, said:

Are substitute players allowed in these types of events?

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."

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jul 11 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 09:31 PM, said:

Are substitute players allowed in these types of events?

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."

Hmm

Wonder if it would be possible to sidestep the entire problem by appointing four substitutes and replacing the entire Lebanese team.

I doubt that it would make the Lebanese government particularly happy to have four random substitutes officially represent them in a match versus Israel.

However, it might force some accountability...