[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

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

I like this! Give everybody watching (who was interested and qualified) a random number, pick two out of a hat, and let them choose their partners. Solves all the problems I can think of, including throwing games by not showing up.

This is brilliant, Richard! Now, how do we get the EBL to read the forum?

[mike777]

Roland, based on your posts in this thread it seems this situation in the EBL has been going on for years and years. The EBL authorities and more importantly the membership of the EBL appear to do nothing over this situation.

Assuming this has been going on for years is anyone else in Europe, besides you, making an issue of this? At the very least it seems the Israel NBO and its players put up with it rather than ask for the suspension of the Lebanonese NBO.

If the sponsors or WBF or EBL or for that matter Israel does not demand an explanation from the captain and players and NBO so be it.

I do not think we should assume or speculate that the ladies would lie and therefore be cheating if asked, that is unfair.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jul 10 2008, 11:42 PM, said:

Roland, based on your posts in this thread it seems this situation in the EBL has been going on for years and years. The EBL authorities and more importantly the membership of the EBL appear to do nothing over this situation.

Assuming this has been going on for years is anyone else in Europe, besides you, making an issue of this? At the very least it seems the Israel NBO and its players put up with it rather than ask for the suspension of the Lebanonese NBO.

If the sponsors or WBF or EBL or for that matter Israel does not demand an explanation from the captain and players and NBO so be it.

I do not think we should assume or speculate that the ladies would lie and therefore be cheating if asked, that is unfair.

I cannot and will not speak on behalf of the Israeli Bridge Federation, but I have now forwarded all posts in this thread to Ilan Shezifi and David Birman, my contacts in the IBF. Perhaps they want to reply, perhaps not. We shall see.

Roland

[uday]

Just FYI, in case it isn't clear

Bridge Base Online has no opinion on this matter.

My personal opinion: we've seen similar things come up in the past. I don't believe that public opinion here is sufficient to induce a change of mind or policy there.

Uday

[NickRW]

uday, on Jul 10 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

Bridge Base Online has no opinion on this matter.

Well, of course Uday.

You may well be right about the power of our opinions. Personally I think they ought to have weight. Bridge is a game where even ordinary club players are expected to follow quite a long and complicated set of rules plus local NBO regulations, most of which have the purpose of making the game fair and ethical. For the EBL to so blatantly flaunt it's own rules is quite simply disgusting.

An earlier poster suggested that this problem is circumvented in football by Lebanon playing in the Asian section - the WBF could quite easily fix this. Frankly neither of them are what I'd call European anyway.

Nick

[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]

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

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]

Quote

- 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.

Quote

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]

Walddk, on Jul 11 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

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:

Quote

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

and

Quote

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]

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

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]

benlessard, on Jul 11 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

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]

jtfanclub, on Jul 11 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

benlessard, on Jul 11 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

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]

jtfanclub, on Jul 11 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

benlessard, on Jul 11 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

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]

Walddk, on Jul 11 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Jul 11 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 11 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

benlessard, on Jul 11 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

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]

Walddk, on Jul 11 2008, 07:07 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

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:

Quote

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.

Quote

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....


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.