[Codo]

Why does the Lebanon partcipate in EBU Events?

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

[Walddk]

Codo, on Jul 2 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

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]

helene_t, on Jul 3 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

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]

hotShot, on Jul 3 2008, 06:04 PM, said:

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]

Codo, on Jul 2 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

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]

The_Hog, on Jul 3 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

Can Australia participate in the European Championships?

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

[Walddk]

The_Hog, on Jul 3 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

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

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]

ArtK78, on Jul 3 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

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]

matmat, on Jul 3 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

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

[hotShot]

I don't know much about the situation in Lebanon, but I guess the Lebanese team does.

Some facts:
2005 people like the Lebanese Prime minister Rafik Hariri and the journalist Samir Kassir were killed, for political reasons.

Maybe my informations are outdated, but I was told that military courts are integrated into the regular legal courts in Lebanon.
Lebanese citizens that enter Israel are put in front of a court-martial. Remember that the 2 countries are currently at war.
So I guess that it is considered a crime not to boycott a match.

Further reading:Lebanon: A Human Rights Agenda for the Parliamentary Elections

I really doubt that excluding Lebanese teams from any sport competition, and by this separating Lebanese people further from the rest of the world is helpful. Sport organizations can't resolve the conflicts of the world, but at least they should not contribute additional anger to it.

[rona_]

hotShot, on Jul 3 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

I don't know much about the situation in Lebanon, .................................
Some facts:
2005 people like the Lebanese Prime minister Rafik Hariri and the journalist Samir Kassir were  killed, for political reasons.....................

No.

The Syrians killed them, not the Lebanese.

[mike777]

rona_, on Jul 3 2008, 04:42 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jul 3 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

I don't know much about the situation in Lebanon, .................................
Some facts:
2005 people like the Lebanese Prime minister Rafik Hariri and the journalist Samir Kassir were  killed, for political reasons.....................

No.

The Syrians killed them, not the Lebanese.

Well that is up for debate yes?

Just who killed who and why?

Who is doing the actual killing for political reasons?

Lebanese?
Lebanese paid by Syria?
Lebanese paid by Iran?
Syrian citizens?
Iranian citizens?
Israel?
Palestine?
Other?
All of the above?

Anyway back to bridge, the ladies declined to play for some unknown, unspecified reasons and it appears the authorities continue to choose to not impose harsh penalties on the NBO.

Some posts seem to infer it is basically illegal for citizens of one or more teams to play against Israel, The players involved make the decision to still show up and these teams continue to be invited, so be it.

[xcurt]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2008, 07:57 AM, said:

2.  As for the scoring...  I suspect that the best option is to

Award the team that missed the match a zero
Award the team that wasn't at fault the average value of all their other matches

A little late to this discussion but I don't think anyone has mentioned that awarding the Israelis the average VPs of their other matches isn't a very fair scoring method. Remember, round-robin strategy, like matchpoint pairs strategy, is to not lose to the strong teams and to beat the living dog snot out of the weak ones.

Perhaps the best practical solution to preserve the integrity of the Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup qualification aspect of the European Chshps is to run the Ladies Series as a two-stage RR and hope the Lebanese don't make it through. Agree with some other posters that expecting the Lebanese ladies to (a) play the Israelis in spite of instructions from the NBF or (b) kicking them out entirely is just too idealistic given current Middle East politics, and is just holding Lebanese bridge players hostage to the stupidity of others.

[mike777]

xcurt, on Jul 3 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2008, 07:57 AM, said:

2.  As for the scoring...  I suspect that the best option is to

Award the team that missed the match a zero
Award the team that wasn't at fault the average value of all their other matches

A little late to this discussion but I don't think anyone has mentioned that awarding the Israelis the average VPs of their other matches isn't a very fair scoring method. Remember, round-robin strategy, like matchpoint pairs strategy, is to not lose to the strong teams and to beat the living dog snot out of the weak ones.

Perhaps the best practical solution to preserve the integrity of the Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup qualification aspect of the European Chshps is to run the Ladies Series as a two-stage RR and hope the Lebanese don't make it through. Agree with some other posters that expecting the Lebanese ladies to (a) play the Israelis in spite of instructions from the NBF or ( kicking them out entirely is just too idealistic given current Middle East politics, and is just holding Lebanese bridge players hostage to the stupidity of others.

The only part of this that really throws me is that it is too idealistic. If a team agrees to play all the other teams when accepting the invitation and then declines on orders of its NBO or central government I fail to see why it is too idealistic to punish the NBO. Such punishment may include but not be limited to suspension from all WBF events until said practice is stopped.

If the captain of the team and the NBO takes the responsibility to not tell the full truthful reason, then a pattern of behavior can be looked at for future action.

Example, if two countries are at war with each other and one accepts the conditions of contest to play them and then refuses. Simply bar that country from WBF until they agree to keep their word when it comes to agreeing to conditions of contests. I think it is ridiculous that the sponsors of the event need to make special seeds for such a team. Note if the NBO refuses the invitation, I fully respect that decision even if I do not agree with it.

OTOH if the WBF, as it appears from this thread, keeps turning a blind eye to this silly situation, so be it but ultimately the membership of the WBF must take full responsibilty if this continues.