[sartaj1]

It appears that the players arrived at the venue wanting to play the tournament. There were political compulsions on the team. They wanted to play, their government didnt let them.

Its to the WBF's credit that they were able to accomodate such a handicap.

Whatever the terms of this (obviously disadvantageous to L.) situation should be is debatable, but barring them from participation is a case of taking ourselves too seriously.

Bridge is just a game. Lets enjoy it and let others enjoy it. No need to let political agendas dictate bridge administrative actions.

Now, if the Lebanese players themselves decided to boycott a match on political grounds, the matter would be radically different ....

[mike777]

"Bridge is just a game. Lets enjoy it and let others enjoy it. No need to let political agendas dictate bridge administrative actions. "

I could more strongly disagree. Polical agendas must, must dictate bridge administrative actions....to say no......IMO means you do not fully understand the term"political agendas"

[Codo]

I strongly disagree with the posters who want to disqualify the lebanese ladies.

1. It is just a game and they are in a difficult situation, so they need our support, not our punishment.

2 a. Where do you set the borderline: We had the examples before: If Denmark did not show up for the last round- shall they be totally disqualified?
And if they forfeit the match but 3 of them have a real serious desease and a medical certificate?
What if they showedd up and one suffers (or simulate) a break down?
2b. What about the American Team in China having a political demonstration despite the fact that this is forbidden? Do you ban them and disqualify them from the tournement?

I really think that most problems in a match should be punished just within this match. Disqualifications etc. should be done for much more serious misbehavoiur then simply following the rules of my home country.

I think anything beyond a heavy defeat in this match is way too much. But surely they should earn the same zero I would earn if I miss a team match in my home league.
The score for the Israeli team is trickier to decide, but to give them the average score from the two or four teams around them looks like the best solution so far.

[Simpleboi]

Codo, on Jul 4 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

I strongly disagree with the posters who want to disqualify the lebanese ladies.

1. It is just a game and they are in a difficult situation, so they need our support, not our punishment.

2 a. Where do you set the borderline: We had the examples before: If Denmark did not show up for the last round- shall they be totally disqualified?
And if they forfeit the match but 3 of them have a real serious desease and a medical certificate?
What if they showedd up and one suffers (or simulate) a break down?
2b. What about the American Team in China having a political demonstration despite the fact that this is forbidden? Do you ban them and disqualify them from the tournement?

I really think that most problems in a match should be punished just within this match. Disqualifications etc. should be done for much more serious misbehavoiur then simply following the rules of my home country.

I think anything beyond a heavy defeat in this match is way too much. But surely they should earn the same zero I would earn if I miss a team match in my home league.
The score for the Israeli team is trickier to decide, but to give them the average score from the two or four teams around them looks like the best solution so far.

Hi,

The league I play in will give walkover scores based on the highest of the following:

a. The average VPs for all matches played by the non-offending team to the end of the round robin.
b. The complement of the average VPs of the offending team for all matches played up to the end of the round robin. 5 VPs will be used for match scores below 5 VPs in this calculation.
c. 18 VPs.

I think the above quite fair for the non-offending team.. the offending team should of coz get 0 VPs

[mike777]

Codo, on Jul 4 2008, 02:06 AM, said:

I strongly disagree with the posters who want to disqualify the lebanese ladies.

1. It is just a game and they are in a difficult situation, so they need our support, not our punishment.

2 a. Where do you set the borderline: We had the examples before: If Denmark did not show up for the last round- shall they be totally disqualified?
And if they forfeit the match but 3 of them have a real serious desease and a medical certificate?
What if they showedd up and one suffers (or simulate) a break down?
2b. What about the American Team in China having a political demonstration despite the fact that this is forbidden? Do you ban them and disqualify them from the tournement?

I really think that most problems in a match should be punished just within this match. Disqualifications etc. should be done for much more serious misbehavoiur then simply following the rules of my home country.

I think anything beyond a heavy defeat in this match is way too much. But surely they should earn the same zero I would earn if I miss a team match in my home league.
The score for the Israeli team is trickier to decide, but to give them the average score from the two or four teams around them looks like the best solution so far.

I could not disagree more strongly...

You do not discuss any of my points. You imagine strawman logic.

Bottom line, you totally ignore this discussion, if you agree to play everyone and do not.

Your home country orders you to not play Israel.......NP ...........Your NBO should be banned until such order is changed.

OTOH,,if you state ahead of time you will never play Israel, and you are still accepted in tourney.........np...........fire WBF.

OTOH....you say you will never play Israel and still accepted in tourney....then we should simply vote out WBF leaders.

[Codo]

Mike, I may had answered to your points if I had understood them. But I always fail to understand your points, so I cannot answer them.

So lets agree to disagree.

[hotShot]

Bridge is a game and a match even a European Championship match is not important enough to risk:

1) even a single day in prison
2) getting a victim of malicious wounding (does not matter by whom)
3) being killed (does not matter by whom)
4) suffer from other sanctions (disposetion, fines, ...)

[Walddk]

hotShot, on Jul 4 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

Bridge is a game and a match even a European Championship match is not important enough to risk:

1) even a single day in prison
2) getting a victim of malicious wounding (does not matter by whom)
3) being killed (does not matter by whom)
4) suffer from other sanctions (disposetion, fines, ...)

But what do they risk if they sat down to play? We are waiting for rona to come back with the answer. She said she could find out within a few days.

Roland

[mike777]

hotShot, on Jul 4 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

Bridge is a game and a match even a European Championship match is not important enough to risk:

1) even a single day in prison
2) getting a victim of malicious wounding (does not matter by whom)
3) being killed (does not matter by whom)
4) suffer from other sanctions (disposetion, fines, ...)

Great post

What is your integrity worth?
1) Not one single day in armed forces where you may die a horrible death?
2) not being killed or wounded?
3) not suffer fines, etc?
4) not one single day/hour of illegal, inhumane torture......

Great post.

[Codo]

Walddk, on Jul 4 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

But what do they risk if they sat down to play? We are waiting for rona to come back with the answer. She said she could find out within a few days.

Roland

It may be a question about "what to suffer". (And hopefully it is not).

But sometime sit is not even clear what you may suffer. Lets say that my behaviour in Pau was not satisfactoring for my NBO. Even if they have no direct way to punish me- will they ever invite me?

But even if you don't suffer any problems at all:

If I visit an open tourney in Biaritz and choose to play or to forfeit against a team/pair from another country, this may be my own descission.

But as long as f I represent my country I should follow it rules.

If my NBO sponsors me to go for my country to a national tournement, I should follow their rules.

This is just an opinion, I don't claim to be the source for the one and only right ethical behaviour, but this is my belief. Your opinion may differ.

[mike777]

Codo, on Jul 4 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

Walddk, on Jul 4 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

But what do they risk if they sat down to play? We are waiting for rona to come back with the answer. She said she could find out within a few days.

Roland

It may be a question about "what to suffer". (And hopefully it is not).

But sometime sit is not even clear what you may suffer. Lets say that my behaviour in Pau was not satisfactoring for my NBO. Even if they have no direct way to punish me- will they ever invite me?

But even if you don't suffer any problems at all:

If I visit an open tourney in Biaritz and choose to play or to forfeit against a team/pair from another country, this may be my own descission.

But as long as f I represent my country I should follow it rules.

If my NBO sponsors me to go for my country to a national tournement, I should follow their rules.

This is just an opinion, I don't claim to be the source for the one and only right ethical behaviour, but this is my belief. Your opinion may differ.

Codo, you never respond to the most important point.

If your central government or NBO lacks integrity you can choose to follow it or not. That is up to your personal integrity.

If you feel your NBO or central government is ethical and has integrity, no problem. If the WBF says the same, no problem. If you announce you are not going to play against certain teams ahead of time because you are at war, I respect that decision.

If the WBF, as this thread seems to suggest, lacks integrity, no problem, you still make the final decision.

Bottom line you, yes I mean you, make the decision and take full responsibility. If you disagree with your government, make a stand, ( you can protest or resign) if you agree, no problem. I repeat if you agree with whatever your NBO says or you simply do not CARE, np. I repeat If and a big if you choose to represent your country no matter what, no problem, you have made a decision and take full responsibility.

You are not a PAWN, you are not a VICTIM.


Bottom line, if the NBO, lacks integrity and the WBF chooses to turn a blind eye, we have no one to blame but the membership in the long run.

If, I repeat If, we assume teams agree to play everyone and they do not, we got an issue.
Let us go back to the basic premise, Team A or NBO-A agrees to play everyone but later Team A or NBO-A refuses to play specific teams out of pure Hate, pure Anger.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 4 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

Codo, on Jul 4 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

Walddk, on Jul 4 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

But what do they risk if they sat down to play? We are waiting for rona to come back with the answer. She said she could find out within a few days.

Roland

It may be a question about "what to suffer". (And hopefully it is not).

But sometime sit is not even clear what you may suffer. Lets say that my behaviour in Pau was not satisfactoring for my NBO. Even if they have no direct way to punish me- will they ever invite me?

But even if you don't suffer any problems at all:

If I visit an open tourney in Biaritz and choose to play or to forfeit against a team/pair from another country, this may be my own descission.

But as long as f I represent my country I should follow it rules.

If my NBO sponsors me to go for my country to a national tournement, I should follow their rules.

This is just an opinion, I don't claim to be the source for the one and only right ethical behaviour, but this is my belief. Your opinion may differ.

Codo, you never respond to the most important point.

If your central government or NBO lacks integrity you can choose to follow it or not. That is up to your personal integrity.

If you feel your NBO or central government is ethical and has integrity, no problem. If the WBF says the same, no problem. If you announce you are not going to play against certain teams ahead of time because you are at war, I respect that decision.

If the WBF, as this thread seems to suggest, lacks integrity, no problem, you still make the final decision.

Bottom line you, yes I mean you, make the decision and take full responsibility. If you disagree with your government, make a stand, ( you can protest or resign) if you agree, no problem. I repeat if you agree with whatever your NBO says or you simply do not CARE, np. I repeat If and a big if you choose to represent your country no matter what, no problem, you have made a decision and take full responsibility.

You are not a PAWN, you are not a VICTIM.


Bottom line, if the NBO, lacks integrity and the WBF chooses to turn a blind eye, we have no one to blame but the membership in the long run.

If, I repeat If, we assume teams agree to play everyone and they do not, we got an issue.
Let us go back to the basic premise, Team A or NBO-A agrees to play everyone but later Team A or NBO-A refuses to play specific teams out of pure Hate, pure Anger.

I think that your viewing this all in very Black and White terms. All this absolutist talk about pawns and victims is really quite silly.

There is a much simpler explanation for all of this: Laziness + apathy

Here's the crux of the matter. No one really gives a damn.

I believe that the Lebanese women's team could probably violate the orders from Beirut without serious risk that the government would do anything beyond revoking their Visas.

However, why should the team bother to do so? What's in it for them?

[This is especially true given the fact that there might be a real risk of reprisal from some random idiot]

If I were ever to sign on to a national bridge team, my expectation is that I did so in order to compete in a Bridge tournament. My goal wouldn't be creating world peace, over turning the status quo in the Middle East or any such thing.

More over, I don't see why "competing in a bridge tournament" should require that my team play each and every round in said tournament. ***** happens. Sometimes problems come up related to illness. Sometimes there are acts of god. And yes, sometime personal beliefs come into play and I might decide that I do want to compete against team X

So what? What's the big deal?

I agree that this presents problems for the tournament organizers. An incomplete movement means that the conditions of contest aren't as egalitarian as one might hope. But, this problem is one that crops up whatever the reason that folks happen to miss a match and should be addressed in a uniform and consistent manner.

Personally, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it, and I think that its fairly ridiculous that other people take this all so seriously.

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Jul 4 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

Personally, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it, and I think that its fairly ridiculous that other people take this all so seriously.

I don't want to get bent out of shape about it either. However, this is not just any old bridge game. It is a BB qualifier. If we can't get a bit serious about the game at this level, then I don't know why we're really bothering to be competitive at all! Bottom line is that *someone* for *some reason* is prepared to play foot loose with the rules and I for one see no reason why they should not be penalised to the max for that.

Bridge is a game that is almost "anal retentive" about its ethics. Yet the international bridge organisations seem not to give a damn about this. It is very poor example.

Nick

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jul 1 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

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.

It has nothing to do with Bridge. It has everything to do with helping the Israelis. Obviously, the Lebanese think Bridge is important enough to care about whether the Lebanese play the Israelis in them. Why shouldn't they care whether they help the Israelis win the championships?

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?

[TimG]

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?

[ASkolnick]

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.

[jtfanclub]

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

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.

You can always throw a match 30-0. Switch the partnerships around. Try a new system. See how fast you can play. Show up to the game with a severe hangover. And so forth.

But there is no way that you can limit the opponents so they can't make over 18 points (or the average or the average) except by not showing up. If we're out of the running, and the opponents need 25 points to make the finals, we can just not show up and they're out. Imagine if in the finals one team was up by 26 with one round to go, and they won by getting sick! Yes, I know for the finals they'd think of something, but the same effect can happen in the earlier rounds.

In every example you gave, the teams in question got a whole victory. They didn't get part of a victory because their opponents didn't show up. In hockey at one point, you got 2 points for a regular win, 1 point for a shootout win (ie. winning a close game), 0 points for a loss. Can you imagine them getting only one point if their opponents didn't show up? I can't.

In matchpoints, well, matchpoints are different. This isn't matchpoints. This is teams. There is a winner, who gets 30 points (or less if the match is close), and a loser, who gets 0 points (or more if the match is close). Not that complicated.

Suppose Israel's last round is against the Lebanese, and the Israelis need at least 25 to qualify. Can you really tell me you're all right with the Israelis being eliminated by having the Lebanese not show up?

[mike777]

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.

[Walddk]

Basically, you should ask one, perhaps two questions:

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

If the answer to that question is 'No', end of story. Then that country can't take part in the championships. If on the other hand the answer is 'Yes', then you need to ask a further question:

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

For years, in casu Lebanon vs Israel, it has been a fact that the EBL has answered 'Yes' to question 1, and after years of deliberation and confusion they have awarded Lebanon 15, 9 and now 12 VPs as their answer to question 2.

Results of Lebanon vs Israel the last three times they did not play have been 15-18, 9-21 and 12-18. Pro forma results needless to say since they never played one card.

Roland

[hrothgar]

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.