[Walddk]

As one could predict, it happened again. Lebanon's women did not turn up for the round 1 encounter against Israel at the European Championships. Here is the result of the match:

LEBANON-ISRAEL ... 0 0 ... 12 18

Although there was some kind of adjustment involved if and when, blah, blah ... this political decision to a political issue is ridiculous. Lebanon scored around 9 VPs on average against the other 23 opponents.

The only sensible solution is to have the following phrase (or something similar) in the Conditions of Contest:

"Every team must play against all other teams. Failure to do so will result in disqualification from the championships."

Please note that I do not take sides here. The same would obviously apply for Israel if they declined to play against Lebanon or any other Arab country.

I know that the Lebanese players would not mind to sit down and play against Israel, but the Lebanese government does not allow them to. Too bad, but in that case you can't participate in an event like this.

Bridge politicians are like all other politicians. They think, naively, that they can please everyone with a compromise that in effect pleases no-one. Next time some country refuses to play against Norway or Italy and gets 12 VPs for staying away. Sheer nonsense.

Sadly, the political undertones reach beyond the matches and players. One of the online commentators declined to commentate on a match where Israel was involved. Fair enough, but that is easily taken care of. We just find a replacement.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

The bizarre thing is that neither Israel nor Lebanon are obviously in Europe at all.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 1 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

The bizarre thing is that neither Israel nor Lebanon are obviously in Europe at all.

That is a fact, of course, but the problem for Israel is that they would not be accepted in the zone they belong to. So another compromise.

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 1 2008, 06:12 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 1 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

The bizarre thing is that neither Israel nor Lebanon are obviously in Europe at all.

That is a fact, of course, but the problem for Israel is that they would not be accepted in the zone they belong to. So another compromise.

Roland

Then so much for the rule every team must play against every other team.

[dan_ehh]

Quote

"Every team must play against all other teams. Failure to do so will result in disqualification from the championships."

I do not believe disqualification is the proper way to address this issue. After all, it is not the Lebanese team's fault that their government forbids them to play.

But I do agree that granting 12 VPs to a team which did not show up is wrong. 0 sounds about right.

Regarding the team which did show up, I do not think awarding 18 VPs is a fair treatment either.
In modern bridge, whenever a board is skipped and one side is not at fault, the innocent side's result for this board is set to A+, which means 3 IMPs or 60%. But if the pair's average for the session is greater than the granted 60%, the law allows the director to assign them their average for the session so that the skipped board will have virtually no effect - even if their average for the session is 80%.

A good treatment, in my opinion of course, would be to wait until the tournament is over and then assign this team their average of VPs, perhaps even with a bonus if the other team is ranked very low.

[mike777]

"After all, it is not the Lebanese team's fault that their government forbids them to play."

If your government forbids you from playing a team and you do not resign in protest how is it not your fault or responsibility? It is your government, you either support the decision or protest it. What happened to taking responsibility and acting on it? Let's stop being victims and blaming others for a lack of action. Stop being so eager to play the "poor victim card", its not my fault.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jul 1 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

"After all, it is not the Lebanese team's fault that their government forbids them to play."

If your government forbids you from playing a team and you do not resign in protest how is it not your fault or responsibility? It is your government, you either support the decision or protest it. What happen to taking responsibility and acting on it? Let's stop being victims and blaming others for a lack of action.

It's true that the players can decline to travel if they don't agree with the government's decision. However, although we may have a feeling as to what the consequences will be if they go and play, we can't be sure what effect it will have if they decide to stay at home.

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 1 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 1 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

"After all, it is not the Lebanese team's fault that their government forbids them to play."

If your government forbids you from playing a team and you do not resign in protest how is it not your fault or responsibility? It is your government, you either support the decision or protest it. What happen to taking responsibility and acting on it? Let's stop being victims and blaming others for a lack of action.

It's true that the players can decline to travel if they don't agree with the government's decision. However, although we may have a feeling as to what the consequences will be if they go and play, we can't be sure what effect it will have if they decide to stay at home.

Roland

I agree, taking responsibility can be difficult and have consequences. Making choices is hard and it is not uncommon for people to prefer to play the victim card. But let us not say we do not take responsibility for these choices.

[Walddk]

http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/08P...?qmatchid=22312

Too funny for words really. Lebanon even had a line-up for the match - a pro forma line-up obviously. They did not arrive late in Pau, and the players were not taken ill. They just stayed away because they had strict orders not to turn up.

Yes, I feel sorry for the players who wanted to play, but since they were not allowed to, they should have declined the invitation to take part in the event.

Roland

[HedyG]

what do you suggest Mike? that the Lebanese ladies team refrain from taking part in the European championships? or that they endanger themselves by going against the directives they received?
they live in a different world to yours! hard to understand for some of us but a fact.
i believe the main problem is the way the EBL handled the situation.
giving a team that doesn't play 12 VPs cannot be right.
if on the last day a sudden epidemic had broken out and the Danish players hadn't played, they would have qualified for the Bermuda Bowl with their 12 VPs. if the German players had also been taken ill Italy wouldn't have qualfied with their 12 VPs......
isn't the way the situation was treated opening a door to a whole new ballgame?
also i strongly believe that it is not admissible to tolerate teams not playing against other teams for political or other reasons. we are talking about sports here. not politics!
i think it would be in the interest of all players, including the Lebanese ladies, that this be made clear and its take it or leave it.
i doubt that they would be forbidden to take part in further competitions by their authorities. but the correct conditions must be imposed by the EBL and WBF.

[mike777]

HedyG, on Jul 1 2008, 06:57 AM, said:

what do you suggest Mike? that the Lebanese ladies team refrain from taking part in the European championships? or that they endanger themselves by going against the directives they received?
they live in a different world to yours! hard to understand for some of us but a fact.
i believe the main problem is the way the EBL handled the situation.
giving a team that doesn't play 12 VPs cannot be right.
if on the last day a sudden epidemic had broken out and the Danish players hadn't played, they would have qualified for the Bermuda Bowl with their 12 VPs. if the German players had also been taken ill Italy wouldn't have qualfied with their 12 VPs......
isn't the way the situation was treated opening a door to a whole new ballgame?
also i strongly believe that it is not admissible to tolerate teams not playing against other teams for political or other reasons. we are talking about sports here. not politics!
i think it would be in the interest of all players, including the Lebanese ladies, that this be made clear and its take it or leave it.
i doubt that they would be forbidden to take part in further competitions by their authorities. but the correct conditions must be imposed by the EBL and WBF.

What I suggested was quite clear. Make a decision and take responsibility for your choices.

I note no one has cited they do not approve of the decision. I note no one has cited a protest by them.

It is not difficult to understand that they live in a different part of the world and their decisions have consquences. We all have family members, some very close that have made these decisions.

btw reading your post it seems you basically agree with my points.
"also i strongly believe that it is not admissible to tolerate teams not playing against other teams for political or other reasons. we are talking about sports here. not politics!"

[Walddk]

As just a couple of examples, I strongly disagree with the regime in China, and yet I play against Chinese players. I am also strongly against the politics of the Bush administration, but still I sit down to play against Americans.

If my government told me that you can participate in various championships if you don't play against China and USA, I would have stayed away. That is my point when I write that the Lebanese women should not have travelled to France.

It would also have taken the hot potato off the EBL executive table.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Quote

A good treatment, in my opinion of course, would be to wait until the tournament is over and then assign this team their average of VPs, perhaps even with a bonus if the other team is ranked very low.

How would you suggest to do that? 18 VP unless we feel that it's not fair. And we decide at the end of the tournament. Now consider the scenario that Israel came in 7th, 2 VP short of 6th. Then your decision would decide who goes to the Venice Cup. And you decide it after all matches are finished. How would you feel?

The only solution is to account for this possibility in the COC. I would prefer "if you decline to play you will be disqualified", as Roland does, but if not, one can use the strategy outlined here:

Zermelo Scoring Method

To finish up, politics and sports should be disconnected. Arch enemies in politics have played against each other in other situations, why should this situation be different?

[HedyG]

nothing wrong with hot potatoes in EBLs lap. they need to take a strong stand and maybe now is as good a time as any. as for the Lebanese ladies protesting or refusing to
participate, we do not know that either action might not have endangered their security.
i for 1 will not throw stones at them without knowing for sure.

[Walddk]

This is apparently a never ending story. I wonder what will happen in Beijing when for instance Pakistan and Indonesia are to play Denmark. Will they not turn up because their governments do not approve of the Mohammed cartoons? Perhaps the players don't either.

It would indeed be nice if you could separate sports and politics, Gerben, but it would be naive to think that you can. Bridge is not war; it is, sadly, much more serious than that it seems.

Roland

[mike777]

HedyG, on Jul 1 2008, 07:13 AM, said:

nothing wrong with hot potatoes in EBLs lap. they need to take a strong stand and maybe now is as good a time as any. as for the Lebanese ladies protesting or refusing to
participate, we do not know that either action might not have endangered their security.
i for 1 will not throw stones at them without knowing for sure.

I do not think Roland or anyone suggests throwing stones, just having preset rules disqualifying the team.

People were making counterarguments based on"its not my fault" or "I live in a different culture you do not understand" so do not disqualify me.

[HedyG]

no, Roland is DEFINITELY not throwing stones!

[dan_ehh]

Quote

The only solution is to account for this possibility in the COC

Here is my proposition for an addendum to the COC:

"A team which will not show up for a match will receive the score of 0 Victory points for that match. The opposing team which did show up will receive the highest between their average of VPs + 1 and the average VPs which had been scored against the team which has not showed up by all other teams. These averages will be calculated after all matches have been finished."

Quote

your decision would decide who goes to the Venice Cup. And you decide it after all matches are finished. How would you feel?

If you define it in the COC I feel fine about it. 18:12 is just as much an arbitrary decision as the formula I have just suggested, its only advantage is that it is simpler and its disadvantages have already been discussed.

Regarding the link you gave, it looks very interesting in theory. My problem with it is that Bridge is not an exact science and it is quite possible that with very few matches, a "bad day" or "bad match" will have too big an effect. Predicting results is always a problem but I think that in long RRs such as those in the recent EC, using the averages is a better method. In my opinion it also conforms to the Laws of Bridge. But I am not a mathmatician and it is entirely possible that your idea is brilliant. Perhaps you should suggest it to the WBF and EBL

Last but not least - I made this suggestion because I would rather have the Lebanese team participate in the tournament than disqualify them.

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments here:

1. I think that it is a mistake to treat a deliberate boycott in a different manner than an "Act of God". Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the sentiment. It feels right to make a distinction between the two cases. However, from a practical perspective, I suspect that this is far more trouble than its worth. In the long run, I think that its a lot easier to create a simple uniform rule that describes the consequences of missing a match and applying said rule regardless of why a team happened to forfit.

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

I wouldn't be adverse to a more complicated metric like the one that Gerben has proposed.

[brianshark]

My first impression of this was basically Rolan's impression. But on further deliberation, I'm starting to believe that the Lebanese are in a much tougher situation than any of us can easily appreciate. We are all more used to societies where we have a right to protest and our protests will have some sort of impact.

If the Lebanese play against the wishes of their government, maybe we don't fully appreciate how severe a risk that is for them because we don't have such an oppresive government. And maybe if they refuse to play the tournament out of protest, the effect they will have on their government's policy is zero and the net result is that they just won't get to play big bridge competitions. So what are they to do?

Maybe the best scenario they can hope for is to play, but not turn up against Israel and accept whatever punishment the tournament organisers give them, hoping it is not too severe.

I bet no matter how severe a punishment we dish out to them, the above will be their best scenario. And that if we threaten them with expulsion from the tournament then the result is just that there won't be any Lebanese team. And that would just be a shame.

I'm still undecided, but I think more sympathy for the Lebanese is called for.