Let’s begin with the basics. For the purpose of international competitions, the world of bridge is divided up into eight geographic zones. Each Zone selects one to six countries to compete in the World Championships for National Teams, held in odd-numbered years. These Championships are the Bermuda Bowl, open; the Venice Cup, restricted to women, and the D’Orsi Bowl, also called Senior Bowl, for aged sixty and older. Both the zonal tourneys and the Championships are governed by the World Bridge Federation (WBF). The Open and Women’s championships are named for the venue where they were held for the first time: 1950 Bermuda, 1974 Venice. The Senior Bowl is named after the Brazilian Ernesto D’Orsi, a past president of WBF. The “poorest” of the zones in terms of membership is the fifth, Central America and Caribbean, which sends one team only; there are a total of 1,400 registered players in all its National Bridge Organisations (NBO). Jamaica, which won the 2013 zonal championship, has only forty-two registered players. The “richest” by that standard is Zone 1, who sends the six teams that place highest in each category in the European Championships.
This is the roster of the upcoming Venice Cup – the Women’s World Championship – which will be held from 16th to 29th September at Bali in Indonesia, alongside the Open and Seniors:
Zone 1. Europe: England, France, Turkey, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden (not Israel)
Zone 2. North America: Canada, USA1 (Sonsini), USA2 (Westheimer)
Zone 3. South America: Brazil, Argentina
Zone 4. Asia and the Middle East: India, Pakistan
Zone 5. Central America and Caribbean: Guadeloupe (not Jamaica)
Zone 6. Asia and Northern Pacific: Japan, China, Philippines
Zone 7. South Pacific: Australia, New Zealand
Zone 8. Africa: South Africa, Egypt
That totals twenty-one teams plus Indonesia as the host country; just as in the Bermuda and Senior Bowls.
The number of teams from each Zone is determined by bridge strength as expressed by the number of players; Europe has 400,000 registered players, North America 160,000, South America 4,400, Asia-Pacific 71,000 (6); the other zones have less than 10,000. When a qualified NBO cannot go to her championship because of unforeseen circumstances, the right to participate shifts to the next-placed nation in the same zone. When no team from that zone can go, the right shifts to a NBO of the Zone 1, Europe, the “richest” in players. When another zone is short of one team, or the same zone is short of two, the right to send another team passes to Zone 6, Asia and Northern Pacific, the “richest” in population. The rules parcelling out the world in zones have two objectives: give all the countries a chance to participate, even the poorest, and select the best of them.
It is evident that the Zone Rules, because the principles of equality implied in them, are the main ones in matter of qualification and eligibility; it is not by chance that most sports, from football to chess, follow the same criteria. Also it is evident that any further rule in the same matters must be consistent, or at least not in conflict, with the Zone Rules.
In 2008 the World Bridge Federation passed a new rule, stating that only NBOs which participated in the World Bridge Games, formerly called Olympiads and held every leap year, could participate in the two subsequent World Championships. NBOs which missed the World Bridge Games but participated in the World Bridge Series, held every even non-leap year, are also eligible to participate in the World Championships. By this rule every country – or more accurately, their National Bridge Organization (NBO) – must play, and travel for, a supplementary event to in order to validate the participation to zonal qualifying tourneys. Under this rule Jamaica, which with its forty-two registered players couldn’t afford to send a team to the World Bridge Games, lost her right to participate in the Venice Cup, and Guadeloupe, the Zone 5 runner-up, became eligible. Though the rule is not new, its effect has not been evident till now: all the richest countries always send teams to the other events, whereas the weak ones often fail to qualify, or, being aware that they are not eligible, do not even enter the zonal tourney.
The repeal of the 2008’s rule, which would allow Jamaica to go as it is her right, shouldn’t deny Guadeloupe to go as well. The new bad rule created expectations and established rights which couldn’t be revoked by its cancellation. In any case, whether Guadeloupe goes alone or she and Jamaica both participate, it could affect the result of the championship. Let’s see why.
The game of bridge is statistical: the weakest team can beat the strongest, even if only in one match. It would be a useless victory for the former, because the same statistical laws deny it other such victories, but it could compromise the latter’s prospects. It therefore can be concluded that any change that would weaken the lineup of teams emerging from zonal tourneys could alter the event; Guadeloupe admittedly has little chance of ruining the prospects of a strong team, but its presence remains unnecessary, a technical violation.
In Zone 1, Europe, two great countries failed to qualify for the Venice Cup: Germany, which placed 14th, and Italy, which was 9th . In the last twenty-five years, the German women has been a great team led by Sabine Auken and Daniela von Arnim. Germany’s bad result can be attributed to the fact that this wonderful pair no longer play for her Country. Italy does not have pairs as great as Germany, nor champions like Catherine Saul D’Ovidio (France, 2011 Venice Cup holder), or Nicola Smith Gardener (England, 2012 European champion), but the ninth position is not appropriate for a Country whose women were a time the queens of Europe. The third qualified, after England and France, is Turkey, whose players are Asli Acar, Vera Adut, Belis Atalay, Serap Ellialti, Ozlem Oymen, Dilek Yavas. The Turkish women are a new force that also got fourth place in 2008 World Bridge Games behind England, China and the U.S., and ahead of France. The Netherlands and Poland, fourth and fifth in Europe, could have something to say, but their victory would be unexpected.
Israel was sixth in Zone 1, but will not go to Bali because of problems with their visas and with security. Indonesia, which does not recognize the State of Israel, did not formally deny visas to the Israeli women: they were asked to not arrive directly from Israel, but via Bangkok or Singapore, and also were asked to pay the journey to one of those towns for two Indonesian functionaries, who, there – perhaps, I add – would have given the visas. Also there was another problem: the Israeli Federation requested to know the security measures to protect the players, without getting reply; thus they withdrew. The Israel’s withdrawal was an act of Israel herself; but this act was necessary because the situation about visas and security. The adjective “necessary” is mine; if it was true what has been written by Eitan Levy (1), President of Israeli Federation, and by Gianarrigo Rona, president of the WBF, the withdrawal of Israel had become necessary.
Sweden was seventh, so when Israel withdrew the WBF invited them. who promptly accepted. Sweden has very little chance to win, but they are strong enough to mar the championship of a favourite. The technical alteration caused by the Guadeloupe-for-Jamaica trade was probably only theoretical; Sweden, instead, has the “qualities” to upset the entire tourney. The only result which guarantee that they have not adversely affected the final outcome would be for them to win the Venice Cup. If so, it could be said that destiny fought the Zone Rule in order to restore the justice.
There was another withdrawal in the D’Orsi Senior Bowl: Zone 3’s qualified teams were Brazil and Argentina, but the latter withdrew because some difficulties, nor political ones neither because wrong rules. The withdrawal of Argentina, a strong team, could affect the result of the Senior Bowl, but there is no Rule Violation, just a natural statistic factor. It must be underscored, however, that their reasons do not appear convincing: their problems existed before the zonal tourney in which they had qualified (2).
No one of the South American countries after Argentina accepted the opportunity to substitute for them, thus, under the Zone Rule, the WBF asked the seventh placed Zone 1 Seniors to replace the South Americans. It was Israel again. There was no point in thinking that the seniors would have got the visas and security information which were denied to women, nevertheless they asked the WBF to check touch with the Indonesian Federation. Roland Wald, a Danish journalist and bridge official, reported on BridgeWinners.com that…
“…The WBF responded that arranging a security dialogue with Indonesia would be impossible…”(3)
And the Israeli Senior Team withdrew as well. Behind Israel was The Netherlands, who accepted. Because the Netherlands is strong enough to alter the results of other favoured teams, the credibility of D’Orsi Senior Bowl has gone like that of the Venice Cup (unless the Dutch win it, of course).
There were a lot of comments when the world learned about the case of the Israeli women. Some of these comments were pro Indonesia, arguing that the Israelis had formally not been denied visas, but most complained about the exclusion and asked the WBF’s president, Gianarrigo Rona, for an explanation. It must be said here that Laura Camponeschi, founder of Neapolitan Club online magazine, had written to Indonesian Federation asking for a reply to an account by Israel Bridge Federation president Eitan Levy about the visa question and Israel’s unanswered request for a security contact. There was no response.
A response eventually came from Rona. He first stated that it was not a problem of visas, as Israel had accepted the idea of financing travel of two Indonesian bridge officials to either Bangkok or Singapore to vouch for the Israelis so that they would be given visas at the Indonesian consulates there.
Here a remark on the vexed issue of the visas is necessary: it is true that Israel accepted the burden of such a pilgrimage, but it was not in any certain that the procedure would have ended up in anything being granted. The visa is much more than a formality, even between friendly countries. I admit, however, that bureaucracy might have been responsible for such a ring-a-roses, so let’s suppose that the visas, ultimately, would have been granted.
About security, Rona wrote:
“…I don’t know which kinds of additional guarantees the Israel Federation asked about or did not have the opportunity, as Eitan [Levy] said, to ask, and I can understand their regret, but knowing our Indonesian friends I am sure that they did everything was necessary to assure the participation and the security of the Israel representative, as all the other representatives, in Bali.” (4)
But later – as reported by Roland Wald about seniors – Rona wrote that it was impossible to contact Indonesians. The two statements appear contradictory. If in the case of the women Rona was sure of the reliability of his Indonesian friends, why should he have tried to contact them about seniors? Didn’t the same reliability apply to the latter as well? The contradiction is probably only apparent; the original statement about seniors, which I have not seen, might explain the question.
An happy end for the Israeli Women came in unexpected way. It was George Jacobs (5), President of the United States Bridge Federation (USBF), who made the announcement: the Israel Women were invited to SportAccord, held in China in December. SportAccord is a yearly invitational tourney organized by the federations of all mind sports. About bridge, the official site says:
“…Top men and women players are invited to compete in teams, pairs and individual for attractive prize money.”
The prize money is much more that attractive, $250,000. There will participate four open and four women teams, three pairs each team; the ones already invited were China, USA, and the winner of the Venice Cup in Indonesia. The top women teams invited in the 2012 edition were China, USA; France, 2011 Venice Cup winner, and England, European champion. It means that now a team only strong enough to be the sixth placed in Europe, i.e. Israel, will substitute France or England.
There are the two teams which at this moment have to be called the strongest women’s teams in the world. They are France, 2011 Venice Cup holder: Veronique Bessis, Benedicte Cronier, Catherine D’Ovidio, Daniele Gaviard, Joanna Neve, Sylvie Willard, and England, 2012’s European title holder: Sally Brock, Fiona Brown, Heather Dhondy, Nicola Smith, Nevena Senior, Susan Stockdale (7).
The English women not only beat France in 2012, but also won at the 2008 and 2012 World Bridge Games. Also it must be noted – I say it without any humorous intention – that because they participated in the World Bridge Games, not necessarily by winning it, England was not disqualified from playing in Bali, saving herself from being dropped like Jamaica. Another demonstration of the conflict between the new 2008’s rule and the Zone Law.
What is SportAccord? Why are the top men and women invited, and handsomely paid? It is because this event has to be a showcase to popularize the concerned sports. The players have to be the best; the purpose, and the hope, is that the people get to know and like these sports, widening the field of their supporters and, the ultimate goal, entering the Olympiads. A very important objective is at stake, and not even the titles are enough to be invited: in 2012 Italy, which had won neither the 2011 Bermuda Bowl nor the 2010 European Championship, was invited because its players, Bocchi, Duboin, Lauria and Versace, are known even by people who do not play bridge. SportAccord is for few, only the jewels can be shown there. Israel is a good team, but not a jewel: she is probably no better than twelfth among the women teams in the world: seventh in Europe, there are at least China, three American teams and Indonesia that are better. By the way: this is the Indonesian Women Team: Rury Andhani, Lusje Ola Bojoh, Suci Amita Dewi, Kristina Wahyu Murniati, Conny Sumanpouw, Julita Grace Tueje. In 2011’s Venice Cup they were runner-up, beaten only by France.
The situation at the beginning of August was as follows:
1) England or France had lost her chance to be invited to SportAccord. No rule was violated here, but it is just nonsense.
2) Jamaica’s right to play Venice Cup had been violated by a wrong rule.
3) The Israel Women and Senior teams did not get the visas to go to Indonesia. The women had been invited to SportAccord as consolation prize or somewhat; the seniors have not yet been solaced.
Because the irregularities of the points two and three, and as indirect outcomes of them, the Senior and Women’s championships, and maximally the SportAccord, have nearly completely lost their technical significance. Sweden and Guadeloupe in Venice Cup, the Netherlands in Seniors, and Israel in SportAccord are square pegs in round holes.
This chaos might lead to a disaster. Bridge is not Football; Football, for example, is able to survive to any kind of scandal: there is doping in it, drug addiction, violence, racism, corruption. All this notwithstanding the supporter still pay to watch it in the stadium or sit, drink and crunch in front of the TV. It’s important to realize the difference between supporters of football and bridge: anybody can see the beauty of dribbling or a diving save, but only a person with not a lot less skill than the person executing it can appreciate a bridge coup. Therefore, if bridge wants to widen the field of its supporters, it has to teach them. Any failure of the rules or breaking of them will cost dearly in the coin of credibility, driving away people who were interested enough to approach.
Before to go on are needing two notes. First: It is not the players who could choose whether or not to go. The Swedish, Dutch, and Israeli Federations decided, the players had had to obey. Second: Israel does not fit into SportAccord, but the good will of the WBF and USBF’s presidents Gianarrigo Rona and George Jacobs – and of China – to compensate them for what happened is understandable and praiseworthy. But there are more suitable events to which they could have been invited. For example the 2014 World Series, or the fall National American Championships. And what about going to the competition for a great new trophy, the first edition of the Angelini International Teams Città di Roma? (October 11-13. People, it’s Roma!).
A ray of sunlight broke through the storm clouds and entered the story in early August. At first it was hide by a cloud that looked even greater and darker of the others: an Israeli citizen who lives in the U.S. and plays for a U.S. team had problems getting the Indonesian visa (it is unnecessary to say who she was; in a few days the poor woman was quoted as much as Ely Culbertson during the Bridge Battle of the Century). Anyway, the bad news soon turned to be very good: the visa was granted, and without laps in the Far East. The ending of this last problem, happy and sensible as well, demonstrates that it is possible to resolve all the problems: it has been shown that getting in touch with the Indonesian authorities and being heard by them was not impossible.
The hour is late, but there are still ways to set things right and repair the damage that has been done. The first thing is to repeal the bad rule: Jamaica must go to Indonesia; it is easy to do, there is no reason to delay it. Concerning Israel’s problem, the WBF should contact the concerned ministers in Indonesia, internal and foreign, and the Indonesian Federation’s president, who is also a minister. The reasons to try to contact these people are less obvious than they might appear. It is possible that all was born out of a mistake by some Indonesian bureaucrats. Perhaps some ministerial employee drew an erroneous conclusion: “Israel is not recognized by us, therefore we do not have to deal with them, nor about security and not about visas.” Or maybe it was a language misunderstanding, always possible when people who are not British have to speak English: it also happens to native English speaker. It was told by Winston Churchill, in the first days of the Anglo-American meeting at the end of December 1941, that…
“…The British Staff prepared a paper which they wished to raise as a matter of urgency, and informed their American colleagues to ‘table it’. To the American Staff ‘tabling’ a paper meant putting it away in a drawer and forgetting it. A long and acrimonious argument ensued before both parties realised that they were agreed on the merits and wanted the same thing.”
Perhaps somebody in Indonesia thought that “tabling” the Israeli problem meant the American way instead of the English one.
It is Gianarrigo Rona, of course, who should try these contacts, and do so with the maximum of determination and confidence in the authority of WBF that he himself represents: Israel must go; it is still possible they go and there are no alternatives. If they did not, the same Churchill would have frowned:
“I have no doubt there can be plenty of explanation of this failure, but failure it remains.”
***
Thanks to Hanan Sher for his precious help in the English edition of the text.
Paolo Enrico Garrisi
Notes
(1) Read mr Levy’s statement: click here >>
(2) Read mr Vigil ‘s statement: click here >>
(3) Roland Wald’s statement has been reported in a note of the article about the Argentina’s withdrawal: click here >>
(4) Read Mr Roma’s statement: click here >>
(5) Read Mr Jakcobs’ statement: click here >>
(6) Errata/Corrigenda. In the origina edition of the text we wrote: “South America 71,000, Asia-Pacific 47,000”. The numbers were obviously wrong: The South American players are less than 5000; it is the Asia Pacific zone who have 71,000. click here >>
(7) Errata/Corrigenda. In the original edition of the text we have erroneously reported only five players of the English Women Team who’ll go to Bali; we have missed Nevena Senior, in facts. More, we reported the names of the players just enrolled for Venice Cup 2013 in Bali, instead of the name of the 2011 Venice Cup holders. We apologize for the mistakes and we thank the readers who promptly reported errors.