Sir,—It was with great astonishment that I read, in your last issue, a suggestion that, after 35 cannons, a two-cushion cannon (or loser or winner) be made imperative.
Considering that there are probably not more than seven or eight players in the world whose skill is such that they can use this exceedingly difficult weapon profitably, it would be ridiculously unfair to them to negate any advantage they may gain over those who cannot do the like.
More important still, it would deprive many amateurs of the enjoyment they gain from attempting this, the most artistic and most difficult phase of the game.
I have put this query to several good amateurs of my acquaintance: "Which part of the game do you like best?" and each one has answered that he would rather make a century by close-cannons than by any other method. For the simple reason that they have all done it by pot and cannon on occasion, and by open methods very many times, but not many amateurs have made 50 cannons in a game.
A rule of this nature would mean that nobody could make more than a miserable 25 cannons or so, as it would make the beautiful movement of turning the corner not worth while.
It would be a great pity to maim the game in such a manner, when it is already so constituted as to put a premium on elementary play, and so sacrifice many who pay for the game for the sake of half-a-dozen paid players, even allowing that those are all in favour of it, which I strongly doubt.
Rules of this nature have already driven such as the spot-stroke, the pendulum, and anchor strokes (all of which possess much interest) out of the game entirely.
This is a great pity, when it would be so easy to formulate rules whereby they could be retained to a moderate degree.
It is my sincere hope that this further attack on high-grade expert play will not succeed.
Yours,
ALFRED CRONEEN.