It is possible that 5+ years of discussion have had their impact. Before this argument had been used.



Those in the Open will like to play for the first (European) place in it. In a (relatively) small Closed (like in national championships with similar systems), it happens that some players get only few wins; I have not heard complaints by them about too tough opposition though. So your argument is a technical observation rather than a real problem.

Well, I'm not so convinced that vote really reflects what people think.
It had certainly not been announced on the agenda and I don't think that Sweden would have voted for discarding a separate EC, irrespectively of all other aspects involved. It says in the minutes that there was no discussion, maybe the delegates didn't think so much about what a separate EC could be like.

regards,
H.

It is against the constitution to introduce new motions without an agreed vote at the start at the meeting. (Or am I wrong?)

I think using Congress as a qualifier for 8 player European Championship would be a nice idea. So I would be interested in hearing the opinions of some strong players about the idea.

Practice suggests that major votes should be on the agenda while minor votes can be ad hoc. I am not sure though about ad hoc motions if all or the absolute majority of the listed present delegates wants to allow them.



Depends on whom you mean to consider "strong players". If you mean only the top 8, you might get affirmation. IMO (strong enough player to have been in many supergroups so far), 8 players are too few because they do not necessarily include the currently strongest player and because 7 rounds are too few.

Maybe this years' delegates can ensure to set the topic early during the agenda and to participate actively in discussion? Then there is less motivation to doubt careful intentions.