Hi William, thanks for your prompt and thoughtful reply. I have been participating in a debate about this issue and asked you because I have used your bridle (in both bitless and bitted configurations), along with several other bitless bridles. Until last year I had a Trakehner who had a low palate and a thick tongue. He found many bits uncomfortable but was a pleasure to ride in a bitless bridle, although he preferred a side pull. My TB, on the other hand, seems happiest in a simple, single-joint loose ring snaffle.

I have two concerns about adapting bitless bridles in competitive dressage. First, I think that in most cases you can have a more subtle conversation with your horse using a bit. Isn't one of the points of moving to a double bridle that you have the ability to "talk" to your horse differently using the curb vs. the snaffle? The bitless bridles are great for riders with less than ideal hands because they have a more muted effect (other than hackamores) but are less subtle.

It also bothers me that it seems like this push is an extension of The Dr. Cook's bitless bridle marketing campaign. Why is the recommendation to the USEF just for cross under designs? I know that some horses (like mine) react poorly to poll pressure. He objected strenuously to the Dr. Cook's bridle. I didn't have the same problem with your bridle, probably because the strap goes over the crownpiece so that the pressure is more dispersed. However, a simple side pull can be very effective. I read somewhere that the Dutch Federation evaluated all kinds of bitless bridles when they decided to change the rules to include a bitless option and that they did not limit it to cross under bridles. I wasn't able to find any detailed information about that decision, do you know where I can access it? Sorry to rant! Liz