IF Rugby World Cups were won by the team who had generated the most positive publicity, the trophy would be winging its way back to Japan right now. The Japanese team not only turned in the performance of this or any other tournament by beating South Africa at the weekend, they also have, in their coach Eddie Jones, one of the most infectiously enthusiastic people ever to have been involved with the sport.

After that epic win over the Springboks, secured by a try deep into overtime, Jones joked that at 55 he was far too old to be involved in such drama. He really should be sitting on the sidelines, he said, getting paid to be a pundit like Clive Woodward, the former England supremo.

But he’s not too old, really. As he proved at yesterday’s press conference here in Gloucester to preview today’s match between his team and Scotland, Jones has lost none of his old impishness.

From Saturday until roughly 2.45pm yesterday, when Jones entered the conference room at Kingsholm, all the talk about this afternoon’s game had centred on the quick turnaround forced on Japan by the schedule. A four-day gap between matches is pretty tight at almost any standard of rugby. At Test-match level, it is particularly daunting - bodies that have been bruised and battered by playing against teams such as South Africa simply cannot recover properly in such short order.

Jones could have dwelt on that theme by saying his brave boys were underdogs who would do their best, or by bemoaning his lot. Instead, he stood the debate on its head by declaring that Japan would win because they were fitter than Scotland, no matter how short their recovery time would be. And he also did his best to ensure some local support by stirring up some traditional English-Scottish rivalry.

It was all said in good humour, and was great entertainment, and by the time Jones walked out of the room at the end everyone - even the Scots journalists present - felt a little bit happier with life in general and a little bit more excited about today’s game in particular.

if complete non-combatants feel inspired like that by a coach’s chat, just imagine what his players must feel like. Having achieved so much in the game, Jones has nothing to prove any more, so instead of trying to promote himself, as a younger man might do, he is content to promote his team - to talk them up, to make them feel better about themselves, and at the same time to heap some pressure on their opponents.

Gloucester’s colours are cherry and white, the same as Japan’s, so there was already a superficial reason for local supporters to favour Jones’s team. Scotland have more substantial grounds for appealing to those fans for their backing - their captain, Greig Laidlaw, plays for Gloucester. Had Laidlaw appeared at the Scotland press conference, something that seemed natural given his local connection, he could have talked of his passion for playing for Gloucester and urged the locals to back him in Scotland colours just as they do when he turns out for their club. But it was decided that, as he had spoken a few days earlier and would speak again after the game, Laidlaw should not do media duties. It was a missed trick.

Jones’ appeal may fall on deaf ears, of course. And it might not even matter too much if the bulk of the 16,000-odd crowd are on Japan’s side today. But, in a world where professional sport is all too often a deeply serious business, his playful exuberance is a very welcome contrast.

And another thing . . .

Apart from the Rugby World Cup, the big sporting topic down here - or rather non-sporting topic - has concerned bridge. The English Bridge Union, a body of which you may not have heard but takes its responsibilities rather seriously, has asked the Royal Courts of Justice to classify it as a sport. Arguing that bridge is good for the mind, the EBU wants the chance to share in the riches disbursed by Sport England - who insist in turn that bridge is just a game, and no more a sport that “reading a book, or sitting at home”.

Perhaps it’s only a narrow question of definition, but the very notion of bridge being called a sport infuriates me. Similarly chess, or draughts, or other any game.

Not through any dislike of those activities, but simply because they are so obviously not sports.

Most people, though not the EBU, would agree that sport is a competitive physical activity - one that cannot be emulated electronically. So yes, you move your hands a bit when playing chess, but that movement is not essential to the outcome. You could play exactly the same game of chess on a computer, or, if you are good enough, in your head.

Darts, on the other hand, is a sport. Not a very good one, according to some, but the physical skill used in it is crucial to the result. The Royal Courts no doubt have more serious calls on their time, so they should waste no time in deciding that bridge is only a game. And if the EBU persists in arguing to the contrary, we should probably draft Eddie Jones in to subject them to some good-natured ridicule.