[r-t] Re: Extension exceptions

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Sun Nov 7 10:19:53 UTC 2004

I've been looking at recent msgs. abt. extension exceptions and think some
can be explained as follows:

Glasgow('46)/Clyde('66)/Strathclyde('71) - extension EEF/SHI. There are two
things to remember. Firstly, the decision was not binding and early versions
of the decisions required conservation of pivot bells or, at least, pivot
bell relationships. Depending upon when these aspects were changed, some
sense of the reason here can be found. (Can anyone give dates for this?)

Leatherhead ('34)/Kegworth ('67), etc - extension EEF/SHI - same comments as

Rutland/Bristol 10 - before rules invented, but Bristol breaks a fundamental
tenet in that it extends by a half-section. If this was allowed, then
3-34.1-2-3.4-4.5.4-6.7 could be allowed as an extension of Chelsea 6.

London - extension EDE/EEF

Plain Bob/Grandsire - exception enshrined in the rules. (Grandsire 6 is the
extension of PB5, PB6 the extension of G5 - HC note). This was the way it
was done long before the CC had been heard of!

Lincoln 6/Lincoln 8 are completely different methods, but 'before rules
invented' applies.

If anything, I would have thought Superlative Minor came after the major,
given the 5ths place up, (but I'm willing to be enlightened), so is an
'invalid contraction'.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list