[r-t] Exceptions to the Extension Rules

Rebecca and Tony Cox r.j.cox at blueyonder.co.uk
Sat Nov 6 21:36:27 UTC 2004

Group 2. Invalid extensions with the same name

Duffield Major, Royal, Maximus
Forward Minor, Major, Royal, etc

Both fail at (G) B.2 as both Duffield Major and Forward Minor are double
methods and the others aren't.

Also according to E (D) 2 (f) Heywood Major should be called Reverse Aston

An more uncertain case is:
Anglia Alliance Royal        c1 -30-14-70-18-34-18-16-70-90
Anglia Alliance Maximus  d2  -3T-14-7T-18-34-18-16-7T-9T-9T
Are these related according to the Decision on Method Extension?
According to (G) B.7
`Wherever the parent has a place made immediately adjacent to the path of a
hunt bell, this characteristic must be retained in all extensions.'
the Royal has a place made immediately adjacent to the path of the treble at
the half-lead, the Maximus doesn't.
I would interpret the wording of  (G) B.7 to imply that where a place next
to the treble is made (e.g. at the lead or half lead) this must be present
in all extensions.

Whether making 9ths when the treble moves from 10ths to 11ths is
`immediately adjacent' to the path of the treble and equivalent to the 90 in
the Royal depends on how the words are interpreted.

The Maximus was rung first  (1998 vs 2003) in this case so it is really a
case of method contraction rather than extension although contraction isn't
mentioned in the decisions.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list