[r-t] Exceptions to the Extension Rules

[Richard Smith]

Graham John wrote:

> Group 2. Invalid extensions with the same name

According to the CC e-collection I downloaded on Friday, 
there are 239 (non-Little) Surprise method names that 
have been used on more than one stage.  I have just written
some code to examine these and am a little surprised by how 
many of these (47) are incorrect.

Relatively few methods have fallen foul of the requirements 
for extensions to cover an indefinite number of stages. 
These methods are Alnwick, Annable's London, Birmingham, 
Blackburn, Canterbury, Jersey, London, Painswick and Water.
(Birmingham is a little more interesting -- it has been 
named on 8, 10 and 12 bells, but the extension used between 
8 and 10 is different from the extension between 10 and 12.)

The remaining 38 methods were all invalid prior to the new 
decisions on extension introduced this year.

   Aldenham, Bangor, Bedford, Beverley, Bristol, Chester,
   Eastwood, Foxley, Grantham, Hampshire, Hampton, Harleston,
   Haslemere, Hatfield, Ipswich, Lincoln, Loughborough,
   Luton, Melton, Minehead, Newcastle, Norfolk, Preston,
   Rochester, Rutland, Shropshire, Sleaford, Spalding,
   Staffordshire, Superlative, Thorne, Tottington, Uttoxeter,
   Warwickshire, Wembley, Weston, Winchester, Wordsworth.

I believe this list is complete.

Richard