[r-t] Re: Lincolnshire Extensions

Philip Saddleton pabs at cantab.net
Thu Nov 11 21:20:31 UTC 2004

Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote at 14:39:13 on Thu, 11 Nov 
>As I see it, in the major, the places below the treble are made in FGHI,
>whilst in the royal they are made in the positions HIJK. The rule has always
>been with respect to extensions below the treble that positions of places
>are preserved - as opposed to 'shifting' above (not theoretically correct I
>know - but it 'looks' like it prima facie). Lincolnshire was a perfectly
>respectable EDE below extension, but this seems to go against (G)B7. [In
>expanding extensions below, only 2nds place had to be preserved in position]

(G)C.2(a)i Capital letters are used to describe the places made when the 
treble is in the following positions in the parent.

A -- treble at lead
B -- treble in 1-2
C -- treble in 2-3
D -- treble in 3-4
E -- treble in 4-5 or lying behind in Minimus
F -- treble in 5-6 or lying behind in Doubles
G -- treble in 6-7 or lying behind in Minor
H -- treble in 7-8 or lying behind in Triples
I -- treble in 8-9 or lying behind in Major etc.

[Note the word 'parent']

DE Royal A B C D E D2 E2 F2 G2 H2 I2

[H has moved, and is now when the treble is in 9-0]

In expanding extensions, any places adjacent to the treble expand where 
necessary, so remain adjacent. (G)B.7-8 encapsulate the requirements of 
the old (G)A.2(b)i, (c)i, (d)i & (e)i, and are not intended to introduce 
further restrictions. [Personally I wouldn't mind if they were removed 

>To save people looking it up, (G)B7 is `Wherever the parent has a place made
>immediately adjacent to the path of a hunt bell, this characteristic must be
>retained in all extensions.'

It is the characteristic that must be retained (i.e. a place made 
immediately adjacent to the path of a hunt bell), not its position.

>I cannot see how (G)C.2(c)v is relevant to the
>point I am making.

Any requirement for places below the treble to be fixed relative to the 
lead end would translate to one for those above being fixed relative to 
the half lead.

>As regards Vancouver - consider also Biggal S royal - then my point will be

This has a 5-pull dodge in 3-4, which has no counterpart in Vancouver. 
If "works are as important as place notation", then such new work 
shouldn't be introduced.

>I ask again, why have the explicit, helpful hints, as to where extensions
>can 'start' (or 'end'), from the 1971 decision been removed?

They are not part of the Decision - but see
http://www.methods.org.uk/methext.htm (which of course needs updating).

The MC is a useful source of information on the Decisions - if you have 
any queries, comments or useful suggestions then why not contact them? 
(If you were to do so during discussions of proposed modifications, you 
might even have some influence.)


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list