# [r-t] Re: Lincolnshire Extensions

Thu Nov 11 21:20:31 UTC 2004

```Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote at 14:39:13 on Thu, 11 Nov
2004
>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.

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']

(G)C.2(c)ii
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
completely.]

>
>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

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

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.)

--
Regards
Philip