[r-t] Re: Lincolnshire

Philip Saddleton pabs at cantab.net
Fri Nov 12 19:23:16 UTC 2004

Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote at 13:57:40 on Fri, 12 Nov 
>For static extensions, the previous decisions required an extension not to
>start until the last place under the treble had been reached.

That is because if it was started earlier the place under the treble 
would shift sideways, so would no longer be under the treble.

>There are no such restrictions in expanding extensions

Because the shifted place expands and remains under the treble.

>New decision (G)B7 now applies the static restrictions to all extensions, so
>EDE and EEF are no longer allowed.

No it doesn't - you are confusing cause and effect.

>The current decision would not allow for the current extension of
>Lincolnshire S Major.

That is not the intention.

>Once again, for completeness, I enclose both the new (G)B7: 'wherever the
>parent has a place made immediately adjacent to the path of a hunt bell,
>this characteristic must be retained in all extensions' and the old
>(G)A2(b)(i) and (d)(i) (conflated) 'wherever the parent has a place made
>above/below the path of the treble, this characteristic must be retained in
>all extensions'. They are, to all intents and purposes, identical.

They are intended to be, but also cover the case of extension by modes.

>The interpretation has always been that places
>immediately below the treble have to be preserved in situ in static
>extensions, which is where decision (G)B7 comes from.

Places immediately below the treble in static extensions have to remain 
in situ to remain immediately below the treble. This is not the case for 
expanding extensions.

>In fact, this 'new'
>interpretation harks back to the original 1953 report where it was
>sufficient to preserve just the number of places made at cross-sections. It
>was always allowed for, say 5ths place in Cambridge-6 to move to 7ths place-
>but that was a special rule for the half-lead.

5ths place moves to 7ths because it is an expanding extension.

>How about abolishing (G)B1 for a start?

 From Tony Smith's letter to the Ringing World, 2004 p195

"The amendments mostly increase the range of possible extensions, with 
the important exception that they are now required to cover an 
indefinite number of stages. This was already the case for Principles 
and in most cases an extension that works for two stages of extension 
works for an indefinite number of stages. We consider that existing 
extensions which only work for a single stage are coincidences rather 
than extensions! This new restriction gives us the confidence to 
introduce several new constructions without the risk that they will 
increase the number of unsatisfactory extensions."


"If you have an opinion on any of these proposals, do please let us 

I do not believe that any opinions were received objecting to this 

>I can accept a
>properly interpreted (G)B7 and 8.

Can you suggest a wording that you would properly interpret?

>I have always understood
>'characteristic' to mean 'place and position'.  (Above the treble - count
>backwards from the half-lead for position.)

Where in the Decision does it mention counting backwards from the 

>By the way, if the new decision isn't retrospective, why has Cawston Bob
>Maximus been allowed this name?

I assume you mean Cawston Little Bob. The conductor of the peal declined 
to give it a different name.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list