[r-t] Re: Anglia Alliance

[Robin Woolley]

On 6th Nov., Tony Cox proffered Anglia Alliance-10 and -12 as breaking the
rules on extension.

By way of reminder:

Anglia Alliance Royal    c1 -3-4-7-8-34-8-6-7-9
Anglia Alliance Maximus  d2 -3-4-7-8-34-8-6-7-9-9

The maximus was rung in '98 and the royal in '03 so this is a nominally a
contraction problem. However, we allowed ourselves to be distracted both by
this and Tony's question about the correct extension of 9ths place at the
under the treble when it is moving from 10ths to 11ths.

As Tony points out: "contraction isn't mentioned in the decisions." To
decide whether a given method is a contraction we must decide whether the
original is an extension using the 'new' method as parent.

This is 'classical' extension, due to the date. Under the treble, there is
no doubt we have an 'SJK' extension. Since 'J' is a plain section, the
maximus has a plain section in 11-12.

However, we require an extension above the treble which also introduces a
new plain section. The only way to do this is with a 'IJ' or 'JK' extension
above the treble and these have never been allowed for extensions of royal
methods.

Is it not true, therefore, that since Anglia-10 and -12 are not related,
Anglia-10 must be renamed?

Best wishes

Robin.