[r-t] Re: Decisions

[Robin Woolley]

pabs, on 5th Jan., offered Cromer (x1x1x2x5, 6ths) as an example where it
would be unreasonable to extend via EF above (in minor). This is a very good
example to choose!

Firstly, let us consider the 'classical' position. Cromer is inextendible
currently. Why is this? Above the treble, there is no problem since the only
places made are extreme places. Below, however, there is a problem. If a
static extn. is chosen, 5ths at the half lead means we are only allowed EF
or FG. An expanding extn. similarly because of  2nds place only allows EF or
FG. However, as we know, neither EF or FG are allowed above which they would
need to be on structural grounds. EF above would allow the following: (5FG
below) x1x1x2x5x2x5.

So far so good. As pabs remarks, Cromer-6 is plain hunting above, whilst
Cromer-8 would not be, but is this a problem? As I have said before, the
'antients' did not concern themselves with 'works'. Formulae were of the
first importance and, in my last, I remark that an EF construction was
omitted in '53 because, as I and Richard remark elsewhere, EF = DE in a
'consistent' method (all plain or all TD) and no Alliance methods had been
extended before so they probably did not worry about them at all!

If we go down the road of 'works' being more important than, then we are in
danger of opening up a different can of worms. There are many ways we can
'extend' a word formula. pabs says 'Cromer-6 is plain hunting above', but it
can equally well be described as 'treble plain hunts then dodges above 4ths
place'. This description is more accurate than pabs's because it describes
all the treble work - not just part of it. Then we are faced with two
possible 'extensions' of the words to major, either 'treble plain hunts then
dodges above 4ths place' OR 'treble plain hunts then dodges above 6ths
place'. The latter would approximate to pabs's idea, but both, I would
suggest, are equally valid. We must remember that the MC's ideas on extn. of
principles are wrong w.r.t Carter - see Eddie's work on this.

I have posted lines of Cromer-6 and -8 on my web-site at
www.robinw.org.uk/cromer.doc

I have also found an alternative example - Minchinhampton (x1x23x2x3, 6ths).
This does have one classical extn. (3DE below (#1)) and two alternatives
(3EF and 3FG (#2) and (#3)). (Above is extreme places only). These are shown
at www.robinw.org.uk/ramsburz.doc  (confusingly it is mislabelled as the
2nds place version, Ramsbury) 3DE dodges only in 7-8, the other two in 5-6
and 7-8. Please feel free to look at them. Having looked at them, which do
you think is nearer to the 'spirit' of the parent?

This 'definition by words' game can be played ad infinitum. For example, we
could describe the work of a 'special' alliance method as dodging in 3-4 and
5-6, so plain hunting in 1-2 only. It turns out my draft paper is wrong
in that these methods can extend classically only by dodging 3-4, 5-6 and
7-8. However, since we can say either 'add a hunting section adjacent to the
start' or 'add a dodging section at the end', it only seems reasonable to
allow BC under in this case resulting in 5-6 and 7-8 dodging.. I'll look for
a suitable 'special' extn. over the weekend.

pabs uses the example of London-8 saying it "isn't particularly similar to
the parent - nowhere in the Minor is there an equivalent to turning round in
4ths below the treble" How about "wrong hunting below the treble and passing
it when making an# adjacent place" as a "rule"?

In short, I would say, by all means use the concept of works, but use
formulae first.

On another matter, last night, whilst drying the cutlery I thought to
myself, let's suppose that Richard is correct and that Vancouver could
extend as 2CD below to Royal. I realised that, in effect, we had arrived at
the position I believed to be the case when I started my interest in extn.
which, as avid readers of this column will remember, was c15 years ago. What
we have now is, seemingly, for the case of seconds place being made, that it
doesn't matter where seconds is made as long as it is preserved somewhere.
Doesn't this also open the possibility that Yorkshire-8 is an extn. of
Cambridge-6 with the extn. 4BC below the treble? (I know BC is not
allowed, but!!) It has long been part of the 'folklore' that Yorkshire is an
alternative extn. of Cambridge. It doesn't matter either where places are
made below the treble as long as they are repeated somewhere.

If this is true, then this is, as I've said, quite a significant change and
doesn't clarify anything. If anything, it's made the decisions more
difficult to use. It was recently said concerning one of the laws of the
land, I forget which, that a law which isn't understood by the majority is a
bad law. How many on this list apart from Richard, pabs and me (on a good
day) even begin to get close to any real understanding of this topic? No one
seems to join in!

Best wishes

Robin.