[r-t] Extension (was Yorkshire Alliance)

Philip Earis Earisp at rsc.org
Mon Apr 10 09:39:51 UTC 2006

Robin, you've managed to prod the stick hard enough to provoke me into
writing something again.

It looks like you are sharing my view that the current Decisions on
extension don't work.  Whilst the existing Decisions do provide a
framework for extending 'normal' treble-dodging methods (though they
suffer from a critical flaw, as detailed below), they don't really work
for principles, for plain methods, for alliance methods, for
treble-place methods and for any little methods.

Methods can be so diverse that I would go so far as to say that it's not
possible to have any consistent rules on extension that work in all
cases. So that's why I think there's no point in having any formal
'rules' at all.  The only constraint I would impose is that an extension
can only be refused if the Council believes that it is not an 'honest'
attempt to extend an existing method.  It's hard to define 'honest', but
what I'm getting at is ringing Cambridge 22 but trying to call it

The problems with the current rules for non treble-dodging methods are
well documented (eg plain bob extending to grandsire, etc, not allowing
different number of changes in the lead, etc). However, I think the
rules for extending treble-dodging methods are also up the creek.

Why?  Well, there is an inbuilt 'prejudice' into the Decisions, one
factor that trumps all others, and that says that a method with regular
leadheads has to extend so that extension also has regular leadheads.
Why?  It seems fairly obvious that the extension of Ipswich minor to 8
bells should be Cambridge major with a 18 halflead.  Similarly, the
extension of London major to royal is clearly
&3-3.4-2-3.4-4.5.6-6.7.8-8.7, 2

Now you are on the Methods Committee of the Central Council.  You're
therefore well-placed to support the case for change and liberalising
method extension.  What's preventing you?

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Woolley [mailto:robin at robinw.org.uk] 
Sent: 10 April 2006 10:11
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Yorkshire Alliance, 5080's, etc.

Following yesterday's posting, further thought leads to the following:

a) Yorkshire S. extends via the classical path EBC/EFG which, in quantum

notation, is 1BC/1FG. Given the construction of the parent, this is not 

b) Intuitively, therefore, Yorkshire Alliance can, and formulaically
extend the same way.

c) However, (G)C2(a)i seems to preclude any extension of a method where
treble does not lie behind at the half-lead.


Richard asks about the Maximus. The lastest on-line collection suggests
place notation hasn't been rung. The 'nearest' is Strathmore


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net


This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list