# [r-t] Method extension

Philip Saddleton pabs at cantab.net
Wed Apr 29 16:18:03 UTC 2015

```On Tue, April 28, 2015 22:13, Graham John wrote:
> PABS wrote:
>
>
>> Can anyone suggest a plausible extension construction that is not
>> covered
> by my proposal?
>
> Do you have an answer to Tony Cox's query, Philip i.e. you assume an
> arithmetic progression of places from the lowest stage, but that precludes
>  adding places that might be omitted from the higher stages if you worked
>  backwards from a higher stage?

That could be accommodated by allowing a line to have length zero. But I
don't think it is desirable - you could then add a totally unrelated piece
of work, e.g. a wrong place section to a right place method. Would Stoke S
Major be an acceptable extension of Cambridge? Also if you don't have
G(B)5 there will be plenty of possibilities that do not need this.

>
> Can anyone think of an example to illustrate this? I am thinking of
> something like Bristol Major, where the Major has zero wrong dodges in its
>  series when looked at in reverse.

This is different, and would be acceptable under my proposal. All of the
places follow a logical progression, but the current Decision requires
that a whole section is repeated.

>
> What about the example below? It looks a fairly close approximation to
> extend Superlative No. 2 Surprise Royal to Fourteen. At least the best I
> have found. But does it fit your algorithm, and if not, is it something
> that should be considered an acceptable extension?
>
> Superlative No.2 Surprise Fourteen?
> -3T-14-7B-38-149B-30ET-34ET-345T-16EB-7T-18-EB-3T-AB,12
>

I can't make it work - there is no counterpart in the Royal to the T when
the treble is in 7-8 (all the 8s above the treble except for the first
come when it is hunting). And how would it extend to eighteen? 6th's pb
needs to do 3&1 at the back, but then 10th's pb cannot turn round in
3rd's.

PABS

```