[r-t] Extension question
bells at tedsteele.plus.com
Mon Jun 27 22:48:18 UTC 2016
On 27/06/2016 13:48, Don Morrison wrote:
> Interesting. If the otherwise acceptable extension of a plain method
> with no dodges does contain dodges, the extension is disallowed. But the
> same restriction does not apply to, say, an alliance method.
I am not familiar with all the rules of extension but know only that I
have often thought they seem very illogical. If an extension of a place
method is not allowed because it introduces dodges then perhaps the
answer is to consider the extension as the base stage; the dodges will
be maintained in further extension but lost, due to lack of dodging
positions, in the contraction. Does that then become acceptable? Stedman
singles has no dodges but they appear nicely at doubles and above; does
this mean Stedman Doubles is not a legitimate extension of Stedman Singles?
More information about the ringing-theory