[r-t] Extension question

[Ted Steele]

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?

Ted