[r-t] Consultation

[Robin Woolley]

Wow - what a lot of posts!

RRH - The problem with the Beverley extension was that, as he says, the 
three blows were allowed  c1989. It hadn't been specifically excluded 
because more than two blows in any one place (except for Doubles) was 
almost beoynd the pale so the idea that this would arise was not taken 
into account. My point about watertight-ness was this: if you ring an 
extension now, which nobody 'likes', then you can point to decision (G). 
If you abolish (G) and then extend a method you own way, you will be 
criticised - there's always someone who will - so you need to get your 
'story straight' in advance. The '3-blow avoidance' rule must have been 
inroduced >20 years ago so we should stop worrying about it now. 'For 
the avoidance of doubt' as lawyers say, would you, Roddy, have been 
happy if there had been no extension of Beverley?

AJ - If you think your rules for Albanian etc. are easy, then I beg to 
differ!

AB asked 'Are these rules written down anywhere?' Was the answer Hayden 
gave the answer to the question you asked? I thought you were asking 
where the 'dodge-3, miss-2, dodge-3' comes from because that's what 
Roddy & I were talking about. In which case, the answer is no! b.t.w., 
Decision (G) is the mishmash you get as a result of trying to write down 
a simple(*) concept as in describing the colour of the sky - which just 
happen to be blue. (*) - leastways, I think it is. If you had seen it 
done, you'd agree!

PRK - thinking about it, I think 'new work' is best considered by 
removal of 'old work' as an example. If you have an 'extension' of 
Cambridge which didn't have the usual 'front work' - typified by 2nds 
place being made, would you consider it Cambridge? This is what the 
restrictions in the use of the formulae set out to achieve. In fact, 
this rule goes further in preserving the 2nds place under the treble. In 
many ways, the algebra is good - it's some of the restrictions on the 
algebra that cause the apparent trouble. As I have said before, I am not 
a fan of the 'indefinacy' rule, but other(s) have spoken about the 
benefit of the PB lead-end preservation, say. (Why are so few irregular 
methods rung?) I don't believe I'd use the word 'decent' extension in 
any way other than 'compliant' - or, more likely, the simpler the 
better. (Example of 'new work' - point 5ths in London S10 - & the 
Yorkshire places in 78).

DFM - For what it's worth, I wrote something about extension of Little 
methods years ago - I may have sent it to RAS. The reason why Little 
methods do not have extending leads is because that was the way all had 
been extended before c1950. (I recall PABS was coming up with a set of 
new extension rules which included extending leads of Little methods.) 
He points out that Little B6 could extend to Gainsborough LB8 instead - 
and this is perfectly correct and is similar to accepting that Yorkshire 
S8 is an alternative extension of Cambridge S6. The Little document I 
wrote was a companion piece to one on extension of Alliance - where the 
concept of a piece of zero-work enters the equation very quickly.

Finally, my lad - who really has better things to do - points out that 
Whitwick S8 and Lyme S8 are 'Yorkshire' extensions of Surfleet & 
Beverley respectively! (I *think* Irlams o'th'Height S8 and Docklands S8 
could be extensions also.)

Best wishes
Robin