[r-t] Extension - Little methods, Penultimus,

[Nicholas Small]

(I'm writing after reading Don Morrison's contributions of 9th April in 
digest 150:8, so apologies if topics have moved on so far that my 
contribution is no longer of relevance  - I do not have time to get up 
to date at the moment!)

 > The Central Council, in its wisdom, decided that all little methods 
should extend in the same way.
Surely that can be readily justified on the basis that it works!

 >  In 1994 a little, plain method was rung and named Penultimus Little 
Court Maximus.
Having a name that describes a method (in some sense) should not form a 
basis on which to define extensions.
If I were to devise "Small's Triple Dodging Surprise Major", would it be 
reasonable to insist that all extensions had a corresponding triple dodge?

 > It is the whole notion that there is a single rule that works for 
everything. I don't think there is.
I agree with this view.

Place notation is all very well as a basis for extending right-place 
methods but not for wrong-place ones, particularly when you consider 
those with features extending beyond a pair of rows, in particular 
Bristol, Belfast, and Glasgow.

Surely there is a natural filler of dodging and plain hunt in treble bob 
and plain methods, respectively?

Finally, I recall someone getting hot under the collar on this list a 
long time ago because they had devised a method in which the treble 
dodged in 1-2 and hunted elsewhere. The author's designed extension 
involved adding an additional 1-2 at each stage. How could one 
incorporate that into a set of rules? I surely needs to be via a 
different category than Alliance.

Nicholas Small