[r-t] Extension - Little methods, Penultimus,
smallsatgirvian at gmail.com
Mon May 1 16:05:41 UTC 2017
(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
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.
More information about the ringing-theory