[r-t] Adjacency in Extension

[Mark Davies]

Robin writes,

> I think Mark is wrong to worry about even smaller numbers than 6. He 
> says they are degenerate - let's use this in its ordinary English 
> meaning, and ignore <5. There are, after all, only 11 plain minimus methods.

Why shouldn't extension work starting with four bell? There's something 
wrong with our approach it if doesn't. There are plenty of Treble 
Dodging Minimus methods, too - including Kent.

And the same argument applies equally if the base stage is Minor, or 
Major or higher. If you start with a Minor method where 6th's place is 
made, what is the reason for this? It might be because nice extensions 
always have the final place made at that point. But it could also be 
because, whilst that place is an internal 6th's place in all higher 
extensions, there's nowhere else to go on six bells, and the internal 
place becomes external.

> The question is as to whether the Exercise at large believes in the 
> benefits of adjacency. In its simplest form, it can preserve method 
> class. In a more advanced form, it is there to try to preserve 
> characteristics of the parent. Think about an extension of Cambridge 
> which didn't have the characteristic front work, for example. This 
> preservation is a consequence of adjacency ond/or contiguousness.

That's not true. If you do away with those constraints, you still have 
the standard Cambridge extension. You don't get rid of it, just give 
yourself more options, which has to be good.

Looking back at Don's point re: Kent, it's clear that the start x56x 
looks a lot more like Kent than some of the other overwork extensions 
which do preserve adjacency.

MBD