[r-t] Exceptions to the Extension Rules

Edward W Martin martinew at comcast.net
Sat Nov 6 13:07:15 UTC 2004

```The first two columns are figures of Carter's principle as published by him
in the Bell News of 1899. The third column are the figures (as I understand
it) of what the Central Council Methods Committee would say that the
extension to triples OUGHT to be.

12345     1234567     1234567

-----     -------`

21435     2143657     2143657

12453     1246375     1246375

14235     1423657     1423657

41253     4126375     4126375

-----     -------

14523     1462735     1462735

15432     1647253     1647253

51423     6142735     6142735

15243     1624753     1624375

51234     6127435     6123457

15324     1672453     1632547

51342     6174235     6135274

53124     6712453     6312547

Ignoring the underscored rows and looking at the doubles one can see that it
is nothing more than reverse Stedman but with a parting change in the middle
of the quick six This is what John McDonald & Company assumed WAS the
principle and were indeed so advised by Marcus Sherwood - the then Chairman
of the CCMC.

However, all along, my argument has been so what? There is only one pure
doubles principle and that is Stedman including reverse Stedman together
with Carter's variation which is perhaps analogous to say 2nd or 6th place
at the treble's lead in otherwise identical treble dominated methods. Not
ignoring the underscored rows, and, since he gave us the figures of BOTH
doubles and triples side by side each being in his mind equal authority, to
me Carter's principle has the PN: N 3 1 3 N 1 3 5 3 5 3 1 where N = the
highest odd number of bells involved.

It was pointed out to me by John McDonald that if the PN is rotated then the
12th row will always be from the plain course and pairs at the back will
always be pairs from the plain course c.o. No matter how many bells are
involved. As far as I know, Carter's is the only odd bell principle to
extend in this fashion. Stedman has this quality only in the Doubles

To my mind the current Central Council rules of extension should not apply
to principles particularly in the case where the inventor of the principle
had a real principle in mind and was not merely content to find a bunch of
rows whose plain course shifted all working bells to a new position.

mew

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebecca and Tony Cox" <r.j.cox at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: [r-t] Exceptions to the Extension Rules

> Group 1. Valid extensions with different names
> Reverse Carter Doubles*, Birmingham Carter Triples,  Caters, Cinques
>
> Group 2. Invalid extensions with the same name
> Carter Doubles* and Carter Triples, Caters, Cinques
>
> * According to my 1961 Collection of Doubles Methods (issued under the
> authority of the Council by Felstead, Golden, Kippin and Lewis) what is
now
> in the CC method list as Reverse Carter Doubles is actually Carter Doubles
> and Carter Doubles is Reverse Carter. The 1961 collection has what I think
> is the generally accepted version for Carter: Stedman with an extreme
place
> made in the middle of a quick 6.
>
> Tony

```