[r-t] Non-distinct fragments

[Graham John]

Xyz wrote:

> which, let's face it, is fair enough. you could ring 1 grid of
> Cambridge before changing to a different grid at the half-lead,
> claiming it as a random asymmetric method with a completely
> different string of notation for your second, unrung, half of
> the lead. but that just wouldn't be cricket.

Why is this any different from claiming that your two changes of Cambridge
rung to finish at the snap were in fact Cambridge and not something else
starting X38? The problem is that C.1 prevents us ringing something like
Double Cambridge Cyclic and DNCB Major half-lead spliced for no obvious
reason.

I think your "non-distinct fragment" rule is just what is needed, because it
doesn't matter which methods (of the same notation) you choose to call your
fragments, so long as you have not claimed more methods than distinct
fragments. For example, you could not claim a peal of 5-Spliced by using
Pitman's 4 brought round at the snap with two changes of Yorkshire - this
would have to be Cambridge. It would also allow you to ring Cambridge,
Primrose, Ipswich, Norfolk, King Edward, Queen Mary etc S Minor half-lead
spliced, provided that you had sufficient fragments of the methods to
justify that they were distinctly defined.

Graham