[r-t] What's the meaning of a method having a particularfalsecourse head

[Don Morrison]

On Apr 22, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Philip Earis wrote:
> You're one step behind the game, Don! 'True' surprise method was first 
> rung in 1999.

Erk. More than one step behind, I fear. Now that you point it out, a 
mention of that True Surprise thing is what lead to the thread that 
lead to this thread. Or something like that. Sorry!

However, the second half of my question is still open, I think. Is it 
possible to get a method without the two out of course only groups True 
has? I'm reasonably confident that's not possible in a strictly treble 
dodging method, but what about an alliance method?

On Apr 22, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Graham John wrote:
> Group A falseness has always meant a method false in the plain course 
> and is
> defined as such in every publication or reference. I have never heard 
> of it
> being used otherwise. Please don't redefine it!

Can you point me at a specific reference and page number for something 
about this? Part of why I asked the question that started this thread 
is that I couldn't recall ever actually having seen it discussed 
explicitly.


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at mv.com>
"The principal difference between heaven and hell is the company
you keep there."                           -- Lois McMaster Bujold