[r-t] Stedman Minor and Shipway Minor

[Richard Smith]

Don Morrison wrote:

> The collection
> makes the statement "Stedman at even stages does not conform to the
> Central Council requirements for methods", though it doesn't elaborate
> on why not. It's really a differential kind of thingie, with two
> 3-cycles, rather than a principle -- I don't know whether that's a
> legal differential method these days or not.

As a type of differential, it would now be legal, and would
have been since 2002 when the decisions were broadened to
allows methods with non-coprime-sized cycles.

The remaining problem is that (except in Minimus) methods
must not have more four consecutive blows in one place.
Six blows at the back is right out.

> If you care about whether
> or not what you ring conforms to the CC Decisions, I think it could
> almost certainly be force fit into conforming now by thinking of it as
> variable cover Stedman Doubles.

As most of the compositions I've seen have long runs of
calls keeping the same bell at the back, describing it as
variable cover Stedman Doubles is probably more accurate,
anyway.

RAS