[r-t] Council Meeting

[Richard Smith]

Leigh Simpson wrote:

> I've heard a rumour that this got decided:

(I don't actually know whether or not it was accepted,
though I'd be surprised if it were not.)

> "If a non-Little Plain method with double symmetry and
> either one plain hunting bell or two or more principal
> hunts, all of which are coursing, has the same number of
> leads in the plain course as the corresponding method with
> no fixed internal places below the hunt bell or principal
> hunts, they shall have the same name but with the prefixes
> "Double" and "Single" respectively!"

I don't think that sentence will ever win a Plain English
Campaign award!  It might have been easier to parse had it
read "if a non-Little Plain method with double symmetry and
either one plain hunting bell or two or more mutually
coursing principal punts has the same number of leads...".

Compare this to the previous version of decision (E)D.2(e):

| Plain methods with double symmetry and either one hunt
| bell or two or more principal hunts, all of which are
| coursing, shall have the prefix "Double" in the name. The
| corresponding method with no internal places below the
| hunt bell or principal hunts shall have the same name but
| with the prefix "Single".

Previously, if one method was a differential hunter, and the
other an ordinary hunter, they would still need to be
prefixed Single and Double.  Under the new version, both
methods need to be of the same type (i.e. both diffential
hunters or both ordinary hunters).  This has a particular
relevance for single-hunt odd-bell methods and twin-hunt
even-bell methods where the corresponding Double method, if
it exists, will always be a differential hunter.

> Does this mean that we'll have to ring "Single Plain
> Bob" now, rather than just "Plain Bob"?

(Actually, it would be just "Single Bob", unless you want
"Double Bob" to become "Double Plain Bob".)

This has been the case for a long time, but as Plain Bob was
named before this decision existed (and, indeed, before the
Central Council existed), it's name has been rightly left
alone.  Anyway, any proposal to rename Plain Bob would be
laughed out.

Besides Plain Bob and Grandsire (which has the same
problem), there are a few other other pairs of methods that
break this rule.  I think this is a complete list of them:

  Antelope Place Doubles (3,&4.5.1.5.1) and
  Double Antelope Place Doubles (3,&4.5.1.2.3);

  Newark Place Doubles (34.1.5.1.5.1.5.1.5.4) and
  Double Newark Place Doubles (34.1.5.1.2.23.5.1.5.4);

  Wollaton Place Doubles (34.4.5.1.5.1.5.1.5.1) and
  Double Wollaton Place Doubles (34.4.5.1.5.23.2.1.5.1);

  Wight Bob Minor (&5.4-1-1,2) and
  Basingstoke Bob Minor (&5.4-3.2.5,2);

  Nicholaston Bob Minor (&-45-1-1,2) and
  Portsmouth Bob Minor (&-45-23-5,2); and

  Union Triples (3.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.5.1) and
  Double Union Triples (3.1.7.1.7.3.7.5.7.1.7.1.5.1).

Of these, the Doubles methods and Union Triples have a long
history and surely predate the Central Council.  The two
Minor methods, however, were, I think, all named in the
'60s.  Wasn't the current decision around at this time
albeit in a rather wooly form?

Richard