[r-t] Classification question

Ted Steele ted.steele at tesco.net
Thu Feb 22 18:45:27 UTC 2007

> On 2/21/07, Don Morrison  wrote:
>> I'm having a bit of trouble working out exactly what "Methods with two
>> or more hunt bells are classified using the definitions and
>> classifications for methods with one hunt bell but with reference to
>> all the principal hunts," (from CCCBR Decision (E)C.1) means in the
>> obscure case where you have multiple little treble dodging principal
>> hunts, one of which is only in two places and the other of which goes
>> further. For example, the following little treble dodging method:
>>   x5x36x34x236x34x36x5x23  (lh 12374586)
>> All three hunt bells, the 1, 2, and 3, are principal hunts, all with
>> little treble dodging paths. The 1 and 2 are doing triple dodges in
>> 1-2, and the 3 single dodges in 3 to 6ths place. With respect to the 1
>> and the 2 it would be classified as treble bob. With respect to the 3
>> as surprise. I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to whether the overall method
>> should be classified as treble bob, delight or surprise.

I wonder whether it is correct to classify it as either. The type of 
method is defined by reference to the places made at the cross-sections 
but since the trebles never leave 1-2  there is no cross section 
relevant to them and so I think they are irrelevant in this 
consideration. As internal places are made at the cross-section where 
the 3rd moves from 4th's to 5th's it could be Surprise, as you suggest.

However the decisions that you quote refer to "Methods" and I wonder 
whether the current decisions are flexible enough to include the 
construction that you present as a "method"; if not then terms such as 
Delight and Surprise might be inappropriate because they depend upon a 
set of changes being a treble bob type "method" to begin with. It has 
been mentioned before, by Phillip Earis and others that the council's 
decisions tend to follow developments rather than lead them and this 
would probably be such a case. Perhaps you could come up with something 
entirely new for this type of construction. It it were acceptable as a 
method then it might be a "Delightful Surprise".

My doubts though are really about the construction itself. I remember 
how we used to ring minimus on four, have 5 and 6 dodging and then a 
cover bell; it got us ringing changes with the skills available but 
those dodging bells didn't turn it into anything more than Plain Bob 
Minimus. Your trebles look a bit like that although I acknowledge that 
they don't just keep dodging and calls might bring one of them into the 
work. Should we perhaps have a name for the whole range of methods not 
otherwise formally defined and categorised that covers all of the other 
possibilities; such as "link" methods that appear in some compositions 
having been constructed for a limited and particular function? Since 
such methods inevitably contain bits that look familiar from other 
groups perhaps "Composite" methods might be suitable. Anything and 
everything could be acceptable as a Composite and save some arguments 


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list