[r-t] Classification question

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Thu Feb 22 19:16:49 UTC 2007

In the early days of The Central Council, because it contains so much
plain hunting, it was considered that London Surprise should be named
London Marvel...
just a thort!


On 22/02/07, Ted Steele <ted.steele at tesco.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> perhaps.
> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list