[r-t] Fwd: FW: Proposed definition of a peal

[Ted Steele]

Iain Anderson wrote:
> Ted Steele wrote:
>
> ->  Don Morrison wrote (but it was actually Iain Anderson):
> ->  >
> ->  > I think we may need to tighten this definition up a little bit for 
> ->  > things like Spliced Bristol Maximus and Stedman Cinques, which I am 
> ->  > interpreting to be a piece of change ringing of multiple stages.  
> ->  > ....... In this case we really need to define the Stedman as a maximus
> ->  > method and have the cover bell as part of the method ...!
> ->  
> ->  There is surely no need to. Is it not sufficient to say that "For the
> purpose
> ->  of determining the truth of compositions of mixed odd and even bell
> methods
> ->  every row shall be considered in its entirety, that is including any
> cover
> ->  bells and no such row shall be repeated?"
>
> Not quite because that would prevent a band ringing five 720s of minor and
> twelve 120s of doubles, which is allowed currently.
>   
It wouldn't actually, because the reference is specifically to 
compositions and more specifically to variable cover, and is a response 
to the point about spliced maximus and cinques. I am simply saying that 
there is no need to define Stedman as a maximus method. The minor and 
doubles case is less straightforward. In your example each extent would 
be an individual composition, which as you say is allowable. I think 
that my statement would cover any variable cover composition that was 
included in a peal on six bells, at least in so far as the truth of the 
individual block is concerned, however it doesn't deal with the nature 
of the blocks required for such a peal. Is it possible to compose a true 
720 of variable cover doubles or spliced doubles and minor? The former 
at least seems likely and I ought to be able to work it out for myself, 
but it's getting late.

Ted