[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Fri Aug 8 20:42:19 UTC 2008

Matthew Frye writes,

> If it makes mixed triples and major false, then it's a step backwards as
> it's allowed at the moment, and so i don't think that this option should
> even be considered.

I'm not sure it is currently allowed, but I don't see why it shouldn't be.
This is why I proposed "stages N and N+1", with an extent required at either
stage, not the highest stage.

> I agree that the triples and singles peal is not nice and i certainly
> wouldn't ring it, but the problem is that i can see no way of separating
> the two different examples given without resorting to special cases (or
> limiting cover bells), if you want to allow one (the triples and major)
> then you have no choice but to allow the other (singles and triples).

Not at all... again, the "stages N and N+1 rule" neatly solves the problem.
Triples and Major are OK because they're consecutive stages, Singles and
Triples aren't, because they aren't. It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, 
because consecutive stages naturally go together and are often rung in 
practice on the same numbers of bells - Triples and Major at an Eight, 
Caters and Royal at a Ten.

Mind you, that's not to stop you ringing Singles methods in a Triples peal - 
but the changes would have to be counted as a higher stage (either Triples, 
or, at minimum, Minor), and true against the rest at that stage.



More information about the ringing-theory mailing list