[r-t] Spliced Minor [Was: Re: A renaissance in Triples composition]

[Richard Smith]

Don Morrison wrote:

> Subsequent to that loosening of the rules, however, there have been
> real strides forward. In particular, the wonderful splices using
> singles across blocks that are individually false, but collaboratively
> trued, devised first I think by Philip Saddleton, that have led to so
> much of the revolution in spliced minor ringing.

This reminds me of another thing that, I think, is illegal 
for silly reasons.  As I'm sure we all know, PABS' basic 
idea is that you need to ring the wrong-place overworks with 
lead heads of the opposite parity to the lead heads in the 
tright-place overworks.  So far as I know, this has always 
been done with one (or more) pair of singles.  But another 
way would be to use a snap start.

Currently, it is legal to ring an extent of Cambridge 
starting in the conventional place, followed by an extent of 
Chester starting from the snap.  But suppose I cross-splice 
some leads between extents to get a true 1,440 of Cambridge, 
Beverley, Chester and Carlisle.  Under the current 
decisions, can I ring this and call it "1,440 Spliced 
Surprise Minor (4m)"?

On the one hand, at the half-way point, the treble's path is 
disrupted -- effectively we have a call that changes the 
length of the lead.  But on the other hand, any given method 
is either only rung in the first half, or is only rung in 
the second half, and the decisions say that "starting ... 
from a different change does not give a different method".

So I think it's *probably* legal to do this.

(Note that the idea of disrupting the treble's path instead 
of a single is not new.  For example, in Thackrah's 1852 
book 'The Art of Change Ringing', he gives a bobs-only 720 
of Plain Bob Minor composed by Holt.  This works by having a 
Q-set of 14 bobs replacing 16 changes mid-lead, and 
affecting the treble.  The two in which the treble dodges 
5-6 switch parity and act as singles.  What a shame that 
this extent should now be illegal.  Or rather that it needs 
a gratuitous description in terms of spliced plain, little 
and alliance.)

And what's more, I think in some ways it's nicer than using 
a single -- if you select 41 methods using the criteria 'no 
single changes', it's a shame to have to join them with 
single changes.  (Of course, the same could be said about 
bobs in Carlisle that involve four blows in one place, and 
certain changes of method to and from London that involve 
three blows at the back.)

RAS