[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

Ted Steele ted.steele at tesco.net
Fri Mar 20 10:09:32 UTC 2009

Philip Earis wrote:
> Surprise minor is a logical category. However, as often with these things, when applying the
> concept to higher numbers the CC missed the fundamental aspect of what
> makes surprise minor distincitve, ie "minimal boxes around the treble
> every time it hunts".  As such, the current definition for surprise on 8+
> bells is pretty meaningless.

Why is it being said the definition of surprise is places made adjacent 
to the treble at the cross-sections? It is true that it is the situation 
in minor but my understanding has always been that the definition 
related to internal places at the cross-sections; i.e. anything other 
than the first and last positions. This is equally applicable at all 
stages.  Has the definition been changed?

In minor the value of the term delight lay in the full description that 
applies (or used to?). We had Third's Place Delight and Fourth's Place 
Delight. This gave useful information about places made or not made next 
to the treble path in just the same way as Treble Bob and Surprise. The 
terms could have been logically extended as 5th's and 6th's place 
delight and so on on higher numbers but as multiple possibilities then 
exist it would it becomes increasingly cumbersome and what little value 
there was is quickly lost. Perhaps that is why use of the terms has 

Like others I agree that for practical purposes these classifications of 
methods are of little practical.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list