[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[Richard Smith]

King, Peter R wrote:

> Errm, I'm not sure I see the rationale for that point of 
> view. The CC definitions are unambiguous and clear

Actually, they're not: they're contradictory.

Take the following assymetric treble dodging major method.

34-34.4.56-56.6.2-2.3.34-34.5.56-56.25.34-34.3.2-2.6.56-56.1

So far as I can see, this is a perfectly legal method 
(albeit undesirable in a number of ways).  What class is it? 
There's a 18 place notation at the lead end, but otherwise 
there are internal places across each division end.  Given 
that Bristol is a surprise method and that has a 18 lead 
end, this cannot matter.  (And (E)B.1(d) would appear to 
confirm this.)  So this method is a surprise method, 
according to the CC decisions.

What about this one?

56-56.6.2-2.3.34-34.5.56-56.25.34-34.3.2-2.6.56-56.1.34-34.4

Well, we have a 18 place notation as the treble comes down 
to 1-2, so it must be a delight method.

But these two methods are simply rotations of each other, 
and, being twin-hunt methods, they both have the treble as 
the hunt bell.  The CC would have us believe that methods 
which are simply rotations of each other are in fact the 
same method (c.f. the whole Helen Bob / Arlesey Bob 
nonsense).

That means these two methods must have the same name and 
class.  But we've just established that they are of 
different classes.  So we have a problem in the decisions.

RAS