[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Tue Mar 24 16:13:27 UTC 2009

Alexander Holroyd wrote:

> Very interesting point, Richard.  But are you sure?

No.  Re-reading decisions E(B) and E(C) in conjunction with 
your and Don's comments, I think you're probably right.  I 
think I was looking at a previous version of the decisions.

> It's not quite clear what this means for "cross section" 
> (B1d), but I guess it is a change where both principal 
> hunts pass from one dodging position to another.

I think that's probably the intended interpretation.  I have 
to say, I'm not keen on it, but it's probably the least 
ugliest way of handling twin-hunt treble-dodging major. 
(And lets face it: it's not as if anyone has ever rung such 
a thing.)

The inelegant definition here seems to stem from the fact 
that in a conventional single-hunt treble-dodging method, 
the half-lead and lead-end are not treated as cross 
sections.  This, of course, is what allows a method with an 
8ths place lead end (e.g. Bristol) to still be Surprise.

> Personally I still think the Surprise / Delight / TB is rather a waste of 
> time though!

I'm not sure I agree.  I quite like them as an idea, though 
I would prefer more useful definitions.  In fact, I would 
argue the same with the obsolescent Plain terms like Court 
and College.  In fact, I think there would have been a 
strong case for defining Court and Surprise in precisely the 
same manner: both would require places immediately next to 
the treble at every cross section.  Thus, of the 30 
'standard' plain minor methods, Hereward, D Court, D Oxford, 
London, Thelwall, Lytham, Frodsham, Windermere and Bala 
would be Court methods.

But that horse has already bolted so there's little point 
looking at how to reclassify the stable door.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list