[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods
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
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