[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[edward martin]

2009/3/27 Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net>:

> If you look at the method (Grandsire), there is absolutely no difference
> between the two hunts.

Of course there is.
Grandsire Triples can be seen as having plain courses (traditionally
with treble as Primary Hunt and a potential for six secondary hunts,
>From rounds the secondary hunt is 2, after a bob at one, the secondary
hunt is 7 and so on. The extent can be set out on paper in 72 mutually
exclusive plain course structures with treble as primary hunt & each
of the other bells taking turns as secondary hunt.
However, although Grandsire Doubles has the same Primary Hunt and 4
potentially secondary hunts, the extent of Grandsire Doubles cannot be
set out in 4 true and equally structured plain courses (if you think
it can then show me how) In fact there is no true 120 in which each of
the 4 potential secondary hunts actually takes up the role, even for
one lead. and no bell ever rings the full work of the plain course.

 In plain course terms Grandsire Doubles can be seen  to have a
secondary hunt but in the terms of any true extent then Grandsire does
not have a secondary hunt. The closest claim to such would be the
so-called 'observation bell' whose work alternates 3rds and double
dodge 4-5 up.

> It would be impossible to codify any rule
> distinguishing them (even if you wanted to) without reference to something
> other than the method itself - e.g. calls. But you can ring whatever calls
> you want, so the MC is in my view absolutely correct (for once!) to exclude
> them from the definition and classification of a method.
>

"without reference to something other than the method itself - e.g.
calls"  is the crucial point in my opinion.
As defined by the CC and agreed upon by MBD, the method consists of
its plain course, even though the standard calling (incidentally true
to all so-called 'twin-hunt doubles methods) is an equal distribution
of alternating Plain and Bobbed leads. i.e.this and not a succession
of plain leads,  IS the Principle behind the method,  not just
historically but practically In this instance, the bobbed lead of
Grandsire Doubles has as much authority for defining the method as
does the plain lead.

To obtain a true extent there are indeed eight different calls that
would initially affect the work of the plain course secondary hunt.
One of these is the usual 3rds place bob which could be substituted in
a trivial fashion by having it be 3rds instead of 1sts when treble is
in 4-5 up. The other possible calls are singles:
It would take me too much time with pencil & paper to investigate
these, but I have the feeling that no other calls are going to result
in being as efficient as the traditional bob (or its off-the back
equivalent)

As a would-be composer, I am glad that the CC does not include calls
in their definition of a method, incidentally I am still peeved that
they decided to allow any number of different calls, which, as I
pointed out long ago, could result in a block of these calls totally
annihilating the original method's place notation.Thankfully, common
sense has prevailed in general.

I'm afraid that in trying to codify everything, twin hunt odd-bell
methods fall into a unique category and should be considered apart
from the rules more easily applied to even-bell methods

cheers
Eddie Martin