[r-t] Spliced Cinques & Max

[Richard Smith]

Stephen Penney wrote:

> So if you were ringing, say, Spliced Bristol Max and 
> Stedman Cinques, with two points at which you go from 
> Bristol to Stedman, the first beginning a 4th row of a 
> quick six, and the second with a full slow six (Erin 
> start), would that not be 'spliced'? What would it be 
> described as?

According to the CC, the proper way of describing such a 
peal would be just 'Cinques and Maximus' instead of 'Spliced 
Cinques and Maximus'.

> What about a composition that starts with Stedman (at the 
> 4th row of a quick six) and ends with Bristol, with all 
> changes of method at the end / beginning of a slow six?

That would be 'Spliced Cinques and Maximus'.  Yes, the 
inconsistency is silly, but it's really just a 
special case of another, broader inconsitency that seems 
more widely accepted.

At present, it's common to ring 5042 of surprise maximus 
which, of course, comes round at the snap.  That's permitted 
by the CC decisions, and very few people would object to it. 
But what if we rotate the composition so it starts at a 
different lead lead.  We now have one lead with 50 changes 
where the treble double dodges in 1-2 up.  This certainly 
isn't considered a peal of Cambridge under the current 
decisions.

Or take another example.  Consider a peal of seven surprise 
minor.  Ordinarily this isn't spliced, but if we rotate it 
so that we start (say) with 240 of one method, then 720 each 
of the other six, and finally the remaining 480 of the first 
method, this has now become spliced.

This all strikes me as rather silly.

RAS