[r-t] What is a 'regular' method

[Amanda Lee-Riley]

In Appendix B of Michael J de C Henshaw's '*Learning Methods*' it says:

"*Requirements of regular methods*
One of the requirements of a regular method is that it contains the same
lead heads as Plain Bob. Another is that a place is not made in the
penultimate position (i.e. fifths on six bells) except at the half lead
when the treble is at the back."

There are then three or four paragraphs about reasons for/examples of this
and how one determines "pivot positions".

ajlr

Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:31:50 -0000
From: "Graham John" <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
To: <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Subject: [r-t] What is a 'regular' method
Message-ID: <000301cce3f9$c1d18f40$
>
> 4574adc0$@changeringing.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> The term 'regular method' is used frequently in ringing publications, but
> it
> is not defined in the CC decisions. Is there an accepted definition of it?
> The CCCBR website says that there is a definition in Appendix B of Learning
> Methods by Michael J de C Henshaw (2000, CC). Can anyone share with us what
> it says?
>
>
>
> The problem is that we are familiar with the 41 'from the book' regular
> Surprise Minor methods, but is this actually a subset of regular methods?
> or
> do regular methods as well as having plain bob leadheads, have to be
> palindromic and have no 56 in the notation above the treble? Do they also
> have to have a 12 or 16 leadend notation? Not more than two places made
> simultaneously? How do these criteria apply to other stages? Are twin hunt
> methods such as Grandsire included?
>
>
>
> A simple definition might be any method having a designated leadhead code
> letter. But is this correct?
>
>
>
> Graham
>
>
>
>
>