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

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Mon Feb 6 00:35:30 UTC 2012

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

Thank you Amanda. I note that this makes no reference to single changes or
the leadhead notation, only plain bob leadheads and no penultimate places.

RAS wrote:

> Historically, the CC have used 'regular method' to mean one
> conforming to the decisions.  

Yes. I understand from Tony Smith that the term was abandoned by the CC in
1970, and was originally a method conforming to the then decisions based
upon the 1903 Report of the Committee on Legitimate Methods.

> I'm not sure I'd define 'regular' in terms of
> lead-head codes.  That seems backwards to me.

I think it would be useful to have a modern definition that is broadly in
line with the historical view and current usage, as well as having the sense
of being a 'conventional' method. I therefore suggest it should be:-

1 Plain Bob leadheads
2 12, 1n, 1 or 12n leadend change
3 No penultimate change (excluding the halflead)
4 Palindromic symmetry

This would be more restrictive than those methods given leadhead codes,
which cover 1 & 2 plus the equivalent twin hunt methods. So far, I haven't
seen any evidence to suggest whether the term 'regular' applies to twin hunt
methods, or not.

Further criteria that are perhaps also relevant (at least from the Minor
5. No single changes (sorry Plain Bob Doubles!)
6. No more than two blows in any place (sorry Plain Bob on odd numbers! but
without this, any method with three blows would be considered regular)


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list