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

[Ian McCulloch]

I'm a bit confused now.  What is the correct terminology for the 
well-known 41 surprise minor methods?

Cheers,
ian

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Graham John wrote:

> 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
> tradition):-
> 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)
>
> Graham
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>