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

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 09:31:06 UTC 2012

On 6 February 2012 00:35, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.

In trying to compile my little book 'Discovering Twin-Hunt Triples
Methods', I restricted them to pure triples (ie only methods having
places in 1, 3, 5, or 7) and noted that there was potential for 144
different routes (methods) through the block of 14 changes where the 1
& 2 just plain hunt.But, only 66 of these would yield a plain course
of five leads. 24 of these have lead blocks which are palindromic and
can be seen to be the result of adding an extra hunt bell to 'regular'
Plain Minor methods. (In fact the CC have decided that, with one or
two exceptions, where the Minor method has been named, this name must
be retained in the twin-hunt triples extension).
Of these 24, only 11 have lead heads from the group 1253746; 1275634;
1267453; 1246375 which I suppose are considered to be the 'regular '
twin hunt triples methods because they can be said to be extensions of
the 'regular' plain minor methods whose lead heads are from the group
135264; 156342; 164523; 142635; However there still are a further 13
Twin-Hunt Triples methods with leads which are palindromes but may be
said to be extensions of irregular plain minor methods !Now, if these
are considered to be 'irregular' then this would put them alongside
the 42 other twin-hunt triples methods whose lead blocks are NOT

Incidentally I was reading through Bell News at the point where the CC
was discussing what were to be catalogued as 'legitimate' methods; all
seemed to be going well until a Mr. Fright (I kid you not) pointed out
that by definition, Stedman must be considered illegitimate. That was
too much for Sir Arthur & the old brigade who decided to reconsider
the concept of legitimacy


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list