[r-t] More methods to ring in your nightmares

[Matthew Frye]

On 28 Dec 2014, at 20:12, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> Is there anything in the current decisions that prohibits ringing the
> following, and classifying it as a differential little place doubles
> method, with lead length 2 and course length 4?
> 
> 123.345
> 
> Or even this differential little place maximus method?
> 
> 34567890ET.1234567890
> 
> Unless I'm misreading the decisions, these would appear to be methods,
> and not even non-method blocks.

Does the second of these methods fall foul of the rules on number of hunt bells? Or have those rules been abolished by now? (TBH, I don't keep track as well as I might). If not, then I agree with your assessment that these appear to be allowed as methods. I think I would classify them as one of the very few things that are currently allowed, but I think should not be allowed (on account of the stationary 3rd).

MF