[r-t] Spliced Lincolnshire and Edmundsbury

Glenn Taylor gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Jul 21 10:55:17 UTC 2014

-----Philip wrote-----

Whilst the subject of this email doesn't look too promising, it relates to
the application of a more general concept described in a letter by Stan
Jenner in this week's Ringing World, which I hope Robert doesn't mind me
quoting from:

"It occurred to me some months ago that pairs of treble dodging major
methods may be spliced in whole courses using the 24 course block first
recognised by Simon Humphrey and now very frequently rung to Lincolnshire
(and many other methods). These courses consist of the twelve "in - course"
(+) courses with the 3 in 3rds and the twelve "out - of - course"
(-) courses with the 3 in 4ths (or, equally, the 4 in 4ths + and 3rds - ).
Using these, many pairs of (often quite diverse) methods may be spliced by
ringing all the + courses to one method and all the - courses to the other.
Lead end order is not important: the only requirement is that both have the
same place made at the lead end. The arrangement rung in the peal at
Willesden on 7th July minimises the number of occasions on which consecutive
courses of the same method are necessary"

The peal referred to is <http://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=340876>,
and the composition is:

5376 Spliced S Major (2m)
Arr. Stan Jenner
  - SS  |
  - S   | A
-   SS  |
-   S   |
-   S   | B
  - S   |
Courses called alternately EEEEEEE LLLLLLL Miss out final single home in 3rd
A block and 3rd B block ===

Any rather more palatable applications, then, folks?


It was as an undergraduate 40 years or so ago - before personal computers
became commonplace - that I first became interested in composing spliced
surprise major and in those days it was necessary to generate tables showing
the details of inter-method falseness. The late David Beard was kind enough
to produce reams of printout for me from the mainframe computer at Hull
University where he worked and it then became possible to look through these
tables by eye in an attempt to spot characteristics of the inter-method
falseness of pairs of methods that might provide "short cuts" to producing

Like Stan Jenner I encountered the 3 in 3+ and 3 in 4- relationship he
describes, but in my case for any two of Rutland, Lincolnshire and
Yorkshire. The same relationship also guarantees truth between any one of
these three and Bristol, but the 8ths place LE of the latter makes it less
exploitable. Other relationships that I discovered between the standard
eight methods are:

2 in 2+ London is clean against 2 in 5- Pudsey  (or 2 in 6-), which I'll
abbreviate to:   (2,2+,L)  v  (2,5-,P) or (2,6-,P)

(2,2+,P)  v (2,5-,S) or (2,6-,S)
(2,2+,P)  v  (2,2-,B)
(2,2+,B)  v   (2,5-,S/L) or (2,6-,S/L)      S/L means Superlative or London

Others are:

(2,2+,U)  v  (2,5-,S/Y) or (2,6-,S/Y)
(2,2+,S/Y)  v  (2,5-,U) or (2,6-,U)
(2,2+,A)  v   (2,5-,Y) or (2,6-,Y)

where U=Uxbridge and A=Ashtead.

The above relationships are not all as exploitable as the example given by
Stan because of a method's own falseness. For example, the twelve 2 in 2+
courses of London are indeed clean with the twelve 2 in 5- courses of
Pudsey...but London has B falseness and so some of the 2 in 2+ courses are
false with each other.

There are a few similar in-course relationships such as  (5,5+,N)  v
(5,4+,U)  between Lincolnshire and Uxbridge.

This is all well and good but doesn't really extend to more than pairs of
methods. Furthermore, discovering these relationships was dependent upon
staring at a sheaf of printout for a hit and miss list of  pre-selected
methods. The interesting question arising from this is whether it is
possible to predict these relationships solely from the methods' place


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list