[r-t] Minor Blocks

[Alan Reading]

I have a feeling that rule might have said exactly the same thing prior to
the removal of the requirement to have more working bells than hunt bells.
I take the point about the use of plurals but I still think its a bit
ambiguous now - it's great that something has been rung to test it out :-)

Assuming it is the case that a method must be divisible into 2 or more
equal parts here is an observation.
So Cromwell Tower Block, Lauderdale Tower Block and Shakespeare Tower Block
are all 6ths place versions of conventional treble dodging A-group methods.
>From this it would be reasonable to conclude that the 6ths place version of
any treble dodging A-group method must be a block rather than a method
right?! But the 6ths place version of Morning Start Treble Bob Minor is
definitely a method
since the place notation of the first half lead (-34-1-2-1-34-1) is
symmetrical about the 2 and so the 6ths place version is actually divisible
into 2 equal parts! What a wonderful set of rules :-)

Alan






On 23 June 2014 16:28, Andrew Graham <ajgraham42 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> >From: Alan Reading alan.reading at googlemail.com
> >
> >Is it the intention of this rule to imply that a method must be divisible
> >into more than 1 equal part? To my mind it doesn't explicitly make this
> >clear.
> >If not then I can't see anything else in the rules that would mean the
> >'methods' in this performance
> >http://www.bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=338918 had to be described
> as
> >blocks rather than as methods.
>
> I've no idea what the intention of the rule is, but it clearly says parts
> and leads i.e. plural so our view would be that these wouldn't count as
> methods
>
> No doubt we will be informed if this isn't the case!
>
> AJG
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>