[r-t] Minor Blocks

[Tim Barnes]

Yes agree - 6ths place Morning Star could either be rung as a 2, 2
differential hunter (with two hunt bells - the 4 and the 5), or as a
non-method block (since a single lead method).

You could probably name it separately as both things, and then ring them
together and call it 2-spliced..



On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Alan Reading <alan.reading at googlemail.com>
wrote:

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