[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Sun May 25 12:43:06 UTC 2014

Richard Smith wrote:

> I strongly encourage people to vote against motion (D), 
> the main motion on non-method blocks, to vote for motion 
> (E), and to propose striking "true" from (E)A.1(b) as a 
> motion from the floor.

Suppose motions (D) and (E) both pass, and then a motion 
from the floor passes that strikes "true" from (E)A.1(b).

We would then have a rather interesting situation as none of 
the quark methods would be non-method blocks, nor would any 
of the other examples I've seen quoted.  What, then, would 
be an example of a non-method block?

The only example I can think of is methods with more than 
four consecutive blows in one place.  This relaxation would, 
I suspect, most benefit doubles ringers.  The present rule 
forbidden more than four consecutive blows was introduced in 
1952, and prior to then many plain doubles methods had been 
rung with eight blows at lead or behind.  Given that eight 
blows behind is permitted in calls (and not just in 
variations), it seems a bit arbitrary to prohibit it in 
plain leads.

I'm sure the doubles community will be pleased that the 
Methods Committee are proposing to allow such things again. 
The method Hertfordshire Bob Doubles (&,2) is a 
fine method, although under motion (D) it would presumably 
have to be renamed Hertfordshire Block Doubles.  I'm sure 
some doubles bands will jump at the chance of including it 
in a multi-method peal, but if they do so, how are they to 
record the peal?

Decision (D)C covers how to describe peals in multiple 
methods, but motion (D) contains no amendment to decision 
(D)C.  In the absence of language deeming a change from a 
method to non-method block or vice versa, or between two 
non-method blocks, to be a change of method, it is not. 
This means we can now ring peals of spliced with no changes 
of method!  This is yet another example of how badly drafted 
this motion is.

If the intent is to allow long consecutive places to be 
rung, surely a much more satisfactory way of doing this is 
by striking the requirement in the first place: i.e. by 
removing (E)A.1(f).

Can anyone think of anything that will be allowed by motion 
(D) other than methods with false plain courses, methods 
with more hunts than working bells, and methods with long 


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list