[r-t] Restriction #4

[Graham John]

MF wrote:

> What if you had all the even places
> staying fixed and range a N/2 method
> amongst the odd bells (effectively
> just ringing in jump changes)? 

Jump changes fundamentally alter the whole historical premise of change
ringing and methods. They need to be considered as a completely separate
topic, and would need to put in a separate domain not to confuse things
completely.

The topic of cover bells is a difficult one and so is the related topic of
non-overlapping groups of bells that are created by ringing methods on top
of one another e.g. Grandsire Triples on top of Plain Bob Minor to create
rows of Cinques. From a method definition perspective, the methods are
already defined, so is it necessary or desirable to create a Cinques method
definition to define the combination? And, if that were done, would you then
have to create further definitions for every rotation of one against the
other. One thing we are trying to do is to separate methods from
performances and truth, and in these cases truth can be defined by looking
at the complete rows, and methods could be combined horizontally to create
that truth defined by a composition, rather than by defining new methods.

Coming back to the topic of the four consecutive blows limit in methods. I
would be happy to vote on the simple premise of removing the limit entirely
provided that no bell makes continuous places for the whole lead. But
without that restriction, I believe that we also need to discuss cover bells
first. 

It is worth noting that two methods have already crept into the CC
collections that are, in my view, not methods in their own right because
they *do* have consecutive places made by a bell for a whole lead. They are
Cheeky Little Place Minimus and Itram Little Place Minimus, which are
Original Singles with the Treble and Four covering respectively.

Graham