[r-t] Survey #3: One-lead courses. Results.

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 14:27:06 UTC 2014

> MF:
> Seems to be a decisive result.

Yes, and an interesting coincidence that the Monster showed up at the same
time, giving an example of the use of a one-lead course method.  While the
Monster clearly won't be rung very often, one could see mini-monsters being
rung in QPs and peals of Doubles.

We've now eliminated 3 out of the 6 potential restrictions on the general
case of an allowable method being any sequence of changes, where that
sequence generates a plain lead of the method.

The 6 potential restrictions are listed at the bottom. The next one, #4, is
the restriction of no more than 4 consecutive blows in the same place.  It
seems from a recent RW letter that the Methods Committee is already
considering removing this restriction, following people getting around it
by using non-method blocks.  I guess a question is whether this restriction
should be removed completely, or replaced with a higher limit.

What do people think?  Does anyone know the history of why the 4 blow limit
was originally put in place?  Was it just codifying established practice at
the time, or was it perhaps in response to some sort of controversy?

Potential restrictions on what is allowed as a method:
1. Can't have a plain course that is false - ## eliminated ##
2. Can't have a divisible place notation, or can't have a method whose
place notation is a fraction or multiple of another method - ## eliminated
3. Can't have a plain course that only has one lead - ## eliminated ##
4. Can't have more than 4 blows in one place
5. Can't have the null change
6. Can't be a rotation of another method


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list