[r-t] Single-lead methods

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 22 18:01:55 UTC 2017

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:

> My point is, we are not dealing with things evenly here. A Surprise method
> reduced to single-lead stays as a Surprise - but a principle turns into a
> Plain or a TD method. I don't like that bias.
> By the "quack like a duck" argument, just as the Surprise method still
> looks like a Surprise method when reduced to a single lead, so the
> principle still looks like a principle.

I think the way to look at this is that whenever you modify a method's
changes, even when modifying just a single change, you're creating a brand
new method.  There shouldn't be any expectation that the new method's
classification will necessarily be related to the old method's.  If you
take London Surprise Major and replace the lead-end change with x, you get
a principle, even though this could be viewed as quacking like a Surprise
method with variable hunt.

Hunt bells are well-established as bells that return to the same place they
started after one plain lead, so it makes sense that in a single-lead
method, all bells are hunt bells and therefore the method is a hunter.  I
don't view MUG-x becoming a hunt method as uneven treatment or otherwise

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170422/af644c51/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list