[r-t] Single-lead methods

Ted Steele teds.bells at tesco.net
Sat Apr 22 20:20:23 UTC 2017

On 22/04/2017 11:10, Mark Davies wrote:
> Graham writes,
> 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.

Just out of interest how would you classify a method that, with standard 
LE pn 12, 352.., instead has 36(8 etc) at the division end. Would not 
such methods become principles? Or would they just be variable hunt 
surprise? Or would it depend on how they were regarded by the ringers?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list