[r-t] Methods Committee proposed change 3.0(D)

[Andrew Johnson]

> From: Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>
> The actual change you're trying to accomplish is:
> 
>    * Allow peals of Triples or lower stages to include not
>      mor than one touch in which each row appears at most one
>      more time than any other row.
> 
> All you need to achieve this is a small tweak to the wording 
> of (D)B.1(c).  Currently this reads:
> 
>    Not more than one touch shorter than an extent in which
>    any of the possible rows at that stage occurs at most once.
> 
> If you change it to read as follows you will achieve the 
> objective of proposed change 3.0(D):
> 
>    Not more than one touch in which each possible row at that
>    stage occurs at most one more time than every other
>    possible row at that stage.
> 
> The change is fairly easy to explain and minimal enough that 
> it will hopefully avoid having unintended consequences.  It 
> immediately applies to variable cover and multi-stage peals 
> because 1(c) is referenced by paragraphs 3 and 4 too.
> 
I don't want to see that change. It is rejecting the link
between extents and peals. I don't want to see people
take a 5040 of Grandsire Triples, then add a whole course
when 567 come together to add 'music' and call the result
a peal. I don't want to see people miss a call, ring another
course, put the call in the right place, and call the
result a peal.
Ringing a bobs-only 'peal' of Grandsire by taking Holt's
original then linking in the final B block with omits
to 3 other repeated B blocks to give a 5166 doesn't seem
a satisfactory solution to a peal compared to ringing
two extents.

Last years' change was a mistake too.

Andrew Johnson



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU