[r-t] Update on jump methods

Alexander E Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Tue Dec 10 12:15:55 GMT 2019

An extent of Mersey Ferry was also rung in a peal (not accepted of 
course) in 2004.


On 08-Dec-19 4:26 PM, Tim Barnes wrote:
> Under the Framework's retroactive recognition provisions, the CC Methods 
> team is in the process of adding methods to the Methods Library that 
> were rung and named in the past, but which did not qualify for inclusion 
> in the Library at the time.  Over 700 such methods have been added so 
> far -- a listing is available here:
> https://complib.org/report?name=retroactiverecognition
> The requirement for retroactive recognition is that a method was rung in 
> a performance that would have qualified it for inclusion in the Library 
> had the Framework been in place at the time of the performance.
> One set of methods we're working on adding to the Library are those that 
> include jump changes.  The table below shows the jump methods we're 
> aware of, many of which were rung by members of this list.  There are a 
> few open points as shown in the Comments column.  If anyone can provide 
> any info on these, please let us know either via this list or at 
> methods at cccbr.org.uk <mailto:methods at cccbr.org.uk>.  Please also let us 
> know if there are any other rung jump methods that should be added to 
> the Library.
> The Framework classifies any method with jump changes as "Jump", and 
> Jump is included in the method's title.  So, for example, Cambridge 
> Treble Jump Minor will be given a method name of "Cambridge Treble", it 
> will have a classification of "Jump", and so its title will be 
> "Cambridge Treble Jump Minor".  This gives sensible results for all the 
> methods below, with the possible exception of Jump Stedman Doubles, 
> which would become Jump Stedman Jump Doubles.  We've reached out to the 
> band that rang this to see if they would like to rename it.
> The other question that arises in adding these methods to the Library is 
> how to notate jump changes.  I'll send another note shortly that has the 
> Method team's proposal on this (and which explains notations such as 
> (24) below).
> # 	Title 	Notation 	Reference 	Comments
> 1 	Cambridge Treble Jump Minor 	x3x(24)x2x(35)x4x5,2 	RW1976/357 	
> 2 	London Treble Jump Minor 	3x3.(24)x2x(35).4x4.3,2 	RW1979/979 	
> 3 	Beverley Treble Jump Minor 	x3x(24)x2x(35).4x34.5,2 	RW1979/1057 	
> 4 	Durham Treble Jump Minor 	x3x(24)x2x(35).4x34.1,2 	RW1979/1057 	
> 5 	Norwich Treble Jump Minor 	x34x(24)x2x(35)x34x1,1 	RW1979/1057 	
> 6 	Surfleet Treble Jump Minor 	x3x(24)x2x(35).4x2.5,2 	RW1979/1057 	
> 7 	Wells Treble Jump Minor 	3x3.(24)x2x(35).4x34.1,2 	RW1979/1057 	
> 8 	Newham Treble Jump Minor 		RW1984/175 	Notation not published - need 
> to obtain it
> 9 	Double Oxford Jump Minor 	x(24)x(35)x5,2 	RW2002/1073 	Confirm 
> shouldn't have 'Treble' in method name
> 10 	Mersey Ferry Treble Jump Minor 	(13)4.(35)x3(64).(42)x 	BB Jun 1st 
> 2003, not found in RW 	
> 11 	Jump Stedman Doubles 	3.1.5.(31).(31).(31).(31).(31).,1 	BB 
> Sep 11th 2008 and RW2008/1261 	Will become Jump Stedman Jump Doubles. 
> Change name?
> 12 	Stedman Jump Triples 	7,(13).(13).(13).(13).(13).7 	BB Jan 12th 
> 2013, not found in RW 	
> 13 	Bourne Treble Jump Minor 	x3x(24)x2x(35)x34x3,2 	RW2016/306 
> Notation not published - confirm this is as expected
> 14 	York Treble Jump Minor 	x3x(24)x2x(35).4x4.3,2 	No known 
> performances 	DFM has this recorded in ringing.org <http://ringing.org> 
> but unsure of origin
> Regards
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list