# [r-t] Stedman-like Minor principle

Sat May 16 09:23:17 BST 2020

```On Thur 14th May at 10:50, Ander Holroyd wrote:

>For several decades I have been looking for a reasonable Minor
>equivalent of Stedman.  (Some near misses in my opinion are: "Bala bob"
>- a plain method with Stedman slow work front and back; Shipway - quick
>and slow eights, but needs horrendous calls for an extent; Storme -
>Stedman quick and slow work, but a different back work and a variable
>hunt bell).

>Finally I have found something like what I wanted.  I realize it is a
>niche market, but to me this is a something of a breakthrough.

> I wasn't able to find an n-part.

>Can someone find a nicer 720?  Other ideas along these lines?

Apologies for yet another post from me.
I really like this new principle. As Ander says, an authentic version of
Stedman for Minor. Very neat how a 720 is partitioned into bob courses, and
that the odd number of these allow for bobs-only 720s using traditional
Stedman-like calls!

The following touch scores fewer points for not being a 720, but some
conductors might find it easier to learn and call than than 2 one-part 720s
back to back:

1440 Parrot Minor
(123456) 241356
-------- ------
246531  1.2.3.5.6.8 (8 sixes)
241563  1.3.4.5.6.8 (8)
415263  1.3.4.5.6.8.9 (10)
415263  6A
(546132) 415632  1.2.3.5.6.7.8 (8)
----------------------------------
6-part, omitting 6A from parts 2,3,4,5,6.
A = 1.3.4.5.6 (6)

This has a traditional Parrot start, with rounds being the 4th row of a
quick six. The first backstroke six-end is therefore 241356, with rounds
and the part end given in brackets.

Gallingly, this 1440 was originally going to have 18 fewer bobs, but a
q-set of plains had to be taken back out so as not to ruin the 6-part
structure. A rotation would be possible to give cyclic part ends, which
might be easier for the conductor. Several rotations are also possible that
contain zero backstroke 6,5s.

A 720 in parts would be nice, but it seems fairly unlikely that you could
find one. 3-parts using an extra plain to rotate 3 bells presumably
wouldn't work, as a bob course can't be split into 3 bits. 4-parts attained
by splitting a bob course into 4 bits are problematic. For any other part
plan you would presumably have to ring segments of courses in reverse, to
prevent the bells coming round at the first part end. But that opens up
other complications that might be difficult to meet in the short space of a
part.

A touch made up from plain courses would be nice. I haven't checked, but
perhaps a true 4320 is possible by ringing the 60 +tive plain courses with
the 6th at Home? Ringing this after the difficult first 720 would make for
an easier peal to ring and call than seven bob course 720s. If there is a
smaller set than 60 of true plain courses, I imagine that joining these
together would be problematic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20200516/6284ddf7/attachment.html>
```