[r-t] Well-formedness

[Mark Davies]

Interestingly, if you want a method where one or more bells have 
reflective symmetry about a row (hence do not have "well-formed" paths 
according to the CC Decisions), and you also want the other bells to 
reflect around a change, then you normally end up with a symmetric 
method as a whole (by which I mean the place notation reflects). It's 
more difficult producing the same result in an asymmetric method.

Now, I shall term these methods, in which one or more bells have 
reflective symmetry about a row, "point methods". This is because the 
point of symmetry is always at a point in the blueline. "Point bells" 
are always hunt bells, because the pivot sends them back to where they 
started in the lead.

By the CC definitions, such methods are termed "Hybrid", which is the 
category used where the hunt bells follow asymmetric paths, and is the 
catch-all lowest common denominator for hunt-dominated methods. But as 
we've seen, you can produce point methods with working bells, and where 
all the working bells have normal reflective symmetry. This seems a nice 
and natural thing to do. The point bells are hunt bells, and the normal 
bells working bells.

But from my first paragraph, if you do so, generally you get a symmetric 
method overall. Labelling such methods "Hybrid", and dumping them 
amongst the completely asymmetric set, seems peculiar to me.

MBD