[r-t] Extensions and calls acting on more than one row

[Graham John]

PJE wrote:

> So why don't the Decisions change so that a call can only act over
> one row?  This is surely logical, and would instantly solve several
> problems.  I might have written this on a beer mat when I was
> drinking with PABS the evening before the recent committee meeting
> for him to take along, but I can't remember.

I also raised this issue with Tony Smith when he asked for comments on the
MC proposed changes earlier this year. I copied ringing-chat at the time and
attach my questions and Tony's answers again below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ringing-chat-bounces at bellringers.net
[mailto:Ringing-chat-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Graham John
Sent: 15 February 2004 23:50
To: Ringing-Chat
Subject: [r-c] FW: Draft amendments to Decisions on Methods and Calls

Does any other list member have comments on the proposed changes
http://www.methods.clara.net/work04/index.htm or Tony Smith's (Chairman of
the Methods Committee) replies to my questions posted here on Friday: 

> 1. Long Calls

> This definition now permits a very long call, perhaps changing the
> place notation for a whole lead. In effect it could be used to define
> some of the linking techniques in current use. One could call a change
> of method to one having the right lead length, then call bob, and ring
> any place notation the composer wished for the whole lead, only to
> change into another method at the end of the lead. The effect would
> be that the method called would not have been rung at all.

> Is this the intention?

1. The change in (Decision (E) A.2) from "between two consecutive rows" to
"between two or more consecutive rows" is intended to reflect the fact that
calls can affect more than one change, for example, a Grandsire single
affects two consecutive changes, a Scientific Triples bob affects three
consecutive changes, and Doubles calls often affect five consecutive
changes. Now you could say that these are sequences of different types of
calls made in consecutive changes but we hope that the proposed changed
wording is less confusing. It actually makes no difference at all to what
calls are permitted since you could ring your long calls now as a sequence
of consecutive calls.

> 2. Bobs and Singles

> The definition of bob and single has been removed. This may solve
> the problem of how to define them in the context of long calls, but
> in my view definitions are useful to provide a common understanding
> of terms.

> Why not keep the definition for bob and single, and if another term
> is required for a more obscure type of call then why not invent a
> new name?


2. The descriptions of bob and single are not part of the definition of a
call and are misleading since they can be taken to imply that bob/single are
the only permitted calls. Moreover we doubt that it is possible to come up
with definitions which cover all uses of the terms in practice, for example,
a Plain Bob Doubles standard single is formed by moving a place (just like a
standard bob but moving the 5ths instead of the 2nds). The most one could
say is something like "Calls may be called "bob" or "single" or other terms
as agreed by the band" which does not seem very useful.

> 3. Standard Calls

> The definition of variations introduces the term standard calls, 
> but there is no definition of what a standard call is.

3. The concept of a standard call for plain Doubles methods was introduced
in 1968 at Worcester when Doubles variations were first formally recognised.
They were defined by adoption of a report from the Methods Committee in 1977
at Derby for methods with palindromic methods with 4 or 3 lead plain courses
as being calls which only affect the places at the lead end. They were
published in "Plain Doubles Methods and Variations", 1980, which also
specified the standard calls for the twin-hunt methods, Grandsire, Antelope
Place, Newark Place and Wollaton Place. These are the only standard calls
which are defined and if we could have found a succinct definition of
standard calls we would have included it in this Decision. Alternatively we
could have referred to the 1980 collection by name but did not consider that
this would be satisfactory. We settled on the wording "Where standard calls
are defined ..." as an improvement on the existing wording which implied
that all plain Doubles methods have standard calls.

Best wishes, Tony
email mailto:smithap at acm.org