[r-t] Changes to decisions again

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Sun Jan 22 01:27:34 UTC 2006

PJE would like to see a dramatic liberalisation of the CC decisions,
scrapping most of the existing wording including the decisions on extensions
and basically saying that anything comprising true permutations is OK. The
decisions should be descriptive, not prescriptive.

While I broadly agree with the latter statement, I think that Philip may be
taking this too far. For example, his proposals could permit jump change
methods, which I believe go beyond change-ringing as we know it. However, I
do hold the view that some further liberalisation makes sense. I have looked
at the decisions again and have come up with some suggestions which would go
a long way towards Philip's goal without being unnecessarily contentious.

"A. Conditions for all peals"
These seem OK to me.

"B. Particular conditions required for peals on different numbers of bells"

I would rationalise this section to make this decision consistent on all
numbers i.e. a peal shall consist of at least 5000 changes (on any number of
bells), and where a peal is longer than an extent, one round block may
comprise or contain a partial extent. This will allow peals of Major longer
than 40320 (not currently covered), and permit peals on any number of bells
to be any length e.g. 45000 Major, 5039 Triples, 5000 Minor, or 5250
Doubles. Using 1250 changes instead of 5000 would cover what the majority
accept as valid quarterpeals too. 

"C. Peals in more than one method"

"1. Compositions in more than one method in which the change of method
occurs at the lead-head and/or the half-lead shall be called 'Spliced'. In
the case of compositions containing changes of method at both the half-lead
and the lead-head, all the methods shall be symmetrical about the half-lead
with no two of them differing only in the places made at the half-lead
and/or the lead-head."

I would change this to

"Compositions in more than one method shall be called 'Spliced'." 

There is absolutely no reason I can see why you should not be able to ring a
peal of Spliced Double Cambridge Cyclic and DNCB Major which this decision
prevents. Also changes of method should be permissable anywhere. 

4. Peal reports shall state the number and names of all methods and all
variations separately. For peals of Spliced the number of changes of method
at lead-head and at half-lead shall be stated separately, and for peals of
Triples and above the number of changes rung in each method shall be stated.
In peals consisting of extents and/or round blocks the methods rung in each
extent and/or round block shall be listed separately.

I would delete "For peals of Spliced the number of changes of method at
lead-head and at half-lead shall be stated separately". It is irrelevant
where the changes of method take place, and why count changes of method at
the half-lead differently from the lead-end? One thing we might want to add
though is a non-distinct fragment clause to prevent over-reporting of the
number of methods.


There should be two new types of method defined. One to cover any rule based
methods such as Dixons, and the second to cover any fragment of place
notation which cannot form a true round block or be otherwise defined as a
method in another category.

I believe that the addition of these two method types would give sufficient
flexibility to cover most things people might want to do, without needing a
retrospective rule change to allow them.

Any comments?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list