[r-t] Elegant unrung methods

[Richard Smith]

Philip Earis wrote:

> It's been a bit quiet here recently, so I've got a question which is partly
> historical in nature.
>
> Has the very neat doubles method (&5.1.2.1.2, 1) been documented anywhere
> previously? This is a very simple way of generating the extent (eg 3*ppbb,
> b=145)

I'm not aware of this one being rung -- in Melvyn Hiller's
book of Doubles methods and variations, it is not named.
Which is a bit surprising, really.

> Alternatively its reverse: (&5.4.5.1.5, 4).

Devon Place Doubles.


> They are also iterative ways of getting the extent - in some ways a logical
> "extension" of firstly plain hunt on three and then Reverse Court (or Single
> Court) Minimus.

Is it?  I would have thought the continuation of the pattern

  &3.1.3, 1       (Plain Hunt Singles)
  &-4.2.4, 1      (Reverse Court Minimus)

would have been

  &5.1.2.23.2, 1  (Unnamed; reverse of Essex Place Doubles)

i.e. plain hunt on the back three with places padding it out
at the front.

> It seems the kind of thing Stedman would have mentioned, but
> I couldn't see anything in a (very) quick scan of Tintinnalogia

(Isn't it generally accepted these days that Duckworth
wrote Tintinnalogia?)

And while Tintinnalogia doesn't mention your particular
extent, it does mention something not too dissimilar under
the name 'Doubles and Singles' on page 67.

In modern parlance this would be described as the method

  &5.145.5.123.5, 125   (Lancashire Bob)

called ppps x3 where s=123.  Like your method, it has 8
blows in one place.  This method is effectively Double Bob
Minimus padded by taking the treble out to fifths place and
having the extra bell make 8 blows behind.  (The method with
3 instead of 123 adjacent to the half lead -- Hertfordshire
Bob -- has this property too.)

Reading the description in Tintinnalogia, it seems clear
that this method was considered a natural extension of the
idea behind Plain Bob / Little Bob / Double Bob Minimus
(which was also known as 'Doubles and Singles' at the time).


> Instead, he seems a lot more preoccupied with various
> somewhat contrived ways of getting an extent by using
> variations on plain changes.

That's a bit unfair.  It's true he spends quite some time
discussing Plain Changes, but later in the book, various
other doubles (in the modern meaning) methods are discussed.
In fact, there's really quite a variety of methods there.
In addition to Plain Changes and 'Doubles and Singles' (the
method above), there are:

  Tendring, Phoenix, Paradox and 'What you please' -- in
    modern terms, four doubles principles with 20 lead
    courses.

  London Pleasure -- "a confused peal to ring, I shall say
    nothing more of it"

  Reading Doubles -- the 'other' three-part in-course
    half-extent on five.

  Old Doubles, New Doubles -- Old = Plain Bob; both given
    with a 123 call, but it's fairly clear that a 145 call
    was also used.

  Grandsire Doubles

> So have people rung (or discussed) these before? It seems hard to believe
> otherwise. They look like the kind of thing some people might use as a
> "training tool".

I'm not sure how useful it would be for that purpose.

> Of course, that these methods are not allowed by the current CC Decisions
> for having too many consecutive blows is a good example of how wrong and
> prescriptive those "decisions" are.

Indeed.

RAS