# [r-t] New Grandsire [was Old methods]

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 11:55:56 UTC 2008

```2008/7/18 Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>:

> snip
>
> The problem is that in New Grandsire we've exchanged the roles the two
> hunt bells fill. Which is primarily, though not exclusively, apparent,
> of course, only when there are calls. All of which probably explains
> why Eddie's level of irritation seems to be about equivalent when he
> bemoans the current Decisions' view of "calls are not part of methods"
> and their view that "Grandsire and New Grandsire are the same method".
> MBD wrote:
>

> But that seems rather silly to me, too. You could still ring New Grandsire
> with the ordinary Grandsire calls. Or, presumably, you could ring
Grandsire
> with New Grandsire calls. The call isn't part of the method.

> snip

Back in the 1980s (I think it was) when the Central Council agreed to the
Methods Committee's new definitions of methods, they accepted that methods
such as Grandsire have a plain course which happens to yield a
what-they-chose-to-call  'Secondary Hunt'...This, despite the fact that as
any learner can tell us, if you want to learn to ring Grandsire Doubles it
is equally  essential to learn what to do at a bob as at a plain lead
because the standard calling since 1637, or whenever it was, has been P  B
P  B  P  B. Obviously, what we choose to call 'plain' indicates only half of
what we call 'Grandsire  Doubles'; the other half is defined by the bobbed
leads  As far as ringing Grandsire Doubles is concerned, the following is
not correct and really is totally irrelevant:

"A call is a means of passing from one course of a method to another. It is
effected by altering the places made between two or more consecutive rows,
without altering the length of a lead. It is not part of the definition of
the method."

The Grandsire bob is AN ESSENTIAL part of the method and does NOT pass us
from one course to another simply because although what we call a plain
course has 30 rows, and there are 4 potential 'Secondary Hunts'  and the
extent OUGHT to consist of these four courses joined together by calls,
it doesn't!  On paper you can only set out 2 plain courses and even then,
they have to be either side of a single. The remaining 60 rows cannot be had
by using the plain course structure.

At  about the same time (I think) they also introduced us to:

"Methods with hunt bells are known as differential hunters if all the
working bells do not do the same work in the plain course or the number of
leads is not the same as the number of working bells."

Isn't a bobbed lead of Grandsire Doubles what we might call an example of a
differential hunter?

On paper the extent can be set out in 6 blocks and 'omits' (or if you like
'bobs') CAN be used to pass from one course to another.

12345

21354 'A'

23145

32415

34251

43521

45312

54132

51423

15432 'B'

14523

The 60 pure doubles can be had by ringing this six times and having 5ths
instead of thirds at either 'A' or at 'B' or for the extent, you could call
omits at 'A' in one half and after a single, omits at 'B' in the other. Thus
giving quite a variety to the method,

Something similar applies to Grandsire Triples but here, with so many omits
at say 'A' before actually ringing a 'plain lead' of Grandsire Differential
Hunters Triples, it might be more sensible in practice to call the omits at
'A' one type of  now 'plain lead' and refer to the leads of DHGT as
being  'bobbed ' leads....but then what about the real possibility of those
leads with omits at 'B' ?

The simple solution which served us until the Central Council's decisions,
was to call the one 'Grandsire' and the other 'New Grandsire' but of course
that's really too simple ...

Eddie Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080722/35cfa16d/attachment-0004.html>
```