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

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 19:13:22 UTC 2008

```2008/7/22 Matthew Frye <matthew__100 at hotmail.com>:

>
> > "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.
>
> A few points here:
> How is a Grandsire bob any more or less essential than a bob in any other
> method? You need bobs in any method to get an extent (obviously with a few
> exceptions). There are also probably several possible calls that could
> generate an extent.

If you define a plain lead of Grandsire
1: has having PN + 3. 1.5.1.5.1.5.1.5.1
2: If you define a bob as simply altering a place within the plain lead
block so as not to affect the parity of the rows nor alter the length of the
lead block
3: if the reasonable object is to emulate the traditional calling & get all
60 in-course rows using no other device, then I believe  there is no
alternative , if you can find one I'd be the first to congratulate you

>
> I think if you work it out then a bob in Grandsire DOES pass you from 1
> course to another as before the call you are in 1 course and after the call
> you are in another!

I have worked it out many years ago, and in Grandsire Doubles, the bob moves
us from one lead block to another lead block, NOT from one course to another
course. Following your implied instructions, a bob at the end of the plain
course (course 1) puts us nicely into course 2, but before we can complete
course 2, several rows repeat rows which inconveniently occurred in course
1. In fact, calling P P B P P B P P B (which according to you gives us 3
courses) of the 90 rows produced, 60 are true but 30 are repetitions.

There is no "ought" about an extent, it's anything that gets you through all
the changes. Your description of 4 courses each with a different bell in the
hunt is nice and does seem a logical way to make an extent, the only problem
is that it doesn't work. There are many ways of getting extents and joining
a series of plain courses is the probably the most common, usually easiest
and most popular way but it's not the only way, eg if you look back on this
list a few months you will find a description of an extent of Ocean Finance
doubles (not based on full courses) explained.

You appear to be agreeing with me,

>  "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?

Yes, and so would not have been recognised before the decision was changed,
> which is the main reason that we have the plain lead we know today.

But old sport, the decision wasn't changed, it was introduced. Grandsire is
the oldest method that we ring today, second only to what we now call Bob
Doubles. It's even older than what we call Bob Minor

>
> > 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 ...
> I think that the wider question we're heading towards is should asymmetric
> methods have different names if they're rung backwards? The current
> decisions are very clear on this: it's a definite no. Looking at all
> asymmetric methods (not just Grandsire) from a theoretical point of view,
> they would probably be considered the same thing, just rung in the opposite
> direction, from a practical point of view they may well be rung as different
> things and allowing them to have different names certainly makes describing
> them easier.

I admit that New Grandsire is Grandsire inverted, but as such it has as much
right to being named as does Reverse Grandsire or Double Grandsire or
Reverse New Grandsire.  They are all reasonable variations of the method
called Grandsire, and as I have demonstrated, Both Grandsire & New Grandsire
can occur in a true composition. From a practical point of view they need
names to distinguish one from the other.

Eddie Martin

>
>  **
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080722/eb1dd623/attachment-0004.html>
```

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list