# [r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

Wyld Family e-mail wyld at waitrose.com
Thu Aug 5 20:00:21 UTC 2010

```In the dim and distant past the Central Council published a set of
definitions including bobs and singles.  The following are taken from 1965
edition of Wilfred G Wilson's Change Ringing: -

"A bob can affect any number of working bells and its effect should be to
alter the coursing order of three of them.  A single can also affect any
number of working bells and its effect should be to alter the coursing order
of two of them."

These definitions were designed for simpler times and are clearly intended
to cover calls in Grandsire and 4ths place calls in 8ths place major methods
etc.

The debate about bob doubles illustrates the danger of trying to produce
general definitions since the bob complies with both definitions according
to how you look at it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Steele" <ted.steele at tesco.net>
To: <ringing-theory at bellringers.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

>  On 05/08/2010 18:25, Philip Earis wrote:
>> "Well, a bob of course; but it replaces PN 125 and does not change the
>> nature of the rows that would otherwise have been produced. PN 145
>> replacing 1 does so. The former example affects 3 bells, the latter just
>> 2"
>>
>>
>> Hmm. First you argued the 145 call should be a single, because it just
>> swaps over two bells (ie a single pair).
>>
>> Now you say that as it's a call changing the nature of rows means it
>> could be called a single (to which I'd ask, what do you call a 14 call in
>> plain bob major?)
>
>
> That's why I specified that the change of nature relates to the rows "that
> would otherwise have been produced". Perhaps I should have referred to a
> single changing the order of the progression of the positive and negative
> rows. In PB Doubles the 145 bob does not alter the succession of +ve
> and -ve rows that occurs at a plain lead.  In the case of the Harrington
> Bob Doubles the 145 call does do so.
>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>
>

```