[r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

[Graham John]

> Alex: "it left we wondering what the definitions are for the various types
of call? and in fact, if there are set definitions for them"

>Philip: No, no, and definitions wouldn't be helpful.  It's absolutely the
type of thing whereby people are best left off sorting themselves out
pragmatically. 

While I agree that using descriptive language is better than prescriptive
definitions, I don't subscribe to Philip's anarchic view of definition. If
you follow it to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't have method names,
names for the stages, or any other descriptions that immediately tell you
what someone is talking about.

I would concur with Ted's definition based upon nature. It is clear without
being too constraining.

Bob - a call made by the addition, removal or shifting of places, without
altering the nature of the row 
Single - a call made by the addition, removal or shifting of places, which
alters the nature of the row

Doubles ringing has the highest level of inconsistency in terminology of any
stage, so I would tend to look whether the logic of a definition made sense
for Triples and Caters before saying that it doesn't work for Doubles.

Graham