[r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

[Graham John]

Martin wrote:

> You have to decide whether you mean 
> (i) swapping two/three bells *from what they would
> have been doing* (changing the nature of the rows
> from what they would have been), or
> (ii) swapping two/three bells *in the coursing order*
> (changing the nature of the coursing order). These
> are different, and neither works in all cases.

I think it is less problematic to concentrate on the places made, and not
the change in the coursing order cycle. The reference is therefore to
changing the nature of the row without the call to that with the call i.e.
your definition i, but not assuming or limited to any number of bells
affected. I don't see any problem with Bristol or Bob Doubles against this
definition.

> But now consider Bob Doubles... the call taking 5324
> to 5342=2534 can be viewed either as swapping the pair
> (24) or as cycling the triple (235).  So here definition
> (ii) isn't well defined, so we might try to use
> definition (i) instead.

That is why in my previous post I said to look at Triples and Caters to
determine what is the appropriate way to consider Doubles. It then becomes
clear whether you are cycling the pair or the triple. The most extensible
interpretation should prevail.

Graham