[r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

Ted Steele ted.steele at tesco.net
Fri Aug 6 10:53:13 UTC 2010

  On 06/08/2010 11:06, Martin Bright wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 09:51 +0100, Graham John wrote:
> I think there's still an issue.  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.

This is true, but as place notation is essentially concerned with the 
production of individual rows rather than coursing orders, and as the 
places made at calls are essentially bits of place notation and nothing 
more, it seems appropriate (for the purpose of a simple definition) to 
consider only the effect upon the row produced. If this is the same as 
would have occurred without the call, it's a bob and if different then 
its a single. As as been said, it is not really essential to have a 
precise definition but in the interests of consistency of language and 
communication it is desirable. I suspect that I am in the majority in 
expecting that a single will ordinarily swap two bells. Doubles appears 
to have developed a range of alternatives that allows for pretty well 
anything to be called something else; something like a Fuggles bob used 
as a Golding's single for example. (Now there's a thought; a new call 
could be called a Hop).


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list