# [r-t] Call names (was Asymmetric Doubles)

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Fri Aug 6 18:09:53 UTC 2010

```OK, consider the little surprise cinques method &-5-4.5-5.36.4-4.5-4-8, 1
The pn is identical to bristol major, and it has a regular mx lead end.
(This is a silly method, with 8 blows at the back; one could probably
modify it to get something more reasonable, but this is irrelevant).

Ask a ringer-on-the-street what the natural calls should be, and I suspect
you will hear:
bob=14E, single=1234E

However, according to the proposed "legislation", the former is a single
and the latter is a bob!

I completely agree with Philip on this.  Bobs and singles are merely names
for calls, and there is no need for definitions.  How many innovative new
methods have gone unrung because the band wasn't sure what to call the
call?  None, methinks....

Ander

> Martin:
>
>> 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.

Graham:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

```