[r-t] Definition of a call

[Matthew Frye]

The composition is still be allowed as you simply combine two different calls in close proximity, 1 omitting some changes as appropriate, the other altering the remaining changes to suit (3 calls might be needed if you're altering changes both before and after the cut changes). I think the decision should allow any arbitrary alteration to the method, it probably wouldn't be phrased like that in the tower, but…

I still think the original peal would have been much better described as Original Triples, and I would presume that was the basis on which it was composed. I would think compositions along these lines of more complex methods would be unlikely to give an extent without being better described as something else, although if they do exist the option is now there, so I guess that's progress.

If calls must be defined at all it why not something simple, along the lines of "a call is any alteration to the expected sequence of changes"? That would seem to cover every possibility.

MF


On 7 Jun 2011, at 23:17, Graham John wrote:

> The definition of a call was changed at the CC meeting on 30 May 2011, following a request at the previous year's meeting to accommodate the variable treble Grandsire Triples rung at St Chad's, Birmingham on 24 Nov, 2009 (RW 2010, p217).
>  
> The decision has been changed as follows:-
>  
> (E)A.2
> A call is a means of passing from one course of a method to another. It is not part of the definition of the method. A call may be effected in one of the following ways:
> 
> (a) by altering the places made between two or more consecutive rows without altering the length of a lead;
> 
> (b) by omitting consecutive changes, altering the length of a lead.
> 
> I read this as saying that a call is either (a) OR (b). However the peal in question had a 34567 single at the same time as changing the hunt bell, which it does not seem to cover properly as it is (a) AND (b). Perhaps it would have been better phrased if the words "one of" had been left out.
>  
> I also feel it was an opportunity missed not to change "course" in the first sentence to "lead" or "row" to solve the problem described at the link below.
>  
> http://changeringing.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Calls_that_pass_to_another_part_of_the_same_course
>  
> Graham  
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110608/06c04380/attachment-0004.html>