[r-t] Definition of a call

[edward martin]

On 8 June 2011 09:40, Paul Bibilo <peb at delcam.com> wrote:

> On 08/06/2011 01:53, Matthew Frye wrote:
> > I still think the original peal would have been much better described
> > as Original Triples,
> Think what you like, but those who rang it thought they were ringing
> Grandsire.  At least I did, and observed whichever bell happened to be
> the treble so that I would know when to dodge.
>
> > and I would presume that was the basis on which it was composed.
>
> I very much doubt that knowing the composer.
> --
> Paul
>
> So do I, but I think that this amendment was ill-considered & leaves a lot
> to be desired. It raises several questions as far as I am concerned.
>
> 1: If it was formulated to accommodate the peal of Grandsire Triples
> (variable treble) rung by the St. Chad’s ringers then it does not seem to me
> to accommodate the method they rang. E.g. If we start off ringing Grandsire
> Triples in the usual way, with 1 = primary hunt (PH) then we expect
> immediately to make 3rds and ring a block of 14 changes until PH leads
> again. This implies the expectance of a block of 14 changes which ends with
> either a call or a plain lead. However, if in the meantime a change in the
> PH is called then this should mean that we immediately enter a new block of
> 14 changes from that row irrespective of where the original PH happens to
> be. This has absolutely nothing to do with shortening or lengthening a lead
> of the original PH.
>
> 2: I agree with Graham in that “a call is a means of passing from one
> course of a method to another” would be more practical if changed to read
> “lead” or “row”. As I’ve pointed out numerous times, to no avail whatsoever,
> a call in Grandsire Doubles under this definition implies that there are
> four courses equal in structure to the plain course which simply is not the
> case The 120 cannot be set out in 4 mutually exclusive plain courses of
> Grandsire Doubles; therefore in Grandsire Doubles a call cannot be said to
> move us from the plain course to another!!!
>
> 3: I think that it is backward moving to allow a call to alter the length
> of the recognised structure of a method. Keeping the treble as PH, John Holt
> did produce a 720 of Bob Minor in which using 4th place bobs the PH was
> called to dodge 5-6 up (adding 2 rows to the lead block); make 4ths,
> (subtracting 4 rows from the lead block, and to dodge 5-6 down (adding 2
> rows to the lead block) thus allowing for all 720 changes of Bob Minor to be
> produced without the need for singles. As clever as this was, it never
> caught on in popularity and stands as a unique quirk of mathematics.
>
> 4: That such an amendment in this wording was passed by majority vote leads
> me once more to question the qualifications of the individual C.C. member.
> Have they any idea of what is being proposed? If not then what gives them
> any reaasonable right to vote one way or the other?
>
>
>
Eddie Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110608/3e123de6/attachment-0004.html>