[r-t] Definition of a call

Robert Bennett rbennett at woosh.co.nz
Thu Jun 9 09:24:47 UTC 2011


 On Thu 09/06/11 8:49 PM , edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com sent:
   On 8 June 2011 18:48, Matt Dawson  wrote:
  On 8 June 2011 14:54, edward martin  wrote:
 > 3: I think that it is backward moving to allow a call to alter the
 > of the recognised structure of a method. Keeping the treble as PH, John
 > 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
 > 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.

 I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all. Dixonoids aside, I'd be
 very interested in seeing Holt's 720 and possibly giving it a try.
   So you would allow for a method structure to be cut up into any
number of slices, sewn back together in any way you like - some bits
forward PN with others reverse PN - and still insist that you are
ringing the orginal method?  If the method is palindromic about the path
of the treble  then pesumably if the treble continues her regular
hunting path  it would still appear to be the same method with some
leads lengthened and others shortened.  but if the method is not
pallindromic then the inevitable  flow of PN running in reverse would
yield a different method...but not according to you?   John Holt's 720 of
Bob Minor is a bit of a red herring in that in that instance there clearly
is a lengthening or shortening of lead blocks as far as the path of the
treble is concerned and this, I suppose, would now be allowable as being
Plain Bob using usual bobs when treble is at lead plus three type (b)
calls to affect the path of the treble.   My question is  why did they
have to insist that changing primary hunt bells in Grandsire triples = a
'bob' or whatever they needed to call it?  I have every confidence that
the composer did not think in that way and neither did the peal band. As
I've said: If we start ringing Grandsire Triples with 1 as primaryhunt
(PH) we immediately make 3rds in anticipation of plain hunting through
the remaining rows of the lead block with 1 as the PH. However, if a new
PH is called for, this is in no way a 'bob' and doesn't need to be defined
as such, we have simply entered a new lead block with a different PH. The
old PH is now a working bell and its position in the new lead block is
totally irrelevant to where it would have been had there been no change of
PH. This sounds like fun to ring and doesn't  need the complication of a
specially designed 'bob' or whatever it's to be called... what a waste of
time   Here is the 720 of Bob Minor by John Holt (bobbed rows) where even
though some of the structure is rung in reverse it comes out OK as still
being Bob Minor,  23564  465213 53264 42536 54236 54362 456123 35462 43562
25436 25364 32564 465321 45236 45362 34562 25346 25463 42563 35426 35264
for plain 23456   Based on the q-set call treble to dodge 5-6 up 456231
465213 make 4ths 456123 465132 dodge 5-6 down 456312 465321 It's really
interesting in that starting off with the calling WHW The treble is
called to dodge up and from there until she's called to make 4ths, the
structure of the calling runs in reverse to become  WHH... the out of
course changes are completed by the time she is called 5-6 down to return
to the original WHW for the in-course changes. even so it apparently
never caught on as an idea although a similar technique was known and used
to produce bobs only 5040s of Bob Triples (call 7 in, 4ths and out )  
Eddie Martin   

 ringing-theory mailing list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/da70f8c5/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list