[r-t] Definition of a call

[edward martin]

On 9 June 2011 13:55, Leigh Simpson <lists at simpleigh.com> wrote:
>
> I don't understand how you get from "by omitting consecutive changes" to
> "the inevitable flow of PN running in reverse". It's obvious that you might
> get to something which is a different method (e.g. Little Bob from Plain
> Bob), but the point is that the rule allows you to better describe how
> a composition may be called - you can remove any set of changes and indeed
> different sets of changes each time. There's no mention of PN running in
> reverse - you just miss out a chunk of the method - or any mention of the
> treble continuing its plain-hunting path (unless you miss out an
> appropriate selection of changes).


Your examples are of palindromic treble dominated methods and obviously
stopping treble at 4ths in plain bob gives little bob but you and the
Central Council are ignoring what would happen in non-pallindromic
non-treble dominated methods
Study these and I think that you would find that to accommodate the q-set,
one section would need to flow in reverse PN


> Nobody said it was a bob. "A call is a means of ...". It's clearly a "call"
> as something is called out and the ringing changes! Announcing the new
> primary hunt is effectively the same as missing out changes in order to
> arrange to restart the lead.


But if there is no primary hunt then to cmplete the q-set,  the 'missed out
changes' would have to be obtained in one section by the reversal oif PN

Eddie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/8d3122f2/attachment-0004.html>