[r-t] Hubbard (fwd)

[Richard Smith]

I'm not quite sure why the email below hasn't reached the 
list.  Possibly a glitch in my mail setup.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:31:40 +0100 (BST)
From: Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Hubbard

edward martin wrote:

> On 16 June 2012 05:19, Robert Bennett <rbennett at woosh.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>>  As far as adapting Plain Bob to St Simon's goes, this is usually possible, 
>> but not necessarily the other way.
>> 
>> There are compositions based on bob courses of St. Simons, which are not 
>> convertible into PB.
> 
> I don't see how that can be true.
> If you have a true touch of either method it can be rewritten by
> reading  the HAND STROKE treble leads of the  one method and following
> them IN REVERSE ORDER enter the calls accordingly to produce the
> calling for the other method

I think Robert is right because after you've rewritten a touch in this manner, 
there's no longer a guarantee that all of the leads join up into a single round 
block.  It's possible that you might end up with a few spare bob courses (or 
other round blocks) that detach themselves from the main body of the 
composition.

The situation is the same in doubles.  Every extent of Plain Bob Doubles (of 
which there's only one, pppb x3) can be converted to an extent of St Simon's 
Doubles.  But not every extent of St Simon's can be converted to an extent of 
Bob Doubles.  In particular, bbbp x3 is a valid extent of St Simon's, but if 
you try to convert that to Plain Bob, you end up with a 60 (bp x3) and three 
20s (each bb).

RAS