[r-t] Minor Blocks

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Sun Aug 3 07:35:52 UTC 2014

Hi All,

MBD said "I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection"

There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's 
Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A 
'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a 
three-lead triple hunting course. Ringing either to a 720 looks pretty 
much the same to me and, as I mentioned before, it can easily be rung as 
Plain and 'fixed' afterwards. It has, if you like, become a 'rules' 
method. (It probably is, anyway)

As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage 
this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman. 
This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this, 
'New Stedman' even?

We have had the situation where if you go into any tower in the world, 
and you are asked to grab hold for Cambridge, you *know* what you are 
going to ring. (It's Surprise, not Delight, for example). The only 
problem is, as happened to one member of our tower, it was on eight and 
she only rings it on six. Multiple naming harks back hundreds of years, 
to the time when Single Court was called Nottingham Single - and yes, 
I've published a quarter using this name.

In conclusion, we know that Grandsire Doubles was originally the name 
for a specific 120 - most likely PBPBPS x 2. Do we really want the 
situation where Gransdire called PSBS x 3 has a different name? Or even 
for BPBPSP x 2? A small minority will anyway, but should the majority 
bother listening to them?

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list