[r-t] One Spliced Surprise Major
dfm at ringing.org
Thu Jun 5 17:14:22 UTC 2014
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
> Can this not be described with (J)A.2(b) "[A call may be effected]
> by omitting consecutive changes, altering the length of a lead" ?
> Then you have just Cambridge and two types of skipping-rows calls.
> Am I missing something?
Not if you think of Cambridge as the normal lead of Cambridge, as the
second type of call is adding two changes, not omitting* them.
Assuming its plain courses are true (I've not checked) you could, I
suppose, think of it as a peal of the rather odd double hunt hybrid
method, each lead of which is a lead of Cambridge followed by the
first two blows of the next lead, and use two, different lead
shortening calls with it. But that does seem rather extreme, as its
quack is far more Cambridge-like.
* I have to confess to never understanding why the restriction to only
shortening a lead was included when this change was made a few years
ago. It seems, to me, every bit as arbitrary as the recently recinded
rule about the relative numbers of hunt and working bells.
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"As [Rembrandt] grew older, he loved the simple people around
him rather than men dehumanized by the pursuit of gain."
-- Will and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Reason Begins_
More information about the ringing-theory