[r-t] 5040 Surprise Minor by Roger Bailey

Simon Humphrey sh53246 at gmail.com
Tue May 13 19:04:36 UTC 2014

> I suspect there are lots of assumptions made about compositions and
> callings which are simply incorrect and which result in "peals" which
> aren't peals at all.
> Years ago, I attempted a peal of Surprise Minor being called by a well-
> known conductor from the Black Country. I was a bit surprised when his
> extent of Cambridge started with 3W. He then proceeded to call 3H and move
> on to the next method. I pointed out the error and we stopped (after a
> small argument - he had failed to realise that the third Wrong and the
> first Home were in the same course and that the calling was therefore five
> courses and not six).
> But who knows how many times he had called that previously and sent it up
> as a peal?

In a similar vein, I've heard several ringers say they've been in peal
attempts where the conductor confused the Plain Bob Minor callings
Ws,W,Ws,W;H,Hs,H (2-part), and W,Ws,W,Ws;H (3-part).
Considering that many conductors of PB Minor and their bands are likely to
be fairly inexperienced, lots of false peals and quarters must have been
rung containing the callings Ws,W,Ws,W;H (3-part) and W,Ws,W,Ws;H,Hs,H
(2-part).  Especially as rounds is not one of the repeated rows.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list