[r-t] Restriction #4

[Matthew Frye]

On 30 Nov 2014, at 03:21, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
>> May I suggest this is the sort of weirdness that is maybe better considered
>> when thinking about cover bells and similar? The 6th really isn't part of
>> any method, it is an internal "cover" bell. You *do* have two lots of
>> doubles, so don't call it Cinques.
> 
> If you are going to prohibit calling that cinques, does not the same logic
> prohibit calling the following major?
> 
> x45x45  le 256 (producing lead head 13425786)
> 
> But, according to today's rules, that *is* major, a perfectly legal
> little plain differential major method.
> 
> And, with Tim's example, a band might choose to ring the same thing,
> but with calls moving one or more bells between the front and back
> sixes, at which time it would surely become cinques? So you'd be in
> the rather unfortunate situation of having two different methods, one of
> cinques, and one of something else, but with exactly the same place
> notation; and which one you were ringing would depend upon which calls
> you chose to use. Particularly entertaining if you spliced them.

Personally if I were ringing a plain course of that major method I would think of that as two lots of bob minimus, regardless of what the rules tell me it is. For a touch, yes how I think of it (and what I call it) would probably depend upon the calls used, although the rules shouldn't force me down either path. And in fact nothing in the proposed limitation on bells moving at least once a lead would do anything to stop that method being named as a major method (nor should it).

My real problem with Tim's example is the 6th ringing as an effective internal cover bell. In his message he implied that a band may wish to leave it there for e.g. an entire quarter. In any case, if you do wish to change the internal cover, or move bells between the front set of doubles and the back set with calls, I think there would be nothing problematic conceptually with still acknowledging the plain method(s) is(/are) two sets of doubles. I would see it as entirely analogous to a variable cover call.

I have no problem with what is being suggested that people might ring. I just feel that if a bell does not move in the course of a lead then that bell has not taken part in that method, and so should be acknowledged as a static or "cover" bell of some kind, separate from the method. And yes, the rules on/classification of cover bells should be loosened/generalised to allow such things, but that's another issue.

MF