[r-t] A date to pencil into your calendar

Richard Johnston johnstonrh at amen.org.uk
Wed Sep 2 21:25:03 UTC 2015

> On Sep 2, 2015 4:17 PM, "Chris02" <chris02 at shropshirelad.plus.com>
> wrote:
> > Is my understanding correct that whole pull Plain Bob Doubles or Minor
> could be rung in a peal? It would use the identity change and a standard
> calling would produce a double extent. If so, I assume it would be
> called
> Plain Place Doubles / Minor.

Tim Barnes:
> Yes, agree these two new methods could be rung in a peal and named under
> this proposal.  Also agree they would be "Place" methods.  

This seems to me to be gratuitously complicated, and wrong in 

There is nothing particularly sacrosanct in demanding that a method 
must invariably be rung as half-pull changes rather than as whole-
pull (or even multi-pull).  The method isn't any different from 
normal.  It is just rung in whole-pulls rather than half-pulls.

As Don says record what people believe they are ringing.  

Any one ringing bob doubles in whole pulls will still think they are 
ringing Bob Doubles, just in whole pulls rather than whole pulls.  

One of the criticisms of the current scheme is demanding people call 
what they have rung something with a contrived name just to suit a 
preset notion of what is acceptable. What is proposed here is an 
example of the same thing.

The sensible description is Plain Bob Doubles rung in whole pulls.

Richard Johnston

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list