[r-t] "X above, Y below"

[Alan Reading]

Should the first 56 be a 58 though on the basis that the 2nd is below the
treble the row immediately before it takes effect? Simularly when it dodges
34 with the treble at the start of 3rds place bell should the 58 not be a
56.
This would seem to be inline with how the original example worked from
looking at the diagram.
Not that there is anything wrong with defining "below" to mean below after
rather than below before - but it seems some convention is needed to
prevent confusion?

On Tuesday, 1 August 2017, Alan Reading <alan.reading at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Oh sorry my misunderstanding - just re-read the original post.
> I thought Graham's remark about Bristol / Double Dublin was tongue in
> cheek!
>
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2017, Alan Reading <alan.reading at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think you've got the place notation of Double Dublin wrong - the first
>> 58 should be a 56.
>>
>> Bristol and Double Dublin both have the same rows at the quarter leads so
>> substituting over / underworks can't have a transpositional effect.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Tuesday, 1 August 2017, Pip Dillistone <tuftyfrog at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On 1 Aug 2017, at 19:37, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Bristol and Double Dublin might work well.
>>> >
>>> > Graham
>>>
>>> With Bristol below and Double Dublin above you get a 2-3 differential
>>> with 2 and 3 both hunt bells:
>>>
>>> https://complib.org/method/32289?accessKey=f8fac86bb06c104f8
>>> 4fdb9201f26a7ea0bef08c6
>>>
>>> Pip
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ringing-theory mailing list
>>> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
>>> http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/ringing-theory
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170801/d2905e01/attachment-0001.html>