More on Doubles Peals Decisions

Susan Marsden enquires (p.588) why four extents in the peal on 31 December at Rampton did not conform with Decision (D) C.3 and perhaps I may explain in more detail, taking one of these extents as an example. All the variations or methods in each of extents 1-37 used the same call or calls e.g. extent 2 contained the variations of Westminster II Bob, Blackburn Place, St.Hilary Bob and Dragon Place using Shipway Place bobs and Pinks singles. However, extent 38 claimed to include the variations of Plain Bob and Reverse Canterbury Pleasure Place using Grandsire singles and also the variations of the same methods using Pinks singles. As Andrew Bull perceptively observes (p.572), recognition of this type of extent would entitle four methods and three calls to be reported as 12 variations!

Andrew will be relieved to find that extents 1,2,4,7-10,18, 23,26,32,35 and 37-40 in the peal on 18 February at Heydon do not conform with Decision (D) C.3, which effectively limits the number of names in an extent to either the number of methods (if all the variations and methods have the same call or calls) or the number of calls (if all the variations and methods have the same plain course). Similarly, extents 1-6,8-12,15-19,23-26,28,32-35,37 and 39-42 in the peal on 8 April at Winwick do not conform.

Extents 1-16 in the peal on 24 March at Darfield were each claimed as one method and three variations presumably because each extent contained only three calls but, in accordance with Decision (D) C.3, they should, in fact, have each been claimed as four variations. More seriously, extents 17-32 each contained four variations, or one method and three variations, with the same plain course and the same bob. Although each extent had four different singles, Decision (D) C.3 says that where variations with the same plain course are included in an extent they must not have any calls in common.

Extents 5,7 and 19-42 in the peal on 19 May at Kentchurch (p.550) each contained three methods and up to three variations of one of these methods and this does not conform with Decision (D) C.3. If the inclusion of just a plain lead of a method in an extent containing a variation of that method were to be recognised, it would imply that, for example, an extent of Plain Bob using Grandsire singles could be claimed as Plain Bob and April Day.

I believe that the conductors of each of the above four peals are aware that they do not conform with Council Decisions.

With reference to the postscript to Susan Marsden's letter, Decision (D) C.4 says that peals report shall state the number and names of all methods and variations separately and the peal on 27 May at Doddington (p.616) reported only the numbers.

I have analysed the peals of Doubles rung during 1989 and published in The Ringing World up to the end of July. I found 91 peals; 25 in one method and 29 in from 3 to 42 methods. The remaining 37 contained variations and it is gratifying that all those rung since my 1988 analysis was published (p.432) have reported the numbers of methods and variations separately. The 15 peals listed in figure 1 and 10 of those listed in figure 2, rung earlier in the year, did not distinguish between the numbers of methods and variations rung and the correction columns show how they should have been reported. The peals listed in figure 2 claimed from 1 to 34 "variations" which use only standard calls for the parent methods and, in accordance with Decision (E) A.3, are not entitled to different names.

It has been suggested that we have been in some way unfair in drawing attention to that minority of peals of Doubles which do not conform with Council Decisions. I hope we have been fair to the ringers of the majority of peals of Doubles which do conform and, indeed, ringers of peals at all stages who are entitled to expect that peals included in the Analysis conform with Council Decisions.

ANTHONY P. SMITH
Chairman, Central Council Methods Committee

The Ringing World, August 18, 1989, page 753

Doubles peals

I have analysed the peals of Doubles rung during 1989 and published in The Ringing World since the beginning of August (earlier peals covered by my letter on p.753). I found 112 peals; 29 in one method and 61 in from 2 to 81 methods. The remaining 22 contained variations and only the 7 peals listed in figure 1 and one of those in figure 2 did not report the numbers of methods and variations separately in accordance with Decision (D) C.4; the correction columns show how they should have been reported. The 8 peals listed in figure 2 either counted one or more variations as methods and/or claimed from 5 to 11 "variations" which use only standard calls for the parent methods and, in accordance with Decision (E) A.3, are not entitled to different names.

If any band is unsure how the numbers were arrived at for their peal I will be pleased to provide details on receipt of a stamped addressed envelope.

The six-score in 10 variations in Simon Rogers' letter (p.119) does not, in fact, conform with Decision (D) C.3 because there are no plain leads of St.Ignatius (7h) or Chilton (134h) i.e. St.Simon's Bob and Winchendon Place.

The footnote to a quarter peal at Chigwell Row, Essex on 22 October 1989 asks whether it was the first of Hunslett Bob Minor (p.137). Presumably this was Plain Bob with places in 5-6 which is method number 1725 in the Collection of Plain Minor Methods and the correct title is Single Wreford Bob Minor. There was a quarter peal at St Mark's, Exeter on 15 December 1968 although this was not claimed as the first (RW 1969 p.24).

In reply to Mike Winterbourne's enquiry (p.167), the Triples method 5.1.5.1.7.1.7 l.e. 125 765324 is not in the Collection of Plain Methods and has not been named.

Melvyn Hiller claims to have named Plain Bob Triples with places in 3-4 and 5-6 in a quarter peal as Thorncombe Place Triples (pp.153, 210). This method was previously rung in a quarter peal at Lyminge, Kent on 8 September 1979 as Cumbria Place Triples (RW 1979 p.873) but, in accordance with Decision (E) D.5, still has to be rung in a peal in order to be named.

John Harrold is mistaken when he suggests (p.173) that the peal to which he refers, actually at Tenbury Wells, contained Plain Bob and variations of Reverse Canterbury Pleasure Place in the same extent. Extents 20-24 contained RCPP and variations of RCPP while extents 25-42 contained Plain Bob and variations of Plain Bob. These extents conform with Decision (D) C.3 provided that all the distinctive calls were made for each method and variation.

Although the Alliance Minor method A.J.Barnfield mentions (p.270) has not been named, it does conform with Decision (E) A.1 and methods with this treble path have been rung in spliced. Furthermore the Collection of Minor Methods contains an extent by Rev.E.Bankes James of one such method, Seafield Alliance, spliced with Very Little Bob in which the hunt bell alternately makes thirds and fourths, though I am not aware of this extent having been rung.

The peal at Coddington, Notts. on 29 January 1990 contained an extent of method number 2325 in Treble Dodging Minor Methods as Marguerite Surprise Minor (p.277). This method was first rung at Wistaston, Cheshire on 5 November 1989 as Rope Surprise Minor (RW 1989 p.1124, 1990 p.104).

ANTHONY P. SMITH
Chairman, Methods Committee

The Ringing World, May 4, 1990, page 451, correction May 18, 1990, page 481