Calls that pass to another part of the same course
Relevant Clauses in the Decisions
Decision (E)A.2 states:
A call is a means of passing from one course of a method to another. It is effected by altering the places made between two or more consecutive rows, without altering the length of a lead. It is not part of the definition of the method.
Implications
The current definition of a call has a broad definition, but there are two restrictions.
- A call can only move from one course to another.
- A call cannot alter the length of a lead - this is discussed in Calls that change the length of a lead.
Example 1
It was common practice before Singles became popular in peals of Surprise Maximus with a Cambridge lead order to shorten a 5280 (10 courses) to a 5040, using a pn1T call at the Wrong lead-end change in place of pn12. It is also used at many practice nights to shorten a plain course or Royal or Major. Typically, the conductor calls "Plain Hunt", but equally could say "one-twelve bob".
To meet the letter of the decisions, a peal of Cambridge Surprise Maximus shortened in this way, has to be described as Spliced Surprise Maximus in two methods comprising 4992 Cambridge S, 48 Primrose S; with one change of method. This is clearly absurd. First the ringers have not thought of it as Spliced, nor is it likely that they have learned Primrose properly, nor does not contain all the work of Primrose, neither would the conductor have called "Primrose" at the beginning of the lead. It is also unlikely that any of the ringers would want it to be categorised as Spliced.
It is probable that most peals rung with this type of call are actually sent to the Ringing World as having been rung in one method.
Example 2
Is there a cyclic method example to add here?
Counter Example 1
The following 720 Spliced S Minor by Roger Bailey contains 8 methods, with 2nds and 6ths place pairs: Cambridge and Primrose, Ipswich and Norfolk, King Edward and Queen Mary, Bourne and Hull, 24 change of method, but no calls.
23456 ------------- 45236 KBKCC }A 42356 IBKCC }A ------------- 35426 KBQ 34256 NPHPKCC ------------- 23456 A -------------
If pn16 calls are used at the lead-end, then the composition could be described as being in four methods. If pn16 calls are also used at the half-lead, then it could be described as being in three methods, and if pn36 calls are used at the half-lead, then it could be described as 2-spliced.
In this example, it is important to note that pn36 calls do move you to another course, but pn16 calls don't. Therefore, if it is argued that pn16 calls would lead to this composition being described as three methods under a changed decision, then it should be pointed out that using the same reasoning it should be described as 6 methods today, not 8, as both King Edward and Queen Mary can be produced by half-lead calls in Cambridge and Primrose respectively.
Question: Does it matter that it can be described in two ways? It does not seem to cause problems now.
Alternative Wording of Decision to Resolve
Decision (E)A.2:
A call is a means of passing from one courselead of a method to another. It is effected by altering the places made between two or more consecutive rows, without altering the length of a lead. It is not part of the definition of the method.
Pros and Cons for this Change
Pros
- It is current practice and has been for many decades.
- Peals don't have to be described as Spliced when they were not rung as Spliced.
- Peals rung with this type of call are being rung and sent up a single method.
- It avoids some cyclic link methods having to be defined in an obscure way.
- It is a trivial change.
Cons
- It could be argued that spliced compositions could not contain, for example, both Cambridge and Primrose.
