Chris Kermiet has a fun dance called "Becket's Crossing" that is a 'grid contra', eg, you PROgress up and down the hall and you TRANSgress across the hall. I've called this dance for years and enjoyed it. (Dance included at bottom). However, for years I have yearned to have a dance that did this in someway other than simply 'pass through two' which felt choreographically cheap. Perhaps I am a snob. More likely, I just wanted to have my own 'grid contra'. I have tried many times over the years, never fully successfully. I came the closest with this latest version: Title: Transgression Author: Seth Tepfer Formation: becket, grid contra (numerous lines, mostly equal length) A1: Balance the ring, spin one place to the right and turn a little more to face a new line; balance the ring, pass through A2: Gents allemande right 1.5; neighbor swing B1: Gents pass left for half a hey, ladies allemande left (break the hey) and partner swing B2: Long lines forward and back; circle left 3/4, pass through up and down Notes: Notes: *When the initial spin puts you facing a wall, do a CA twirl to face back in. *When hitting a wall, just like when being out at the top or bottom, you will change direction. *Yah, this has a pass through also. I feel choreographically cheap. Folks said that this dance worked for the ones in the middle. The folks in the top and bottom said they kept getting spit out. So, with 5 lines, we had 10 couples who were in, then out, then in, then out. No fun for them. I have parsed this and used coins, and cannot see how this is happening. I must be missing something obvious. However, I received this feedback from multiple couples, so I suspect it is true. The obvious fix for this would be to make it double progression (while single transgression). One simple solution would be: B2: Long lines forward and back; with the couple on the left diagonal, circle left 3/4, pass through up and down However, since I can't see the problem, I'm worried this isn't fixing it. I'm hoping the many brilliant minds on this list will have some insights Thoughts, comments, suggestions, smart remarks? Title: Becket's Crossing Author: Chris Kermiet Formation: becket, numerous lines, mostly equal length A1: Left diagonal, right and left through, straight across right and left through A2: Ladies Chain over and back B1: Shadow* allemande left, partner swing B2: straight across, pass through two (lines); long lines forward and back Notes: * Shadow is person on gents left, ladies right (or, at ends, across from you). It may not be the same person every time. **When doing this dance, most everyone will travel all over the set. There are two eddies: the top right corner and bottom left corner. Folks there will get stuck, and everyone else will come visit them. That is as it should be. To correct this, change the "Left diagonal" to "Right diagonal" which will swap the eddies to the top left and bottom right. Alternatively, abandon the 64-bar form, and change up the 'pass through two' with 'pass through 4' or even 'pass through six'. ***Note that I may not have gotten the order exactly right. It might actually start with A2, I don't right remember, exactly. ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).

tl;dr: Making it a double progression wouldn't get the couple out of the corner, but at least they would be dancing all the time (albeit with only two different neighbors and not if they started out at the bottom.) The only real fix for mixing it up is to have the dance change from repeat to repeat. I really like your idea for having a grid contra but it runs into the same problem as grid squares in that if the movement is regular, there's going to be a pattern that repeats. In any dance, the ones progress in one direction and the twos in the opposite direction. In your dance, the ones progress down and to the left* and the twos progress up and to the right. Specifically, you have a single progression, double transgression dance. (If you did a single transgression, you'd have a full line out every other repeat of the dance.) When you hit any of the four edges, you switch from being a one to being a two. Therefore the path of any particular couple follows a line and then follows that same line backward. If the line of progression is diagonal, there's going to be a couple in each corner with a very short line. Note that in your dance, the couple in the very corner is out every other time and 3 couples near them will be out every fourth time. If you make the dance be double progression as well, you still have the same problem of some people having a very short line, but at least they would be dancing all the time. Except for people that start out at the bottom who would still be out every other time. Also, the folks at the top that keep switching direction would only get two different sets of neighbors. Their neighbors would have some variety, but would be with them every other time. People in the middle of the set would have 2 * number of sets different neighbors who would repeat. They also never go very far up or down the line. I think the solution to these problems, as in a grid square, is to change the dance. Have a variation which progresses the ones to the right instead of the left. For example, change A to: 1. Petronella (no extra spin) 2. Balance, pass across twice. 3. Ladies alamande L 1.5 4. N sw I don't love it and I know it makes the pass across thing worse, but you can use this or figure out some other way to make it progress the other way. Note that it can't have ones progressing right and up or they just become twos. Now, you change it up. Sometimes you call one and sometimes you call the other. You try not to do it in any pattern because patterns will lead to things repeating. For example, if you switch it every time, the people on the edges will switch between being ones and twos every time through the dance. One pattern you could do is just to change the number of times through each time. Try and make it different from both of the last two times. Start with the first maybe three times through, then do the other twice, the first once, the second four times and so forth. If you did this and didn't add the double progression, you would get people being out once or twice, but then moving away from the eddy in that corner. The dance you described as Beckett's crossing is double progression double transgression. It has the same problem of the corner couple only getting two different neighbor couples, but you'll note it has the fix I described of having two polymorphs, although in this case, it switches whether you progress up or down instead of switching whether you progress left or right. I need to study this with math instead of intuition and then write it up. So fascinating. Let us know if you come up with a version that progresses on the other diagonal and let us know how it turns out. Chris *In the above, left and right always refer to an absolute left and right as if I'm looking down on the dancers from above. On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 15:58, Tepfer, Seth <labst(a)emory.edu> wrote: