On 09/10/2013 01:13 PM, Erik Hoffman wrote: Ooh, I like that; thanks. That (might) be a great way to explain it to people. I like the sound of it too `hey for three on a bias'... or `bent hey for three' maybe? I may have to try calling it again and see if calling it something like that (and then explaining it) helps or confuses people. Thanks again! —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/EC2C9934 https://samwhited.com/contact

Sam Whited described a dance ("Code's Compiling") that starts with the sequence [from Becket formation] and later added the explanation Erik Hoffman commented to which Sam replied Jeff Kaufman then cautioned: I agree with Jeff. I think the loose analogy to a hey for three would make sense only to people who already fully understand the desired action (and who also understand heys for three), and not to those most in need of instruction. By the way, contra choreographer Al Olson coined the term "line heys for threes" to describe actions such as [starting with 1's already below 2's] Gypsy R with Neighbor Gypsy L with next neighbor For more about such sequences, see the comments on "The Experimental Section" in _Zesty Contras_. I've also seen actions similarly analogous to heys for four--e.g., from duple improper starting formation, pass N by R sh to meet future N and gypsy L, then pass orig N by R sh again to meet N from previous round and gypsy L. In both these cases, the hey-like paths of the individual dancers are not "bent", so the analogy to a hey is, I think, a little easier to see than it is for the A1 of "Code's Compiling". But I still think the analogy will likely be lost on dancers who don't already understand the intended actions. --Jim