Hi Laurie, Here are a few stray thoughts about triplets. - Which ones to try first Ted's #24 is a great dance, but not necessarily the first one I'd try to introduce triplets to a group. Ted's #3 is probably the safest and easiest for a community dance. I've found Ted's #29 to be fairly "contra friendly." It starts with a partner bal & sw for all and has very satisfying "flow." Of the triplets I've composed, I'd recommend #5 as most likely to succeed (rather than #4). Of course, all such decisions depend on the crowd. - Where to find them Ted's 41 triplets have all been published. Between Ted's two books, Zesty Contras and Give-and-Take (all available from CDSS) you can find directions for any of them. I will say that I think they are brilliant, but not all of the same quality. Many are quite challenging, especially for groups that are not used to them. Lots of other triplets exist if you go hunting. I'm rather fond of my son Micah's Triplet #pi, which can be found at <http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~msmukler/dances.html>. Why use them? Triplets are a good way to introduce variety into an evening. They don't take very long, so if they are less than perfect you can move on. The whole set is easily visible and "process-able" to all the dancers. We six can work this out. They introduce some fun interaction. For example, I follow Ted's custom of asking all the dancers to introduce themselves and shake hands round their set. There's also the cheering (pretending we recognize which one is #29), which always gets smiles. Triplets can also be a great way to teach certain actions. For example, Linda Leslie's Corner Triplet (sometimes called David's Triplet #1.5) is a wonderful and easy dance for introducing contra corners. - How to introduce them Just do. Trust a good dance to "speak to" the dancers about why it is good. Anything unfamiliar requires a bit of a leap, but if we never take that leap our dances will feel more and more the same, and what fun is that? David On Aug 20, 2012, at 11:07 PM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote: