Hi Janet, That's a neat dance that I'd like to try. I would think the way it's written (swinging your *next* neighbor) works best since the CA Twirl makes you change the direction your facing. But since dancers have turned to face back in the opposite directiona fter the previous two CA Twirls, it may be tough to "switch modes" and do a regular CA Twirl. I'd have to dance it to see what that feels like... Anyway, if you changed the dance to "swing your current neighbor", you'd lose a progression. You could then swap in the "2x progression" B2 option you suggested (no roll away) and it would make a regular single progression dance. Hmm...now I want to try it! Thanks for sharing! -Sargon ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:24:31 -0400 From: Janet Levatin <jlevatin(a)massmed.org> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net> Subject: Re: [Callers] California Twirlin' author Message-ID: <E5186D70-4924-49AC-85ED-757AE9A86AD5(a)massmed.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Bill, Thanks for letting me know the square dancing terminology. When I wrote the dance I was trying to think of a move (or a variation on a move) that I didn't see used in contra dancing, at least not in dances I had done. I think the swing in A2 is fine as the dancers are facing a new neighbor and have plenty of time for the swing. Someone, like Seth, who has called the dance a lot may have more feedback on that. If I remember correctly, I think when he first called it he had the dancers swing their current neighbor instead of their new neighbors. I'm not sure how that would work. Janet On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:06 AM, Liz and Bill wrote: