Looking at this dance I have to admit that I am more intrigued by the 
Beckett version as suggested by David.  I like having an easy dance 
to introduce the idea of the Becket formation.  I also like having an 
easy dance that begins with "long lines forward and back."

How should I credit the dance if I call it as a Becket?  Is there a 
standard etiquette for this?

How about "Contra Culver City" for the Becket version with switched A 
and B parts?

**************

At 01:49 PM 1/28/2010, you wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TnURscEvpc&feature=PlayList&p=992537F69CC7EC
>
>Richard gave the figures for a dance on YouTube as follows:
>
>Duple Improper
>A1        Neighbor Dosido
>             Neighbor Swing
>
>A2        Gents Allemande L 1.5
>             Partner Swing
>
>B1        Long Lines Forward & Back
>             R & L across
>
>B2        Ladies Chain Across
>             LH Star.
>
>I don't know the tune, but it sounds to me like the dance starts with the long
>lines and finishes with the partner swing. So, the beginning of the 
>dance is cut
>off the beginning of the YouTube clip and then comes around again at :32. That
>also makes better choreographic sense, IMHO, and if that's correct 
>then this is
>Becket formation, not duple improper.
>
>If so, then the notation would be:
>
>Becket formation
>A1        Long Lines Forward & Back
>             R & L across
>
>A2        Ladies Chain Across
>             LH Star
>
>B1        Neighbor Dosido
>             Neighbor Swing
>
>B2        Gents Allemande L 1.5
>             Partner Swing
>
>David Millstone
>Lebanon, NH
>_______________________________________________
>Callers mailing list
>Callers at sharedweight.net
>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers