Bruce wrote: > A social dance in which one of the couples does nothing seems anti-social > to me. Both make quite fine two couple dances with minor changes.
Ah, I should have been more specific. I really was wondering why you thought
the opening figure might be double-fig-8 across.
As for dances in which the 3rd cpl does nothing, well, it wasn't unusual in
the 18th c. How well this was tolerated I can't say; but if it was
accepted, I suppose folks back then had their reasons. One thing to keep in
mind, though, is that if the sets were longer than 4 cpls, supporting cpls
would have alternated roles (dancing as 2s, then standing still as 3s) as
they progressed up the set.