Repêchage (Twyford DWAS)

[DavidB]

At the recent Twyford DWAS competition there was a repercharge after the first round. The main aim was to give everyone a chance to dance at least twice, with two different partners.

Out of the 50 couples entered, 10 were marked straight through to the final. Everyone else went into the repercharge, swapped partners, and danced again. We aimed to select another 10 to the final, but ended up with 6 (7 couples tied for 7th place, and we wanted to give the finalists more space.) The final had all 16 couples, with a further swap of partners at the start.

Does anyone have any feedback (good or bad) on how this worked,or if they would like to see it done again? Repercharge rounds are common in Australian MJ comps, but I don't think anyone has tried it in the UK before Bill & Bex.


The highest place in the final of any man that did the repercharge was 6th (actually two men from the repercharge tied for 6th).

The lowest place in the final of any man that made it straight through was 13th.

(I don't have any data for the ladies as only the men wore numbers, and partners were rotated at the start of each round.)

[Raul]

Is that not spelt Repechage?

Dancing with different partners is an excellent idea for determining the true skills of a leader or follower. The more the better.

[Andy McGregor]

Is that not spelt Repechage?

Dancing with different partners is an excellent idea for determining the true skills of a leader or follower. The more the better.

I remember that we used to have a repechage in fencing. I think there's and accent on the second e. I'm not sure but I think it's an acute accent.

And, I think it's a great idea to do a recombination of dancers for DWAS. I think Jack and Jill is an even better idea.

[Raul]

I remember that we used to have a repechage in fencing. I think there's and accent on the second e. I'm not sure but I think it's an acute accent.

repêchage

[David Bailey]

Is that not spelt Repechage?.

Nope, Repercharge is the correct term. It's commonly used in lots of competitions, from fencing to surfing, as far as I know.

In dance, the EADA also uses a repercharge system in their competitions - see here:
http://www.englishdancesport.org.uk/...artbooklet.pdf

I wasn't at the competition, but in principle it sounds like a good idea. And I'm definitely in favour of any method of making the DWAS's more sophisticated than they are at present, to remove as much of the "pot-luck" factor as possible.

[DavidB]

I think it should be repechage. After consulting the source of ultimate truth (ie no of hits on Google) repechage has it by a factor of 1000-1.

And, I think it's a great idea to do a recombination of dancers for DWAS. I think Jack and Jill is an even better idea.

Britrock did the partner changing thing a few years ago, and several other comps have followed suit.

DWAS vs Jack'n'Jill is interesting. (I'm assuming by Jack'n'Jill you mean marking the individuals, and not the couples.) JnJ is designed to get the best dancers into the final. So you would usually end up with the top 3 couples from the open, and a selection of individuals from the rest of the open, the best of the advanced, and every once in a while the intermediate winners. So 90% of the people that enter have no chance of making the final. But with a DWAS far more people have a chance if they are lucky to draw a very good partner.

(A way round this is to have different levels - ie an Intermediate JnJ and an Open JnJ. But this takes more time.)

This changes the nature of the competition. Some people will like it, and others won't. Given the popularity of DWAS, then I can understand a reluctance from organisers to make any changes.

Personally I'd like to have a choice, with some events running DWAS and others JnJ. And if a competition ever turned into a weekender, then why not have both? The Open JnJ Final would make a very good cabaret.

[David Bailey]

I think it should be repechage.

Oh yes, so it is

Me and my big mouth...

[Andy McGregor]

I think the repêchage and J&J have two different aims. The objective of the the J&J is to find the best dancers. Some people would say that what a competition is all about? IMHO a DWAS competition is all about finding the best couple - and isn't that what a partner dancing competition should be all about?

The objective of repêchage is to recombine the losers from an earlier round to find the best of them and put them back into the competition. It means that a potential finalist who has been combined with a hopeless dancer has another chance to shine with a better partner and get back into the competition.

IMHO the best time to do a repêchage to recombine the dancers from the first round of DWAS. Any later and you've already lost some good dancers. Also, it means that all entrants dance in two rounds.

IMHO you should stick with whoever you end up with after the first round of DWAS, at least in an all day competition. This means you can work on improving your partnership during the time between rounds. You couldn't do that it you were going to get a new partner at the start of the next round. If you watch specialist DWAS competitors like Roger Chin and Sherif, they spend hours practicing with their "stranger" to improve their partnership - and isn't that part of what MJ is all about.

Having said the above, there is an argument that MJ is all about dancing with somebody new every track or two and maybe we should be judged on that. However, I believe that you should be marked as an individual in such a competition rather than picking the best couples from the final pairings.

Also, I believe that the DWAS where couples stick together results in a better quality final as the couples have had time to practice together. This is far better from an audience perpective.

Going back to fencing, I can remember a competition I entered where there was a repêchage in the first round and then a plate competition for the losers in the first round. Some people were debating the merits of throwing the repêchage in the hope of winning the plate. I suppose one obvious difference is that you are trying to beat your "partner" rather than work with them - although there are some selfish dancers who seem to be trying to intimidate and "beat" their dance partner!

[Lory]

The objective of repêchage is to recombine the losers from an earlier round to find the best of them and put them back into the competition. It means that a potential finalist who has been combined with a hopeless dancer has another chance to shine with a better partner and get back into the competition.

This is exactly what happened to me and it was great, as my partner, (bless him ) had only been dancing for four weeks and knew precisely four moves, could have a couple of goes, without the responsibility of ruining someone elses chances. And I also had the chance to dance with someone else.

One small point I'd like to make... At Twyford, it was announced that it didn't matter if you stood with your original partner from the first round when lining up for the second, as you'd all be swapped again anyway but i think it 'is' important, as there is a chance you might get them again!

IMHO the best time to do a repêchage to recombine the dancers from the first round of DWAS. Any later and you've already lost some good dancers. Also, it means that all entrants dance in two rounds.

I'd personally like to see it in every round.

IMHO you should stick with whoever you end up with after the first round of DWAS, at least in an all day competition. This means you can work on improving your partnership during the time between rounds. You couldn't do that it you were going to get a new partner at the start of the next round. If you watch specialist DWAS competitors like Roger Chin and Sherif, they spend hours practicing with their "stranger" to improve their partnership - and isn't that part of what MJ is all about.

I don't agree, in fact, I'd really hate that What if you don't get on, or one person takes it more seriously than the other Or they're on a date, Or you simply don't like dancing with them ... it'd ruin my day!

The 'fun bit' is NOT knowing who your partner will be until the moment before the music starts!

Also, I believe that the DWAS where couples stick together results in a better quality final as the couples have had time to practice together. This is far better from an audience perpective.

I think the audience enjoys seeing the different pairings, just as much as anything else!

[David Bailey]

I don't agree, in fact, I'd really hate that What if you don't get on, or one person takes it more seriously than the other Or they're on a date, Or you simply don't like dancing with them ... it'd ruin my day!

I always assumed the concept of both DWAS and JandJ was to mirror the whole experience of social dancing in MJ - where you don't get hours of practice with a new partner, you have to dance with them on the fly.

To me, practicing with your DWAS partner goes against that spirit - although, of course, all's fair in love and competitions. So whilst you can't stop it, because of the time between rounds, actually encouraging such practice in the structure of the competition seems to be a bit strange.

[Andy McGregor]

I always assumed the concept of both DWAS and JandJ was to mirror the whole experience of social dancing in MJ - where you don't get hours of practice with a new partner, you have to dance with them on the fly.

To me, practicing with your DWAS partner goes against that spirit - although, of course, all's fair in love and competitions. So whilst you can't stop it, because of the time between rounds, actually encouraging such practice in the structure of the competition seems to be a bit strange.

It's all in the title Dance With A Stranger.

Once you start recombining you really can't award prizes for the best couple in the final. That's because they weren't the best couple in the whole competition and really did not get promoted as a couple. Therefore it becomes an individual competition. Of course, if you're organising your own competition you could call it something other than DWAS and do what you like.

[straycat]

Going back to fencing, I can remember a competition I entered where there was a repêchage in the first round and then a plate competition for the losers in the first round. Some people were debating the merits of throwing the repêchage in the hope of winning the plate.

Speaking as a one-time winner of a plate competition (fencing in Norwich, many years ago, no repêchage) - I'd rather have reached the second round of the main contest. It didn't seem much of a victory.

[Andy McGregor]

Speaking as a one-time winner of a plate competition (fencing in Norwich, many years ago, no repêchage) - I'd rather have reached the second round of the main contest. It didn't seem much of a victory.

But you did get to do a lot more fencing.