ComPOSITIOl1S Wlltt (Af)DS

s1mo11 ~f)o11so11
In a perch high above Lincoln Park lives a whimsical man devotedto the illusion
of impossibility, a showman whose nimble mind and agile fingers can make boring
decks of cards jump to life-just like magic. His name is Simon Aronson,
anonymous to the masses even though he has been a veritable magic trick
incubator for decades, publishing books on card magic, creating countless tricks
and maintaining Chicago's little-known tradition as a hub for card-trick innovation.

-- CHICAGO TRIBUNE

Simon is one of my favorite thinkers in magic, and his legendary reputation is

entirely deserved. Simon is an "engineer" of miracles, crafting each effect with
painstaking detail. His standards are exacting, and he commits an extraordinary
amount of thought to every idea he publishes and performs. Simon puts this same
effort into his writing, which is why his books are so revered (and why it has
taken him 13 years to finish Art Decko). Art Decko delivers the same high quality
we're used to. I am extremely excited about this new collection.

-- Joshua Jay
 Simon Aronson's
AIDll IDIE~C~D includes
TWf) bY TW() - two freely chosen cards
are discovered at two freely chosen
numbers.
()()uble-ment - an impromptu mental
I
miracle. The performer reveals two
I
thought-of cards, with no questions
asked.
T()tal t:>ecall - a spectator freely cuts
off an unknown number of cards -
whose total exactly matches the sum
of three freely chosen cards.
I Alr-eaclY Tf)ld ~f)U - two selected
cards transpose - yet it turns out that
I the performer has announced both
impossibliities beforehand.
I AOOut f'ac:e - Hofzinser's Four Ace
problem meets the "mystery card" plot,
in a devilish combination.
()()uble Visi()n - a written prediction
of two selected cards from a shuffled
deck. Self-working and impromptu.
4.runs()n StriP{)ut 2.() - the NEW
technique: an EASY, sure-fire and
deceptive full-deck false shuffle.
 (continued from front flap)

AIDll IDIE~C~O includes

Thinkina Inside the Elvx - a three-
phase sandwich routine, that ends with
a signed selection traveling to an
impossible location.
~vt a Chance - a spectator holds her
freely chosen card, while three random
cards reveal its color, suit and value -
and one then transforms into her card.
~()-Stack Uateoovk - now anyone
can perform a birthday datebook effect
with no need to learn a stack.
Elluff Ur-acle - a subtle ruse that's
easy to do, yet is amazingly deceptive.
Shume--Tr-ackina - Simon's favorite
deck switch for a memorized deck.
TW()--fer- - a spectator herself discovers
four selected cards - and surprisingly
finds the four Aces as well. --

and SU MUCti more - subtleties, stacks,

gaffs, memorized decks, essays, all in
Simon's trademark style: deviously
clever, hands off, easy to accomplish,
and totally fooling.

www .simonaronson.com
A.-t
/
 © Copyright 2014 by Simon Aronson

www.simonaronson.com
simon@simonaronson.com

2500 North Lake View Avenue, Unit 2902

Chicago IL, 60614

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photography, recording, or any information storage and retrieval systems, now
known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the copyright
holder.

All rights and privileges to the manufacture, multiple or mass production, sale,
distribution, advertising for sale or marketing of any, each or all of the items in
this book are hereby expressly and fully reserved by and to the author, and any
such manufacture, mass production or marketing of these items is strictly
prohibited without prior written permission from the author. This notice covers
each and all of the items set forth in this book, including without limitation the
items described under the following titles: About Face, Twice Removed Once
Again, and Birthday Backer.
 ~CKnOWLEDGEmEnT5

In addition to those people expressly mentioned in my Preface, I am

extremely grateful for the help, support, and encouragement given
this project by all of the following:

Matt Baker, Andi Gladwin, Joshua Jay, and Kevin Pang for their
editing prowess, which helped me fine tune this book;

Mike Vance for his amazing proofreading skills, which continually

revealed to me how many mistakes I could make, in so many ways;

David Linsell, whose photograph graces the back of the dust jacket,
together with several other portraits within this book; and

Jeanette Andrews and Kevin McGourty, for their technical expertise

and advice, which allowed me to make this book more colorful,
literally.

Simon Aronson
f>OOY\5 f>V 51mon ~~on5on
The Card Ideas of Simon Aronson
(1978)

A Stack to Remember
(1979)

Shuffle-bored
(1980)

Sessions
(with David Solomon)
(1982)

The Aronson Approach

(1990)

Bound to Please
(collected early works)
(1994)

Simply Simon
(1995)

Try the Impossible

(2001)

Art Decko
(2014)
 Magic is my second love.

This book is dedicated to my first ... Ginny

Old guys talk a lot.
- Mergel Funsky
 TA[)L[ Of CO~Tr~T~
lnTflODUCTlon f> VDAVID ff. fll)~EL5TEll)

L TECflnlQUE5
Bedwell, Funsky, and more ............................................................................... 3

The Dribble Toss Control

The Funsky Glimpse
Sandwich Control
Controlling Two Selections
Bottom Card Glimpse

The Milk Load, and the Funsky Force ............................................................. 14

Overhand Shuffle Milk, and Loading Packets

The Funsky Force

Bluff Oracle ..........................................................................................................20

Reverse Faro Procedure

Tracking the Bottom Card
The Double Option
Counting

Funsky Four-for-Four Switch .. .......... ................................................................ 30

Aronson Stripout 2.0 ...........................................................................................37

Bottom Cut Shuffle

Top Cut Shuffle
Two Shuffle Version

Tool Sets ..................................................... ...........................................................49

II. Qn THE SPOT

Double Vision ...................................................................................................... 53
 Bill Simon Prophecy Move

Not a Chance ........................................................................................................60

Switch Hit ............................................................................................................. 67

Benzais Spin Out Production

Among the Discards ........................................................................................... 70

Jordan Count

Double-Ment ........................................................................................................ 75

Marlo Book Break Glimpse

Two-fer ................................................................................................................. 81

Martin Nash Tabled Multiple Shift

P.U.R.E. Surprise ................................................................................................. 89

I Already Told You .............................................................................................93

Under the Spread Cull Switch

Vernon Add-on
Keep and Discard (Duck and Deal) Elimination

Ill. TWO-tACED
About Face ......................................... ................................................................ 101

Marlo Stripout Unloading Move

Trevor Lewis Swing Cut Tap Force
Osborn Double Count
Larry W est Flipover Displacement

Thinking Inside the Box ................................................... .. .............................. 113

Under-the-Spread Cull Force (face up)

Under-the-Spread Cull Replacement Control
Frank Thompson Triple Cut (moving cards from bottom to top)
 Sandwich Production (Tilt plus Erdnase Color Change)
Mueller Three Card Catch

Twice Removed, Once Again ................................................ .. ........................ 127

Hamman Sandwich Switch

Funsky Flipover Switch

IU. TOTAL5
Totally Fooling .............................................................. .. .. ................................. 141

Total Recall .........................................................................................................149

Total Surrender .................................................................................................. 161

The Total Package ............................................................................................. 170

U. blf\THDAV5
No-Stack Datebook ........................................................................................... 179

Fate Accompli ................................................................................................... .189

Under-the-Spread Cull Force (face down)

Oestreicher Optical Sandwich

Birthday Backer .................................................................................................204

Table Packet Cut Cull

In-the-hands Packet Cull
Countdown Cull
Larryverse

UI. ffiEmOhlZED D€Ct)5

Shuffle Tracking .. .............................................................................................. 225

Gemini Meets the Stack ................................................................................... .231

Christ-Aronson Aces ........................................................................................241

The Aronson Stack "Makes Good" ..... .................. ......................................... .250

Ull. €CCElrTtKK5
Mental and Physical ................................................................................ ......... 257

Square Deal ........................................................................................................ 262

Medium, Well-Done ......................................................................................... 270

Disillusionment ................................................................................................. 276

Ulll. Pf\EDICTIOl'l5
Pondering Predictions ......................................................................................281

Random Sample Shuffle-bored ....................................................................... 293

Two by Two ....................................................................................................... 309

P05T5Cf\IPT
Introduction
I first met Simon in 2009. I'd been a fan and student of his work- especially his
memorized-deck work-for years, but I knew him only via his books and DVDs. When
I heard about an upcoming lecture that Dave Solomon had arranged for Roberto Giobbi
to give in downtown Chicago, I figured it might be my chance to meet not only
Solomon, but also his Chicago cronies Simon Aronson and John Bannon. All were (and
still are) amongst my absolute favorite creators of magic. Sure enough, the full trio was
there. During the long intermission, I screwed up my courage to ask each one of them if
he might be interested in getting together sometime to exchange ideas about card
magic. No one seemed particularly thrilled about this proposal from an unheard-of
stranger. Then, in a flash of inspiration, it occurred to me to run out and buy donuts for
everyone at the lecture.
/

Never underestimate the power of donuts. About a month later, I found myself sitting
with Simon, Dave, and John at the Aronsons' kitchen table-a close-up mat and a cup of
coffee in front of each of us. I felt the way an amateur guitar player might feel if he
were asked to sit in with the Rolling Stones, i.e., nervous to the point of nausea.
Somewhat to my surprise, I was invited back a couple of weeks later. For several
months, I attended their session- the intimidatingly famous "Chicago Session" - only
when I was asked to. Eventually, I was just expected to show up on Saturdays. When
Simon asked me to write this introduction, he suggested that I might want to devote a
couple of paragraphs to the session- to describing how it's seemed from the
perspective of the newbie.

I'm a philosophy professor, so I'm used to critical responses to cherished work.

(Typically, when a philosopher presents a talk, audience members respond with a
variety of" questions," each of which has the subtext: "Isn't everything you've just said
either false or nonsense?") Even so, at first I was a little taken aback by how critical
Simon, John, and Dave tended to be of one another's ideas and performances-to say
nothing of mine. One of the first things I remember Simon's saying to me after I'd done
a trick for the group was, "You talk too much." (At the time, I was too shaken to even
think anything like, "Nice to meet you, Pot; I'm Kettle.") There was also occasional
praise, which felt fantastic when it was directed my way, and all three of those guys can
be generous with praise. Moreover, it's obvious that each of them respects the other
two's best work a great deal. But most of what's brought in on a Saturday isn't
anyone's best work, and there's a lot more criticism than praise. This seems to be part
of the recipe that's worked so well for them over the years. Simon once told me that the
most essential thing in a good magic session is people's willingness to criticize.

In time, what came to strike me as the session's essential ingredient was not so much a
willingness to criticize as to tinker. Someone will bring in a trick and perform it. And,
yes, then someone else (maybe everyone else) will point out (perhaps none too gently)
that the trick isn't great. Most tricks aren't. But the thing is: that's almost never the end
of the discussion. The ungreat trick will have something interesting in it- something
worth preserving or improving or fussing with. Thus, it presents a problem: what can
be done with it? Soon everyone is liable to be talking at once: "Is there a way to do the
switch without going back to the deck?" "What if you don't do the Elmsley thing?"
"Why not just force the card?" "No, that's worse; it leaves the spectator with only one
solution: the right one." In our creative tendencies and talents (to say nothing of our
personalities), Simon, Dave, John, and me are very different from one another. But all
of us take pleasure in spending Saturday afternoons sitting around a table, sipping
coffee, and tinkering with ungreat tricks. Most of the time, the tricks remain ungreat, in
spite of everyone's best efforts. But every once in a while .. .

Art Decko is full of illustrations of what happens every once in a while on Simon's side
of the table. It's an eclectic collection: There are new sleights, easy impromptu effects,
tricks with stacks, and lovely subtle things with gaffs. A few effects use a memorized
deck; others enable you to do things that you'd think must require a memorized deck,
but don't. The only thread that runs through the book's varied contents is Simon; all
the material is Aronsonian.

Simon's inventions tend to begin with an idea - a deceptive maneuver or principle -

that is, at worst, clever and, at best, so mind-blowingly smart that it makes your head
(or maybe just your ego) hurt. Starting from some such idea for a trick, Simon will
develop the hell out of it-pushing it as far as it can go, then substituting a sleight or
presentation or phase, then pushing the result of that substitution as far as it will go,
then making another substitution, and so on. The aim of all this, and Simon never loses
sight of this aim, is to provide spectators with a seeming experience of impossibility.
Simon's brilliance, persistence, and focus have given rise to what is widely and justly
regarded as some of the very best card magic that's been invented in the last forty years.
When I say that Art Decko' s contents are Aronsonian, I mean to give it very high praise.
It's a terrific book.

I thought I might add a few words about Simon himself. I suppose that anyone who
knows him well (I'm thinking here especially of his wife, Ginny, and his imaginary
sidekick, Mergel Funsky) would agree that he's a bit eccentric, an odd mix. On the one
hand, at times he can be aggressively argumentative, depressingly cynical, and
relentlessly critical. On the other hand, he tends, as much as anyone I know, to be
imaginative, whimsical, playful, funny, and even sweet. The combination of these traits
into one (fairly) coherent character can seem to me like another magic trick.

The existence (such as it is) of Mergel Funsky-who shows up as a spectator throughout

this book- is, I suppose, pretty good evidence of Simon's being unusually imaginative
(as well as whimsical, playful, and funny). I think of Mergel as connected to Simon's
own background in philosophy. Philosophers delight in outrageous exercises of
imagination. (Plato: Imagine a man who acquires a ring that gives him the power to
become invisible whenever he likes. John Locke: Imagine that, upon the separation of
someone's little finger from the rest of his body, his consciousness goes along with the
finger, leaving the rest of his body behind.) Simon once mentioned to me his
admiration for Luigi Pirandello's philosophical drama Six Characters in Search of an
Author, a play in which six fictional characters, who know that they're fictional, find
themselves at a loss for what to do because their author hasn't finished writing their
story. Mergel' s self-awareness is such that he not only knows he's imaginary; he's
learned Photoshop so that he can paint himself into the real world. A couple of the
resultant images can be found on the endpapers of this book.

Simon's sweetness is most evident when he's around Ginny, his longtime wife and
partner in mentalism. She on~e wrote a piece for a magic magazine that began, "Simon
and I could not be more different." Ginny's impressive intelligence proves this claim
false, but- setting that aside-what she wrote seems about right. While Simon seems
always to be trying the impossible (and sometimes seems to be impossibly trying),
Ginny calmly sees to it that the actual is running smoothly. The two of them are proof
that opposites don't merely attract; they can be happy (and adorable) together for a
really long time. If Simon and Ginny were your Memorial Day barbecue, Simon would
be the flaming charcoal just after you sprayed too much lighter fluid on it and Ginny
would be the cool steel that keeps the flames from spreading to the deck and destroying
your house. Like Mergel, Ginny appears as a spectator throughout this book. Unlike
Mergel (who would never have the patience for such a task), Ginny has painstakingly
worked through every trick and move, which enabled her to provide feedback on
instructions that weren't as clear as they should be. When you find yourself not
throwing this book against a wall in frustration, you should thank Ginny.

In my favorite essay in the book ("Pondering Predictions"), Simon writes of leaving a

spectator with an "inability to reconcile .. .incompatible conclusions, both of which seem to
be indelibly true." Throughout his very creative life, Simon has been inventing magic
tricks that brilliantly achieve this end. In Art Decko, you'll find many more.

David H. Finkelstein
August 19, 2014
Preface

When I finished writing Try the Impossible in 2001, I swore to myself that I would never
write another card book. Now that I'm finished writing Art Decko, I'm making that
same oath again.

At least I'm consistent. And you've got to admit, I held out for thirteen years before I
gave in, so maybe I get a few points for trying. Perhaps if someone could absolutely
guarantee me thirteen more years, I might be willing to write another book. But that's
just a "might."

Art Decko collects some of the card magic I've been working on since the publication of
Try the Impossible. It's hard for me to characterize the contents because they're quite
eclectic. Some of the material is a fresh look at my own favorite plots (like Shuffle-
bored or the birthday datebook); some of it is an in-depth study of variations on a single
theme that has intrigued me (e.g., the Totals section) . For those who prefer effects that
are relatively short and impromptu, practically all of the material in the On the Spot
section will satisfy. For those who enjoy playing with gaffs, the effects in the Two-
Faced section are amongst the most deceptive tricks in the book. For memorized-deck
aficionados, there are a few items (either stack-independent or specifically for the
Aronson stack) that I'm particularly fond of. For those who are looking for the
proverbial "blockbuster" for a planned act or show, there are at least a few candidates
("Two by Two" is probably one of them) . And since I'm not shy about expressing my
opinions, there are a few essays and theoretical pieces on topics I've thought about.

While this is certainly not a sleight-heavy book, I'm always intrigued by techniques that
are particularly deceptive while still being fairly easy to accomplish. The first section in
the book explores a few novel techniques that fit this description. Some are twists or
additions or subtleties for well-known moves, and some explore new ground- but I can
assure you that their ease and efficiency do not diminish their fooling effect on laymen.

I'm particularly happy with the Aronson Stripout 2.0, which has now become my" go
to" table false shuffle. I appreciate that many card magicians still shy away from riffle
shuffle work, and the very term 'stripout' can cause some readers to dismiss an item.
But I do hope that even those who tend toward semi-automatic effects will try my
Stripout 2.0 (and give it a little practice). As table shuffles go, this technique is both
easy and reliable- and has a host of uses whenever you want to maintain a full-deck
stack.
Some of these items have appeared elsewhere before: in various magic periodicals or on
my website or on my DVD set; they've all been substantially updated. A few require
special gaffed cards, and I will try to make these cards available on my website. (I
thought about including gaffs with every copy of the book, but that would have
increased the cost of the book to everyone.)

A note about my writing style. In a word: lengthy (I'm avoiding 'verbose'). It's just the
way I am, and being a corporate lawyer certainly didn't help make things succinct. I
realize that reading isn't in vogue, and some of my friends tell me that when they read
magic descriptions, they often get through only the first couple of paragraphs before
they decide to bypass a trick entirely. So, a few words in defense of my write-ups,
which definitely tend to be protracted. First, I'm not "just" describing a trick and how
it's done. I want my readers to know the choices I've made, the alternatives I've
considered, and what options are available. I'm a "theory" guy, so if there are
principles underlying a trick that can be generalized or used for other effects, I try to
explore them. I appreciate how presentation (e.g., misdirection, surprise, humor,
audience management) can be integrated with the workings of a trick, so for practically
every item, you'll find my patter, scripts, and presentation suggestions. When I use
sleights, I'm cognizant that some readers might not do (or like) my particular choice of
move -but I don't want any reader to discard an entire trick just because of one move.
/

So I'll usually suggest alternative (and easier) moves that could be substituted. Bottom
line, as I review the length of this paragraph, maybe 'verbose' is a better fit after all. But
seriously, you'll find a lot more than simply how to do the trick.

I've mentioned in all my prior books- and it applies equally here- that my material
owes much to the contributions of my session buddies, with whom I meet virtually
every Saturday. Their suggestions and complaints, their help and criticism, their likes
and dislikes, all come to bear on practically everything I produce. Dave Solomon and
John Bannon are deservedly well-known in their own rights, but for the past five years
we've also been joined by our newest regular session member, David Finkelstein- and
a quartet offers even greater harmony than a trio.

I felt an immediate kinship with David Finkelstein when I met him: David is a
philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (I spent six years as a philosophy
graduate student there); he creates and performs wonderful memorized deck magic
(something I never could persuade Solomon or Bannon to do); and he brought a box full
of donuts to our first meeting (a weakness of mine). David's attendance at our weekly
sessions has introduced a new perspective, and his enthusiasm for the current magic
scene has kept all of us more apprised of what's happening. David often performs
magic for his students and fellow faculty (he actually teaches a course on the
philosophy of magic), so he's sensitive to nuances of presentation and what works for
intelligent laymen. David has slowly overcome his initial timidity in joining us and
now can be as critical as the rest of us - but he's introduced a touch of balance, tact, and
"seeing all sides" that has been refreshing and supportive. David is a superb writer and
has been my chief editor of everything in this book (so blame him) . He richly deserves
and gets my unbounded thanks for his painstaking and patient editorial work and for
his candid Introduction.

Finally, my personal gratitude and love go out to my wife Ginny and to Mergel Funsky.
Over the years, they've played guinea pigs for the oft-repeated tests and trials of these
tricks, and as you'll see in the following pages, they've been my two patient and
erstwhile spectators for almost every effect. Both of them sacrificed their own personal
projects while I usurped the computer (we finally got a second one). Both of them
played second fiddle (or trombone) when I became totally absorbed in my magic. And
both of them have contributed much to the physical production of this book. Ginny has
read through, tried, and edited every trick, and she's been my advisor, photographer,
and co-designer throughout. Mergel Funsky virtually "lives" in Photoshop, and he's
taught me everything he knows about how to alter reality. He has also led the way in
coping with the real world, by insisting on a steady supply of refreshments ("Man
cannot live on cards alone") . Above all, Mergel has stimulated my imagination in a
way that nothing else has.

And, in case you were wondering, yes, Ginny and I are fond of the Art Deco style. We
sometimes wish we had lived in an earlier era, but since that wasn't in the cards, it's a
solace to bring a bit of that early style into the cards with this volume. Please enjoy Art
Decko.

Simon Aronson

September 8, 2014

2500 North Lakeview A venue

Apt. 2902
Chicago, IL 60614
simon@simonaronson.com
www.simonaronson.com
Technique§
TECflnlQU€5
I never get to see my favorite techniques- because part of what I love about them is that
they' re invisible.

The invisibility can come from many sources: skillful chops, subtle misdirection, natural
handling, or innocuous actions that never rise to the level of suspicion. It's usually a
blend. Invisibility here means anything that causes the spectator to be unaware that
something is happening.

This section explores several quite disparate techniques. The first two are included
because several tricks in this book make use of them, so it makes sense for me to
describe them in detail at the outset. The Bedwell Dribble Toss Control is a control I use
extensively, and over the years I've come up with some additions that render it even
more flexible. A "milking action" is such a basic move that it hardly needs another
description, but its utility in loading cards onto multiple packets is something I've
incorporated into several effects. The Milk Load explores several variations for this
technique, while the Funsky Force adds a subtle touch that turns it into a force that
might even qualify for "invisibility."

"Bluff Oracle" is sui generis. It's a complete ruse-that works. It's about as self-
working as one can get, and has a synergy when used in connection with equivoque
and other techniques.

For years I've searched for a practical technique that would secretly switch four
randomly touched cards for four pre-planned cards. The "Funsky Four-for-Four
Switch" is my compromise of practicality, ease, and naturalness. It's bold and may not
fully satisfy purists, but it's become a workhorse in my repertoire.

I already mentioned the" Aronson Stripout 2.0" in my Preface because I'm so

enthusiastic about it. Please don't pass it by because it has 'stripout' in its title. It's not
a difficult move, and everyone needs at least one convincing, full-deck, false shuffle.
This could become yours.

It's atypical for a book to open with a discussion of techniques; it's not considered good
marketing. I've chosen to do it in Art Decko both because it's practical (given the
upcoming effects) and also because I don't want readers to feel that I avoid sleights or
physical techniques. As long as something' s "invisible," it should make for better
magic. My essay "Tool Sets" expresses that inclusionary vision.
 •••

use Steve Bedwell' s "Dribble Toss Control" in several of the routines in this book, so

I it's helpful and efficient to describe it once, in detail.

Not all controls are created equal, and the Bedwell Control has several specific features
which have served me well in other contexts. Accordingly, I've experimented with a
number of variations and additions to it that make this control even more flexible and
useful. I'd like to share some/of my findings here with you, but I'm cognizant that none
of my discoveries would have been possible without Steve's original control. So,
homage certainly goes to Steve for laying the essential foundation.

In Steve's original description, the spectator's selection of a card is made via an initial
dribble, so I'll describe Steve's move using that selection procedure. This method of
selecting the card is in keeping with, and sets the stage for, the dribble replacement-
but keep in mind that you can use the dribble replacement action (which is the crux of
the Bedwell Control) independently of the particular selection procedure. Indeed,
sometimes other selection procedures are appropriate (see, for example, my" About
Face," elsewhere in this book). Here's how I handle the basic Bedwell Control.

1) Start with the deck in your left hand. With your right hand, pick up the entire
deck from above, and as a demonstration, casually dribble it back into your left hand,
explaining to your spectator Ginny, "In a moment, I'm going to dribble the deck like this, and
as I dribble, just call out the word 'stop' wherever you want." Be sure to time this initial
demonstration so that the entire deck has dribbled into your left hand by the end of
your sentence.
4 ltM DECKO

Pick up the deck again and commence

another dribble, timing it so that Ginny says
'stop' somewhere around the middle of the
deck. When she does, casually place the
cards remaining in your right hand onto the
table. With your left thumb, push the top
card of the left-hand packet (the card Ginny
stopped at) to the right for about half its
width. Holding it in this sidejogged position,
raise your left hand to a vertical position, so
that Ginny can see the face of this sidejogged
card (let's assume it's the Four of Clubs, as in Figure 1).

An option: if you prefer, you could keep the undribbled cards in your right hand,
instead of placing them onto the table. You're going to pick up that packet in a moment
anyway at step 2, so in some routines it may prove more efficient to just hold them
while the left hand displays the selection. Placing the right hand's undribbled cards on
the table is particularly useful when there will be a time gap between the 'stop' selection
/1
and the replacement. For example, in About Face" you'll see that after the spectator
calls stop, I hand her the selection to have it signed. I then retrieve it, replace it back on
top of the left-hand packet, and display it again so that the audience can see the
signature. Then I proceed as below.

2) After you've displayed the card, lower your left hand, with the selection still
sidejogged, so the left-hand packet is roughly parallel to the table top. Now, with your
right hand, pick up the tabled packet and hold it about twelve inches above the table,
preparing to dribble these cards onto the table. In a moment you're going to do just
that, and as the right-hand cards fall it will appear as if the left hand tosses" the
/1

sidejogged selection into the dribbling stream of cards. In fact, the selection will
secretly be retained on top of the left-hand packet; here's the detail.

Comment, "Remember your card. Now let's bury it somewhere among these cards." As you
say this, start to release the right-hand cards so that they dribble to the table in a slow,
even flow. Hold the left-hand packet-with
its sidejogged top card- to the left of these
dribbling cards, about six inches above the
table top (Figure 2). When about half the
right-hand cards have dribbled off, move
your left hand sharply to the right, toward
the dribbling stream of cards, as if tossing
the selected card into the dribble. In fact, the
selection actually is not tossed or released.
During that sharp rightward motion, with
 f>EDlOOI., tUl"l5tW, Al"ID motiE ... 5

your left thumb quickly pull the selection back to the left, square with the top of the left-
hand packet. (Steve Bedwell describes this as somewhat akin to the action of a rub-
away vanish, in midair.) During this action, your right hand continues its dribbling
action, until all of its cards have dropped to the table. This is a perfect illusion of the
sidejogged, selected card being tossed somewhere among the dribbled cards. (An extra
convincer: as you pretend to toss the card into the dribble, contrive to hit the stream of
dribbling cards, knocking some of them a little bit to the right.)

3) While Ginny believes her card is now lost somewhere among the tabled cards,
actually her selected card remains on top of the left-hand packet. With your right hand,
take the entire left-hand packet by the ends, and dribble them onto the tabled packet,
thus re-assembling the entire deck. The selected card is now on top.

That's the Bedwell Control. Now let's unpack it and see what more it can do.

sUK~ f\ETErrnon
Dribbling cards always creates a casual air of looseness. When you release cards,
especially onto the table, they don't fall into perfect alignment; even though they fall
into a single pile, it will be a bit askew. This haphazard feel is disarming; it connotes
chaos, the opposite of order or organization.

But in using the Bedwell Control, early on I noticed a happy side effect: the entire deck
retains its order. Even though it appears that the selection is tossed from one half of the
deck into the other, actually it is pulled back to its original position, and the
reassembling of the packets simply has the effect of cutting the deck at the position of
the stopped-at card. Thus, if you start with the deck in any full-deck order, at the end
of the Bedwell Control it will still be in stack order, only with a single cut. This
observation, combined with my interest in memorized deck effects, is what first
intrigued me about the Bedwell Control. Clearly it's a useful control whenever a full-
deck stack is in use.

PAC~€T 5€PAf\ATIOl1

Different controls can leave a spectator in different states of belief. Consider a basic
overhand control: the performer begins an overhand shuffle, stops and asks the
spectator to replace her selected card, and then continues shuffling to bury the card
somewhere in the deck. Any number of maneuvers Gogs, steps, blocks, etc.) can be
used to keep control of the selection, which can then be secretly brought to the bottom,
top, or to a desired position in the course of subsequent shuffling. If done convincingly,
6 ~til 1)€(~0

the spectator is left with the sense that her card is "lost" somewhere in the deck. She
clearly has no idea where her card lies, and she (hopefully) believes that you, the
performer, don't either.

Contrast this situation with another basic control: a Tilt replacement. Here, the
performer takes the selection and apparently inserts it back into the center of the deck.
Actually, using a standard Tilt break (or, to remain politically neutral, a Depth Illusion
break), he secretly inserts it second from the top. With this control, the spectator's belief
is quite different from what it is in the overhand shuffle situation. With Tilt, she
affirmatively believes that her card is now somewhere near the middle of the pack
(because she "saw" you put it there), and she "knows" (wrongly) that it's not on or near
the top. If you were to immediately shuffle the deck after doing this Tilt replacement,
you'd lose all the advantage of this false belief; now she'd simply think it was "lost" in
the deck. With Tilt, the spectator has some conviction (an erroneous one) about where
her card lies, and you can use this erroneous conviction to your advantage.

The Bedwell Control can carry this erroneous belief a step further. Although in his
original description Bedwell reassembles the entire pack, I quickly appreciated that this
final step clearly isn't essential. In my description above if you stop after step 2, you'll
be left with two distinct separate packets. You could openly push the tabled packet
toward your spectator, saying something like, "Put your hand on these, to make sure I can't
get to your card." Since your spectator just saw you toss her selected card among the
tabled ones, she's convinced that her card is among those she holds, and
correspondingly she's also convinced that you don't have her card among the cards in
your retained pile. By keeping the two packets separated and not reassembling them,
you create a very strong conviction about where the selected card now lies. This
conviction can make for strong miracles (see, e.g., my "Not a Chance.")

THE fUf'l5tW QlffiP5E

The Dribble Toss Control is a very convincing move, but it doesn't "tell" you what the
selected card is. It controls it to the top of the deck, unseen, and then, if you need to
know its identity, you have to glimpse it separately.

My friend Mergel Funsky has an active imagination, so he developed a glimpse that is

tailor-made for the Bedwell Control. It's accomplished during the actions of the Dribble
Toss Control itself and thus doesn't require any additional post-action glimpse. It can
be used regardless of whether you reassemble the two packets together or keep them
separate. Here are the details of the Funsky Glimpse.

In step 2 above, when you secretly pull the selection back onto the left-hand packet,
obtain a break under it with the left little finger; since the selection is already side-
 f>EDUJELL. flll5tW, MD ffiOf\E ... 7

jogged, this is easy to do as you pull it flush.

As a result of the right hand's dribbling
action, the dribbled cards on the table will
be slightly askew, so it's natural to square
up those cards a bit. To do this, turn both
hands palm down, and simultaneously
pinch the inner corners of this tabled pile
with the first finger and thumb of both
hands (Figure 3 depicts the front or
audience view). The packet in your left
hand will of course be turned face up
during this action. During this momentary
square-up, your left little finger pushes
rightward on its "broken" top card. This
causes the index of the selected card to
become sidejogged at the inner end of the
packet. It's completely natural for you to
look down at the cards as you're squaring
them, so you'll plainly see the inner index of
the selection below the base ~f your left
thumb. The performer's view of this
squaring or pinching action is shown in Figure 4, where the sidejogged "4C" index can
be plainly seen. From the front and sides, your hands completely mask this glimpsed
index. Note that during the pinching/ squaring action your left fingers relax slightly,
loosening their grip on the packet; this allows the packet to drop lower just a bit,
exposing more of the selection's index to your view.

As soon as the tabled packet is squared, both hands turn back palm up. You can then
either reassemble the full deck by taking the left-hand cards in your right hand and
dribbling them onto the tabled portion, or you can handle the two packets separately; in
either case, the Funsky Glimpse has given you the identity of the selected card.

You'll see that I use the Funsky Glimpse in a number of the ensuing tricks.

And now here's the "and more ... "

~n €ttlCIEnT TNUffiPH

As an example of how each of the above elements can combine in a very efficient
manner, consider their use in a standard "Triumph" type effect. I'll describe just the
bare bones.
Begin by having a card selected, noted, and then "lost" in the deck by using the Bedwell
Control together with the Funsky Glimpse. The selection is now on top of the left-hand
packet, and you secretly know its identity. Let's say it's the 4C. Do not reassemble the
two packets. Point to the tabled, dribbled half (into which the selection was supposedly
tossed) commenting that the spectator's card is "somewhere in this half" Flip that tabled
half face up, and immediately shuffle it, face up, into the face-down left-hand packet. In
fact, perform a Zarrow shuffle so that all the right-hand cards unweave and go under
the top card of the left packet (the selection).

You' re now set to go into whatever standard Triumph "displays" of face-up and face-
d own cards you typically prefer. Then perform any standard Triumph" correction"
(e.g., cutting at the natural break in the center to show that "some cards are back to
back" and turning the top half over in the process). Table the deck. All the cards in the
deck are now secretly facing the same direction except for the selection in the center.

Since you know the card, you can both reveal its identity and show the Triumph climax,
as you see fit. When you spread the deck across the table, the selection will occupy the
same position it started in, vis-a-vis its adjacent cards. Indeed, if you started with a
fully (or partially) stacked deck, the order will be maintained. Turn the selection to face
the same direction as the rest of the cards, and you're back in your stack order.

(Of course, if you do happen to perform this effect using a full-deck stack, you wouldn't
need the Funsky Glimpse, since the bottom card of the half you turn face up can be
used to key the identity of the selection-it will be the next card in your stack.)

SAnDWICfl (O()Tf"OL

Here's one more simple example of how keeping the two halves separate can lead to an
extremely efficient control and revelation. This one is a standard sandwich effect. I'll
assume that you're familiar with the basic sandwich plot (a selected card is lost in the
deck, and magically appears between two cards) and just summarize the bare bones of
my handling.

Begin by removing the two black Queens from the deck and place them in a squared
face-down pile in front of you. It's better if you don't show their faces to your spectator
because that provides justification for showing them later. Have a selection made,
noted, and replaced using the Bedwell Control, dribbling the "replacement" pile a few
inches in front of the two Queens. Obtain a secret break as described in the Funsky
Glimpse; you won't need to glimpse the selection, but this break will facilitate
"loading" the selection. Don't reassemble the two halves together. Instead, with your
right hand push the "replacement" pile forward toward your spectator, as your left
 bEDUJEU., fUl'l5tW, MD ffiOf\E ... 9

hand, still holding its remaining cards, turns palm down and lowers onto the two
Queens.

In a continuing motion, pick up the Queens by scooping your left thumb under them,
and immediately turn your left hand palm up, to display the face of the uppermost
Queen; because of the break, the selection will automatically coalesce with the two
Queens. Your palm-down right hand now takes the cards above the break (apparently
as just the two Queens you just picked up off the table) . Peel off the uppermost Queen
with your left thumb and replace it to the bottom of the right-hand card(s), thus
displaying the face of the second Queen. Ostensibly all you've done is pick up the two
tabled Queens and shown them; actually the face-down selection has been secretly
loaded between them. In this simple loading sequence, the two separated packets
provide both a natural reason for picking up the Queens with one hand and a strong
misdirection since the spectator is focusing on the forward pile (where she thinks her
card resides) .

From here on, you can use any standard sandwich revelation to produce the selection.
The most straightforward might be to drop the Queens (with the selection sandwiched)
onto the tabled packet and then drop the remaining cards on top; the deck can then be
instantly spread to reveal the ,selection between the Queens. Alternatively, once the
selection is secretly between the Queens, you could use the Queens as "pinchers" to
visibly "pull" the selection from the forward pile.

TWO 5€L€CTIOrl5

Once I started using the Bedwell Control, I wondered whether it could be used to
control more than one selection. It would be nice if we could use the Bedwell procedure
to, say, control two selections to the top. My goal was to make the two selection
procedures appear identical (or at least similar) and nevertheless bring both selections
together. The obvious obstacle is that when you repeat the Bedwell dribble procedure a
second time, the "cut" causes the first selection to be lost in the center. Something
needs to vary. Here are a couple of possible solutions.

The first utilizes a simple tabled riffle shuffle. After the first Bedwell Control, selection
# 1 is on top. Have a second selection made in the same manner, but after you've done
the fake "toss," lower your left-hand packet to the table, as you give the tabled half a
quarter turn to the right with your right hand (i.e., turn it horizontal, into standard
position for riffle shuffling). There is a selection on top of each half. Now simply riffle
shuffle the two halves together, making sure that you end by dropping a single card
from one half onto the other half, to bring the two selections together on top of the
shuffled deck. And, of course, you can control whether you want the selections to be in
1, 2 (or 2, 1 order) by deciding which card to drop last.
10 AMDECKO

Note that if you want more visual consistency, you could introduce another tabled riffle
shuffle, performed at the end of the first Bedwell Control. While it's not necessary
(since the first selection is already on top), it helps establish the pattern for doing a
similar shuffle the second time. Such an additional shuffle also has another interesting
side benefit: it allows you to maintain control of a key card or small stack on the original
top, or the original bottom, of the deck (or both).

Here's an example that's a bit complex. It illustrates how you can control both a bottom
stack and a top stack, and also control two free selections, all by using the Bedwell
Control twice. Assume you start with the two red Aces secretly on the bottom of the
deck and the two black Aces on top. Now have the first selection made using the
Bedwell Control, but instead of coalescing the two packets, end with a tabled riffle
shuffle of the two halves as follows. Start by dropping the bottom two cards from the
left packet (the red Aces) and then continue shuffling both halves together until you're
holding only one card on the left and at least two cards on the right. Drop the rest of
the right half (which has the black Aces at its top), and end by dropping the one
remaining card (selection# 1) from the left half on top. Next, proceed with a second
selection using the Bedwell Control, and again finish with a riffle shuffle of the two
halves, this time as follows. As before, start by dropping the bottom two cards from the
left packet (the red Aces) and then continue shuffling both halves together, ending up
by (1) dropping at least the top three cards (the two black Aces, plus the first selection)
from the right half, and (2) by dropping a single card (selection #2) from the left half on
top. The result will be that all four Aces will still be in their original positions, but with
the two selections above them on top (in 2, 1 order).

I doubt if there are many situations in which you'd ever need to control both a top and
bottom stack; often one will be sufficient. But it's nice to know the potentialities.

Here's an alternative method to control two selections using the Bedwell Control. It's
more consistent with the basic Bedwell procedure because it doesn't involve a riffle
shuffle. Instead it uses one simple slip cut. Start by using the standard Bedwell Control
for the first selection (with or without the Funsky Glimpse, depending on whether you
need to know its identity), and complete it
by dribbling the left-hand packet onto the
tabled cards to reassemble the deck. Now
pick up the deck and repeat the Bedwell
procedure a second time for a second
selection (again, with or without the Funsky
Glimpse) . Again, you'll finish by dribbling
the left-hand packet onto the tabled portion,
but this time you'll perform this final dribble
with one minor variation. As you begin this
 ~. M5tW, MD ffiOhE ... 11

final dribble, move your right hand slightly inward, just about an inch; this causes the
dribbling cards to fall injogged slightly onto the tabled cards. As you continue the rest of
this dribble, move your right hand forward a bit, so the rest of its dribbling cards fall
forward, covering the tabled portion. (Figure 5 shows a view from the side, where the
"messy" injog (exaggerated for clarity) can be plainly seen.)

Now pick up the entire deck with both hands, left hand beneath, right hand from
above, and with your right thumb lift up on the injog as you square up the cards, just
enough to allow the left pinky to take a break between the packets. You' re now in
position to perform a simple slip cut to the table, to wit: cut the upper half (the cards
above the break) to the table, as your left thumb applies a light pressure on the top card
(selection #2), just enough to hold it back on the left-hand portion; then complete the
cut. The deck has been reassembled, and the selections are both on top, in 2, 1 order.

GIJmP51f)G THE (r1€W) bonom CAhD

Let's return to the basic Bedwell Control, with just one selection. We've seen that the
Funsky Glimpse allows you to secretly learn the identity of the top card (the selection).
But at the conclusion of this control, we don't know the bottom card of the deck,
/

because the deck has been cut in the process. For certain effects, it would be helpful to
know this new bottom card, e.g., to use as a key later on. One could, of course, pick up
the deck and do an All-around Square Up Glimpse-but that's not particularly subtle.
And, the rest of the Bedwell Control handling is so clean and subtle that it would be a
shame to have to handle the cards again.

Luckily, there's a simple way to learn the new bottom card, without having to handle
the deck further. You can actually glimpse it much earlier on. Here's how.

Go back to step one of the selection process,

where Ginny calls 'stop' as you dribble the
deck from the right hand into the waiting
left hand. As soon as you separate the two
halves, before you place the right hand
cards onto the table, and as you're about to
lift the left-hand cards to display the
selected card, simply apply upward
pressure with your right thumb on the rear
end of the right-hand cards so that they
bend upward. This exposes the inner index of the bottom card of the right-hand
portion (see Figure 6, where the index of the AC is plainly visible). You just need to do
this slight bend for an instant, just long enough for you to glimpse this index; the
spectator's attention will be on the left-hand cards, curious to see what card she stopped
12 f1M DECt10

on. Immediately dribble or place your right-hand cards onto the table, and then
continue with the rest of the Bedwell Control. When it's complete, this glimpsed card
will become the new bottom card of the deck.

And, of course, you can combine this bottom glimpse with the Funsky Glimpse, to learn
both cards. The following illustrates a simple effect using this combination.

lmPf\OffiPTU (Af\D AT [')Uffif>Eh. WITfl mno tiEADlrlG

In this trick, you not only read the spectator's mind but also discover her card at her
freely chosen number. Here are the bare bones.

Start with a shuffled deck, and have your spectator, Ginny, freely select a card using the
Bedwell Control. Use the above-described bottom-card glimpse to secretly learn the
new bottom card and the Funsky Glimpse to learn the selected card. Immediately
spread the deck face down across the table.

Instruct Ginny, or a second spectator, that she is to withdraw a small clump of cards
from the center of the spread and that you will turn your back so that you can't see how
many she withdraws. When you' re sure she understands this instruction, turn your
back and allow her to follow it. Tell her to keep her withdrawn cards in her lap for a
moment while she pushes the spread closed, so that you won't get any clue as to where
in the spread they came from.

With your back still turned, have her carefully count the number of cards she withdrew
and remember that number. She is then instructed to mix the cards in her small packet
and to replace some of them on top of the pack and some on the bottom. Finally she is
instructed to cut the deck and to complete the cut.

You then turn around, pick up the deck and spread it faces toward you. Look for your
bottom key, and cut the deck so that this key goes second from the face. Then
immediately spread near the top of the deck, to spot the glimpsed selection. Sight count
its position from the top of the deck; let's say, for example, it's eighth from the top. That
means that your spectator's secretly counted number is in fact eight. Set the deck face
down onto the table.

Tell Ginny that you'll start dealing cards onto the table, counting aloud, and she is to
simply think 'stop' when you reach her secret number; caution her not to say anything
or give you any hints. Deal the cards from the top of the deck face down, one at a time,
counting aloud.
 f>EDWELL, fun5tW, MD motiE ... 1~

Deal slowly to build up a climax. After you've dealt and counted seven cards, begin to
take the eighth card off the deck, but stop, as if you felt an "urge" or impulse. Ginny
will confirm that she did indeed think 'stop' at that point. Turn over the eighth card to
reveal that it is her selection.

When I pick up the deck and spread it with the faces toward me, I cut the bottom key
into position very nonchalantly, splitting the deck between my hands with a shrug,
almost as if I'm" giving up" (my internal script is roughly: "No way am I going to find
your card!"). Then I quickly spread all the cards in a clump to get near the top, to spot
and count the selection. You'll have to add your own presentation and script; I'm just
offering this as an indication of how the Bedwell Control, with my added glimpses,
might be used to create a minor impromptu miracle.

Hopefully the above ideas will whet your appetite to learn and experiment with Steve
Bedwell' s Dribble Toss Control. In the rest of the book, you'll find some of my more
developed uses for this great utility.

(OffimEl'lT5
/
(1) Credits. I first learned the Bedwell Control from Steve Bedwell Taped (A-1
Multimedia (1995)), subtitled The Steve Bedwell Video, Volume 1, in the routine "The
Parked Card." It first appeared in print in Steve's lecture notes Siamese Signatures and
other Oddities (1995) p . 10, and later appeared in Steve Beam's publication The Trapdoor,
Issue #61 (1996), p. 1181. Jim Swain suggests a variation in which the Bedwell Control
is done holding the deck face up (Swain, 21 51 Century Card Magic (1999), p. 78)

Mergel Funsky first published his glimpse in MAGIC Magazine (September 2007), p. 95,
in connection with my effect" About Face." The grip for Mergel' s glimpse is similar to
one described in "Setting a Key Card" (Hugard, Expert Card Technique (1940), p . 116;
there it's used to glimpse a card in the middle of the deck, while the index finger points
forward at something).

My "Impromptu Card at Number, with Mind Reading" above is basically a variation of

Joseph Barry's "Stocan" (on Vol. 1 of his DVD Inscrutable (2013)); Joe uses a different
control. In my version, the use of two keys allows the performer to secretly learn the
spectator's freely chosen number and thus accomplish the "mental stop."

The glimpse to learn the new bottom card, as depicted in Figure 6, is B.J. Bueno' s
"dribble stop" procedure.
The Milk Load, and
the l=untky l=orce

~ 51mPLE ~CE Pf\ooua1on

any years ago Ed Marlo performed a quick effect for me. He took a deck and

M started to shuffle it overhand-style and asked me to call 'stop' wherever I wanted.

When I called 'stop' he ceased his shuffle exactly at that point and dropped the
packet of already-shuffled cards face down on the table. He then continued shuffling
his remaining cards, asking me again to call 'stop'; when I did, he once more tabled the
shuffled-off cards, forming a second packet. He said" one more time" and continued to
shuffle the balance of the deck. On my call, he stopped and tabled both the shuffled-off
packet and the balance of his cards on the table. There were now four face-down
packets on the table, of various sizes. Ed cleanly turned them over to reveal an Ace on
the face of each packet.

The method is simple. The four Aces start on the bottom of the deck. Each overhand
shuffle starts out with a secret "milking" action, which "loads" an Ace onto the bottom
of the cards being shuffled off. You then continue shuffling normally, stopping when
the spectator requests, and deposit these cards face down on the table. You repeat this
procedure two more times, beginning each shuffle with a similar milking action, to load
an Ace onto the face of each of the next two packets. The final Ace (which started out as
the fourth card from the bottom of the deck) simply stays on the face of the remaining
unshuffled cards and thus will be the bottom card of the fourth packet.

I always assumed that this basic procedure was original with Marlo, but as best I can
recall, he didn't claim it as his own. He simply showed me the trick. Recently, when I
searched to find a citation in Ed's writings, I came up empty. Several of my close
 THE mu~ LOAD. Al)() THE fm5tW tOtiCE 15

friends, all familiar with Ed's material, also couldn't find a Marlo source. It may not be
a Marlo creation. To date, I've been unable to trace who first came up with the above
procedure or where it might have first seen print.

I've used this overhand loading procedure, with variations, ever since Ed first showed
it to me because it has a multitude of uses that extend far beyond the production of four
Aces. Several of my favorite routines in this book incorporate these procedures, so I
want to describe and discuss it here in detail, with a few of my own variations.

TECttl11CAL DE5Cf\IPTIOfl

Doing a "milking" action during an overhand shuffle is ancient and pretty basic; it's one
of the first ways we learn to keep the bottom card in place. Likewise, a "milk build" has
a long history in gambling, for stacking hands during an overhand shuffle. Here,
however, I'm referring to a somewhat more narrow, specific use: the notion of using a
milking action to add a single card to the bottom of a packet and doing it more than
once, i.e., loading cards onto multiple packets.

For the sake of completeness I;.ll describe how a milking action works and mention a
couple of nuances. But first, one important note on terminology. I'm aware that most
people overhand shuffle by drawing cards from the right hand into the left hand, but
some people (mainly lefties, including me) shuffle the opposite way. In order to make
this description intelligible and unambiguous (to everyone), instead of referring to
"left" or "right" hand packets during the shuffle, I instead refer to the "upper" and
"lower" packets (because one hand is always "higher" than the other). The "upper"
packet is where the cards start, and they are drawn off this upper packet (either singly,
or in clumps) into the "lower" hand, which receives them on top of its growing packet
of already-shuffled-off cards (the lower packet). The lower hand is thus also the
"taking" (or "receiving") hand, because its thumb does the work of peeling cards, or
clumps of cards, off the upper packet.

In a typical milking action the top and

bottom cards of the upper packet are
simply peeled off together; the peeling of
the bottom card occurs secretly and is
covered by the top card, which is being
taken simultaneously. More precisely, as
the taking hand's thumb starts to pull or
chop off the top card(s), the fingers of the
taking hand reach under the deck and apply a light pressure of the fingers against the
bottom card, pulling it off with the top card (Figure 1 depicts an exposed view of this
milking action) . Both of the cards fall together to start the lower packet.
16 AM DEC~O

Without pausing, continue to overhand shuffle normally, taking cards from the upper
packet either singly or in clumps. They fall continuously onto the lower packet, while
the "milked" card remains on the bottom of the lower packet. Thus, no matter where
your spectator calls 'stop,' if you deposit the lower packet face down on the table, the
milked card will be its bottom card.

Theoretically one can "milk" cards at various times during an overhand shuffle, but
anyone who's tried it knows that milking on the very first "take" is a lot easier than
trying to milk cards later, i.e., in the middle of an overhand shuffle. Be assured that all
the effects in this book that utilize a milking action do it only on a "first take."

Frequently you're going to repeat such shuffling to form multiple packets. This isn't a
problem, since on each shuffle you simply start with the identical milking procedure;
the only issue is to plan ahead so that you'll have sufficient cards left for however many
packets you need. This is easy enough if you pace your shuffles. If you commence
shuffling slowly and mainly peel off only single cards with your taking thumb, you'll
use up fewer cards before your spectator calls 'stop,' thus leaving more cards remaining
for subsequent shuffles.

One other important tip (that Ginny taught me) for making sure you have sufficient
cards has to do with when you give your instructions to your spectator. When I started
testing some of my milk-build tricks, I would first begin my overhand shuffle, and as I
was shuffling I would explain to Ginny what she was supposed to do, e.g., call 'stop.'
But while I spoke my instructions, eight to ten cards may have already gone by. A
spectator will then habitually wait a few more cards, before she calls 'stop.' That can
use up a lot of cards. I discovered that it's safer to offer your complete instructions
before you start shuffling, e.g., "I'm going to shuffle these. As I'm shuffling, you'll call out
'stop' wherever you want. We're going to form a few piles, so you'll have to call 'stop' several
times. I'll start now -you call stop." This conserves cards. It's not a deep insight, but it
makes a practical difference.

Sometimes the relative size of the resulting piles matters; sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes you'll need to use a particular pile in a subsequent phase of your trick, and
its size may be important for that next phase. But none of this is difficult, so long as you
plan your pace beforehand.

f1PPUCATIOl'l5

Marlo's" Ace Production" (above) is an easy, quick, and deceptive way to start any
routine using the four Aces, but clearly you can extrapolate to other uses. I often use
the same procedure to produce the four Queens as a lead-in to my "Under Her Spell"
(The Aronson Approach (1990), p . 3).
 THE ffillf) LOAD, Af'lD THE fUf'l5f)Y fOhCE 17

When I am performing for a group, I will often have four spectators each freely select,
remember, and replace a card as I spread through the deck; I use a standard under-the-
spread cull to control all four selections to the bottom of the deck (in order). I
sequentially address the spectators in reverse order (4, then 3, then 2), asking each to
call 'stop' as I overhand shuffle, using the above milking procedure to form four piles.
When the piles are turned face up, it is seen that each spectator has stopped at their own
selected card.

This brings up one more variable worth mentioning: the number of total piles doesn't
have to be four; vary it as you see fit. I will often do the above "spectators find their
own cards" with just three spectators. Indeed, in practically all of the effects in this
book that utilize this milking procedure, you'll see that I use three piles.

Another important variable (used frequently in this book) is to do the entire procedure
"in reverse" i.e., to shuffle face up. Here's what I mean. Start with the four Aces on the
top of the deck. Now hold the deck for a face-up overhand shuffle-the top card faces
the palm of your upper hand while the bottom of the deck faces the spectators-and
begin shuffling by thumbing cards off the face of the deck. Your body should be turned
so that the spectators can see the faces change as they are thumbed off into the lower
hand; it's quite convincing tha! the cards are being mixed because different cards
constantly come into view. Again, begin such a face-up shuffle with a milking action,
but this time you'll be secretly peeling off the top card of the deck, where it becomes the
rear (top) card of the lower-hand packet. You can continue to shuffle off the face until
your spectator says' stop,' at which point your lower hand will rotate inward (i.e.,
counterclockwise) at the wrist and deposit its packet of shuffled-off cards face down on
the table. If you repeat the procedure a total of three times (creating four piles), you
find that you have produced the Aces on the top of each pile (as opposed to the face).
You'll see how we use this face-up shuffle variation to advantage in the Totals section.

THE tUl'l5KV fOf\CE

It's pretty obvious that you can use a face-up overhand shuffle procedure with an initial
milking action to force the top card of the deck. Have your spectator call out 'stop.'
When she does, turn your lower hand's shuffled-off packet face down, set it on the
table, and point to its top card, saying something like, "You stopped me here." The only
problem is that, with only one pile and no time delay, this may be not be sufficiently
deceptive. A thinking spectator might realize that the top card of the pile isn't actually
where she called 'stop' - because nothing else happens to divert her mind from it.

In experimenting with this one-pile force and trying to figure out how to disguise it
(and yet still keep it nice and simple), my friend Mergel Funsky had an imaginative
10 AM DECf)O

idea. Why not combine it with the most deceptive part of the classic Crisscross Cut
Force? Here's Mergel' s breakthrough.

1) Proceed exactly as above: with your force

card on top, commence a face-up overhand
shuffle, milking on the first take, and then
continue shuffling until your spectator Ginny
stops you. Mergel recommends that on the
very first "take," you chop off a good size
chunk of cards from the face as you secretly
milk off the force card from the top. (A large
initial chunk better covers the milking action
and gives the lower-hand packet more heft in
size; all subsequent "takes" can be any size.)

2) When Ginny calls 'stop,' your lower hand

turns palm down and deposits its shuffled-off
packet face down on the table. Your upper
hand simply holds its packet of unshuffled
cards in position, as if ready to shuffle off
more cards. Your lower hand can move away
from the tabled packet slightly (Figure 2).

3) Say, "I could have shuffled a few more cards

... " and demonstrate this by openly brushing
your lower-hand thumb across the face card of
the upper packet several times (Figure 3).
Don't actually take or shuffle off any more
cards-you're simply demonstrating in
pantomime how you might have continued to
shuffle a few more cards off the face of this
upper packet, if Ginny hadn't called 'stop.'

4) Your" demonstration" creates just a

momentary pause, as you then complete your sentence, " ... but you stopped me right
here." As you utter the word 'here,' set the upper packet face down diagonally or
perpendicularly onto the lower packet, placing it down with an emphatic tap as it hits the
lower packet (Figure 4). That's it. And that's all you should say. Do not say, "We'll mark
the place where you stopped," or anything remotely like that. Nothing. The image
speaks for itself. The picture will now look exactly like the end result of a standard
Cross Cut (or Crisscross) Force-except, of course, that nobody cut anything.
At this point you'll proceed as your particular effect dictates. You could wait while you
perform other actions (to create an additional time delay) or not, as you like. Whenever
 THE ffilLK LOAD, Af'lD TffE fUl'l5KY tO~CE 19

you're ready for the spectator to look at her "freely" selected card, just point at the top
card of the lower packet, saying, "Take a look at the card you stopped at," as you lift off the
upper packet, and have her note the top card of the lower packet. (And if she replaces it
back on the lower packet and you bury it by dribbling the upper packet on top, that's
one more "convincer" that it came from the middle.)

Note that Mergel's use of the crossed packets involves virtually no discrepancy (as there
is in the standard Cross Cut Force). The crossed upper packet adds both a time delay
and, more importantly, a visual sense that the stopped-at card really is from the middle
of the deck. Mergel's "pantomime demonstration" subliminally implies that if you had
shuffled a few more cards from the upper packet, they would have "landed" atop the
lower packet. (That implication is, of course, not true. If there's any discrepancy in this
force, it's the erroneous assumption that such a shuffle-and-stop procedure would
result in a card being chosen from somewhere in the middle of the deck.)

An alternative: you can actually do this Funsky Force with the force card starting on the
bottom of the deck (instead of the top), which eliminates the need for any milking action.
All that's required is to hide the face of the force card at the very beginning of your face-
up overhand shuffle; this can be done either by (1) holding the upper packet face
downward (more toward the tloor), or (2) by turning your upper hand inward at the
wrist, turning the face of the deck more toward your own body. With the face card of
the deck thus hidden, the lower-hand thumb starts the shuffle by thumbing off a single
card (the force card) and then immediately continues shuffling additional cards onto it.
As soon as the force card is covered by the next card(s), you're free to flash the faces
toward your audience for the rest of the shuffle. When the spectator calls' stop,'
proceed with step 2 of the Funsky Force.

Indeed, you could do the Funsky Force without any milking action, by starting with your
force card in the center of the deck, slightly injogged. Begin your shuffle by chopping
first at the injog and then continue as in the text. In all cases, Mergel' s addition of the
crossed upper packet to the overhand shuffle force makes it more convincing.

CommEm5
(1) Credits; Sources. Crossing packets has certainly been used with other forces.
Benjamin Earl uses it in a "dealing" force (benjaminearl.com, "The Bug", October 29, 2010).
I haven't been able to locate a previous printed instance of this combination of crossing
the packets with an overhand shuffle force, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it has
seen print before now. Mergel, however, assures me it came straight from his own
imagination, so until someone locates a prior source, he insists that it be called the
"F uns k y Force.
II
111uf f Oracle

n Try the Impossible, in my effect "Euph-oracle," I explored several variations of the

I commonly used Reverse Faro procedure. As most readers know, executing one or
more Reverse Faros is one way of gradually eliminating cards, winnowing a larger
packet down to successively smaller packets, until one or only a few cards remain.
Because it's mathematically based, with the proper setup you can predict or force which
card(s) will be left after the elimination process is finished.

This present technique is a delightful swindle on the above. It's not mathematically
based at all-indeed, there is no need for any setup, or even for doing the elimination
procedure correctly! It's a complete ruse and thus is fun to use when you're performing
for magicians. There's a red herring quality to the procedure that I find amusing.

Timing is everything. When you're an amateur magician/inventor writing a book (like

me), you never know when to stop inventing. At some point you have to call a halt to
your tinkering and just finalize the book. In 2001, shortly after I had sent Try the
Impossible to the printer, I was playing around with my math-based "Euph-oracle," and
I suddenly realized that one could accomplish a similar-looking result with a totally
different approach. When I demonstrated it to our session, everyone chuckled and felt
that it was subtle enough that I could actually get away with it. Since it was basically a
"bluff," I dubbed it "Bluff Oracle."

I didn't want to stop the presses on Try the Impossible, so my Bluff Oracle technique
wasn't included. It lay dormant and unpublished for awhile, until John Bannon started
using it in some of his routines. With my blessing, John used and described Bluff
Oracle in MAGIC Magazine (February 2012), and since then a number of people have
expressed interest.

Bluff Oracle isn't used in any of the tricks in this book, but I'm including it here because
it's a deceptive technique that's completely impromptu. It's particularly useful in
 f>Lutt OMCLE 21

connection with equivoque, and it actually allows conditions (like a spectator's free cut
of any number of cards) that aren't available with a standard Reverse Faro. And finally,
I have some advanced finesses that John wasn't able to include in his description in
MAGIC, and these extra touches actually expand on the utility of "Bluff Oracle."

TtlE f\~h5E tAhO PhOCEDUhE (A PhlffiEh)

In case you aren't familiar with a standard Reverse Faro procedure, I'll describe it
briefly, so you'll know what my "Bluff Oracle" is attempting to simulate. Take a packet
of cards, say, about a third of the deck, and hold them in left-hand dealing position.
Thumb off the top card, taking it into your right hand in an injogged position, and then
thumb off the next (second) card and take it into your right hand under the first card but
in an outjogged position. Continue this procedure, alternating by injogging the third
card, outjogging the fourth card, and so on until you exhaust the cards from the left
hand. Just make sure that each card goes under the previous one taken, i.e., you're not
reversing the cards' order. Once this injogging/ outjogging procedure is complete, strip
out the outjogged cards with the left hand while retaining the injogged cards in the
right hand.
/

At this point you're holding two approximately equal packets, and depending on the
particular trick you're doing, you'd typically either discard one of them or place one
aside on the table. By doing so, you would have "eliminated" about half the original
packet. You could then take the remaining half and repeat the Reverse Faro process
with that half. This would leave you with approximately a quarter of the cards you
began with. That, in a nutshell, is the Reverse Faro procedure.

The basic handling and appearance of a "real" Reverse Faro will clearly be viewed and
sensed by spectators as a way of narrowing down the size of a packet of cards. When
done in an off-handed manner, and if you make it seem as if it's not important which
half gets eliminated, then it will hopefully be felt by your spectators to be uncontrolled
or unpredictable, but you probably don't want to claim that it's "random" -because it's
anything but that. Indeed, when the Reverse Faro is done precisely, every single card
follows a known mathematical pattern. Fortunately, that's not our topic here. We
won't deal with any of the underlying mathematics, or formulas, or applications of the
Reverse Faro - because none of it is relevant to "Bluff Oracle." You simply don't need
it. (If you want to learn more about actual Reverse Faros, see Comment 1.)
22 AMDECKO

flE~lf>ILITV 0PTIOn5

Before we leave the standard Reverse Faro procedure, let me mention three available
points of flexibility that we can make use of later. First, and most obvious, once you
strip the outjogged cards from the injogged cards, you can discard either one; that's up
to you. Sometimes you may want to make a point of announcing beforehand which
packet will be tossed aside, or you might want to have a spectator elect which one will
be discarded before you begin the Reverse Faro (you'll see below, in the "Double
Option," how we can control this). But sometimes you won't want to commit
beforehand; you might just leave it up to your own "mental" powers to make that
decision yourself.

Second, the Reverse Faro procedure can be started with an outjog (instead of an injog)
on the first card; it's your choice. And as long as your attitude is relaxed, and your
handling is casual, there's no special requirement of consistency; i.e., you could begin
your first Reverse Faro with an injog, but later begin a subsequent Reverse Faro with an
outjog. There aren't "rules" here. (Again, you'll see later how this can come in handy.)

Third, when you strip out the outjogged cards from the injogged cards and hold one
packet in each hand, you can easily control which half (outjogs or injogs) winds up in
which hand (left or right). For instance, in the basic Reverse Faro as described above,
when you finish the alternating procedure, you're holding the all interlaced cards in
your right hand, so it's natural for your left hand to strip out and take the outjogged
packet; however, if you want to wind up with the packets in the opposite hands, then at
the end of the alternating procedure, pause for a moment and transfer the still-
interlaced cards from your right hand to your left hand, as you point or gesture with
your right hand; it's then natural for your empty right hand to strip out and take the
outjogged packet. This alternative is subtle, and many spectators will either miss, or
lose track of, or not ever care to follow, which packet came from where. (I call this
subterfuge the "Left/Right" option.)

Now let's turn the Reverse Faro elimination procedure into a "bluff."

f>LUtt Ot>F1CLE-flf'>5T LEUEL (Tf'>f1(t)l[)G TllE f>onom (Af'>D)

The "Bluff Oracle" procedure is simply a Reverse Faro procedure during which we
keep track of the bottom card of the packet. Or, more bluntly, the only card we care about
is the very bottom card of the packet. We won't care how many cards the packet initially
contains, or whether we begin the procedure with an injog or an outjog. The only thing
we'll watch for is whether the bottom card winds up in the outjogged portion or the
injogged portion.
 f>LUtt O~ACLE 2~

Here's a simple illustration. Let's assume that a selected card (our "Target") has
secretly been controlled to the top of the deck. Shuffle the pack, secretly keeping the
Target on top, and then have a spectator" cut off about a third of the deck" and hand it
to you. Give that packet a casual overhand shuffle, secretly shuffling the Target to the
bottom. You're now at the starting point for the Bluff Oracle.

Execute a Reverse Faro procedure exactly as outlined above, but simply note whether
the Target (the final card) gets injogged or outjogged. You can note this visually (in
which case you need to glance down at your hands only at the very end of the
procedure) or by sense of touch alone. Strip out the outjogged cards from the injogged
ones and hold one packet in each hand, remembering which hand's packet contains the
Target. Hold your two hands outstretched, palms up, as if "weighing" the two packets;
you can play up this "mental balancing" as much or as little as you want. Then, as if
you've made a decision, set aside the packet that doesn't include the Target to form a
discard pile. You've "committed" yourself and have eliminated half the cards.

Now take the remaining half (which has the Target as its face card) and simply repeat
the process. Again, follow where the bottom card goes, and do another "elimination,"
again discarding whichever pile does not contain the Target. You can repeat this
winnowing-down process as many times as you want, until you're down to just one
card. Since the bottom card always will remain as the bottom card of either the
outjogged pile or the injogged pile, there's nothing else you need to do or to know.
That, in a nutshell, is the Bluff Oracle.

We can, of course, embellish it. If you want to offer your spectator"choices," one way
is simply to employ equivoque; for instance, by saying "Point to one" without specifying
what precisely will happen, you leave yourself open to either discarding the pointed-to-
packet, or using it for another round.

Another way of apparently offering the spectator a choice is to employ one or more of
the "Flexibility" options noted earlier. For example, while you're alternating the cards,
ask someone if she wants to eliminate the "Left" or "Right" cards; whichever she calls,
you could then make sure that the Target winds up in the "retained" packet by
employing the Left/Right option.

Or you can progress to the next level.

f>LUtt 0f\ACL€-5€CON> l€U€L (Tfl€ DOUf>L€ OPTIOfl)

I call this the Double Option because you're going to hold a double card as one. But
don't think "double lift" or "double turnover." There's no "move" here. By simply
24 AMDEC~O

holding a double card, you'll have complete control over whether the Target winds up in either
the injog or the outjog half And again, there's no math involved and it works with
virtually any size packet.

There are several uses for this Double Option, but certainly the ability to control which
way the Target will fall is a powerful tool. Let's run through a simple example.
Assume that you're starting with a packet of indeterminate number, with the Target
secretly on the bottom. Casually spread the cards between your hands as you
comment, "I have no idea whether your card happens to be among these or not." Use this
opportunity to take a left pinky break above the bottom two cards of the packet, and
then square up the cards into your left hand.

You'll now do the Reverse Faro procedure exactly as before, all the time holding the
two bottom cards (i.e., those below the break) as one. You'll find that maintaining the
break in no way interferes with performing the injog/ outjog procedure; the left pinky
simply keeps the bottom two cards in alignment with each other. Figure 1 shows what
the procedure looks like from above; the Reverse Faro procedure looks completely
normal, with no visible evidence that you're holding a double below. Figure 2 is the
same scene, but with the hand tilted forward, to expose the double that's in fact being
held by the left pinky throughout the procedure.

Continue injogging and outjogging alternate cards until you're down to the double
card. But watch the card that falls immediately above the double - we want to see whether
it happens to be an outjog or an injog. For example, let's assume that card happens to
be an outjog. You now have two options as to how to complete the procedure:

(i) if you want your Target to wind up on the bottom of the injogged pile, then
simply end the Reverse Faro procedure by injogging the double card, still held as
one, and stop there. You can then strip out the outjogged cards as described
above; or
 bLUtt OtiACLE 25

(ii) if you want your Target to wind up on the bottom of the outjogged pile, then
injog the double card and release your pinky break, as you immediately outjog
the (now single) Target card so it aligns under the rest of the outjogged cards.

Just one or two tries will show you how easy and how imperceptible this is. No one
knows the exact number of cards that remains, so they can't tell whether a card is
"missing" or has suddenly appeared. Note that you can wait until the very end of the
Reverse Faro procedure to make your "decision," because there's no get-ready involved
and not much to do; you'll either split the double or you won't depending on where
you want the Target to fall.

Although in my example above we assumed the card immediately above the double
w as outjogged, that was solely for illustration; it doesn't matter which way the card
immediately above the double goes. The Double Option works in either situation. If in
fact the card immediately above the double is an "injog" you'll simply reverse the
options. But the procedure and choice are always the same: by either splitting the
double or not, you can completely control the final orientation of the Target.

How can we use this? One way is to offer the spectator an apparently fair choice.
Before you begin your Reverse Faro procedure, you could ask the spectator which half,
injogs or outjogs, she wants you to eliminate. (When speaking with a lay spectator, I
usually refer to the two options as 'backward or forward.') Once she specifies, you can
then use the Double Option to control the Target into the half that she chose to be
retained.

This control feature also allows you to build in some measure of consistency in successive
Reverse Faros. For instance, on the first Reverse Faro you can do a Bluff Oracle-First
Level Gust watching the bottom card and letting the Target fall as a single card
wherever it may) and then eliminate the other half. Let's say that you eliminate the
injogged cards. You can point out that the injogged cards are the ones being eliminated
(thus supposedly" establishing" a protocol). You can now do a second Reverse Faro
with the remaining packet, this time taking your break on the bottom two cards. You
can then use the Double Option to control the Target so that it winds up in the
outjogged portion- and again eliminate the injogged packet.

And, of course, you could repeat the Double Option on a third (or more) successive
Reverse Faro, by each time taking a new break on the bottom two cards of whatever
packet remains.

A caveat. Don't push it too far. The Double Option works well so long as there are at
least, say seven or eight cards remaining, but once the total size of the packet gets any
smaller, it becomes a bit too easy for a spectator to count how many cards remain, or to
notice that an addtional card" appears" at the very end. (If you do use the Double
26 f1M DECl)O

Option for a fairly small-size packet, I'd recommend that you make sure that the backs
of your cards aren't in a direct sightline of your spectators.)

Instead of trying to use the Double Option until you're left with only a single card, my
preference, once you're down to seven or eight cards, is to change procedures and do
something different. For instance, just take the top few cards into one hand and the
bottom few in the other hand and have someone point to a hand. Or, once you're down
to three or four cards, you could deal them in a row across the table. In either case,
since you haven't yet said what's going to happen, the spectators don't have any
expectations, so there's no requirement to do continued Reverse Faros. You can use
whatever equivoque makes you comfortable.

mohE TffAn OnE TAhGET

So far we've only discussed having a single Target, but the mechanics of the Double
Option make it easy to maintain control of more than one card.

Let's say, for example, that you've had two cards selected and have controlled both to
the top of the deck. As in the basic level, have a spectator cut off about a third of the
deck and hand it to you. Take it and give it an overhand shuffle, initially running the
top two cards singly so that your two Targets become the bottom two cards of your
packet.

Now you can use the Double Option, holding both Target cards together as one, as you
perform the Reverse Faro injog/ outjog procedure. Here, you won't ever split the
double; you'll just treat the two cards as being tied together, as one. This will keep both
Target cards at the bottom of the same packet. Then, once you note which way the
double falls at the end of the alternating procedure, you can "weigh" the packets and
discard the appropriate (non-Target) half. If you then want to eliminate even more
cards, you can repeat the procedure; just retake a new break above the bottom two
cards of the retained packet and do another Reverse Faro procedure to narrow down
the size of the packet, still keeping both Target cards under your control.

As before, once the packet gets fairly small, it's best to change gears and do something
else for a final revelation. One simple suggestion: when you get down to a packet of
either four or five cards, just casually push all but the bottom two cards into your right
hand (leaving just the two Target cards in your left hand), and then discard the right-
hand packet. (And, of course, equivoque could be combined with this.)

Here's another deceptive revelation for two Targets. Perform one or more Reverse
Faros (using the Double handling to keep both Targets at the bottom) to narrow a larger
packet down to a smaller one. Once you're left with a packet of about ten or so cards,
 ~LUtt OtiACLE 27

just hand the packet to a spectator and say, "Here, you try it. Since you haven't done this
before, you can do it the beginner's way." Then have her deal the cards back and forth face
down into two piles onto the table (thus conveniently reversing their order) until she's
exhausted the packet. The last two cards dealt (one on top of each pile) will, of course,
be our two Targets. Her back-and-forth dealing resembles your Reverse Faro procedure
(but done on the table) so it's visually consistent. For a climax, have her turn over the
top card of each pile, where she'll discover the two Target cards.

~LUtt OhACLE-COUl'\Tll"IG

One of the advantages of the Bluff Oracle, as compared with the standard Reverse Faro,
is that it doesn't need or involve any math. And I'm not in favor of introducing math or
setups into it. But there is one point where some extremely simple counting can be of
some help.

Let's go back to the basic level we first looked at. Remember, at that basic level the
Target card is always kept on the bottom, and we eliminate whichever half (outjog or
injog) doesn't include it. I'm now suggesting the possibility of simply counting the
cards as you perform your Reverse Faro. And, to make it really simple, it's even easier
if you just count half the cards, either only the outjogs or only the injogs. And, to make
it extremely easy, let me add that really the only thing I'm interested in learning is
whether that half contains an odd or an even number of cards.

Why? What good does this do us? It allows us to plan ahead for, and control the
outcome of, the subsequent round, the next Reverse Faro. Because if you know whether
the total number of cards in your packet is odd or even, you can then control whether
the Target card will end up in either an outjog or an injog condition. How? By simply
varying whether you begin the Reverse Faro with an injog or an outjog.

An example will make this clear. Imagine that we start with a packet of about a third of
the deck, and that we know that our Target card is on the bottom. (For our specific
example, let's assume that the packet contains seventeen cards- but, of course, we
wouldn't know that total.) You do your first Reverse Faro, and let's say you start by
injogging the top card, outjogging the second, and so on. Do everything exactly as
described above- only this time silently count to yourself the number of "outjogs."
When you finish the Reverse Faro, you will now know two things. First, you'll know
whether the Target wound up as an injog or an outjog (which, as we've seen, tells you
which half to discard). Second, your counted total of just the outjogs will tell you
exactly how many cards are in the half that you're keeping.

In our example, the Target will wind up as an injog. That's because we started with an
odd-numbered packet (of 17 seventeen cards) and we began with the card in position#
20 AMDECKO

1 being an injog. Whenever the number of cards in the packet is "odd," then the Target
will wind up in the same orientation as the first card; alternatively, when the total
number of cards in the packet is "even," then the Target will wind up in the opposite
orientation from the first card. (As a mnemonic, I simply remember "Odd-Same" and
everything else flows from that.)

In our example we would have counted a total of eight outjogged cards. This, of course,
tells us that the there are exactly eight cards in the outjogged half- but it also tells us, or
allows us to calculate, the exact number of cards in the injogged half. (In our example,
since we began with an injog and the Target card finished in an injogged condition, we
can quickly see that the injogged half has a total of nine cards) .

I'm not going to explain that calculation further or go over the four possible options you
might encounter, since they're all pretty intuitive. I find that counting just half the
cards is not only easier than trying to count every card in the packet, but it saves me
from dividing a larger number in half, so that's the way I do it. If you want to try other
ways of counting, feel free to do so. Any method that tells you how many cards remain
in the packet that you're keeping (including the Target card) is fine.

Back to our example. Once you've done your first Reverse Faro procedure, you strip
out and discard the outjogs (because the Target was an injog). You're left holding the
injogged cards, and you're now ready to do a second Reverse Faro. But now you know
that the packet you're holding contains an odd number of cards, i.e., 9, and so you can
now control which way the Target card will fall by simply starting this next Reverse
Faro with an injog or an outjog, as appropriate. This allows you to establish a
consistency of discards (if you care about that), or it allows you to let the spectator name
beforehand which half you should discard.

And, finally, when you do this second Reverse Faro, if you again count just one half,
you can plan ahead for yet another Reverse Faro.

I think that's probably enough for now. As you've seen, you can accomplish a lot, with
little or no arithmetic, formulae, setups, or work. And I'm not bluffing.

commEm5
(1) Sources. Karl Fulves' "Oracle" originally appeared in his magazine The
Pallbearers' Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, November 1970, p. 374. Shortly thereafter, Lin Searles
contributed a surprise climax in which the four Aces were produced as the top cards of
the four eliminated discard piles ("Moracle," The Pallbearers ' Review, Vol. 6, No. 6, July
1971, p. 430). One of the more successful uses of the "Moracle" ending can be found in
John Bannon's "Beyond Fabulous" (Kaufman, The Looking Glass, Spring 1996, p. 56; also
in John's Dear Mr. Fantasy, 2004), where John uses the "Oracle" elimination procedure
 f>LUtt Of\ACLE 29

to discover the final AS in the Henry Christ "Fabulous Ace Routine" and then, per
"Maracle," shows that he's also produced the remaining four cards that make up a
Royal Flush in Spades. My "Euph-oracle" (Try the Impossible (2001), p. 26) offers the
option of producing two selections (or even two sets of four) by working off both the
bottom and the top of the deck simultaneously. My "Bluff Oracle" first saw print in
John Bannon's effect "Chronic" (MAGIC Magazine, February 2012, reprinted in John's
book High Caliber, (2013)), but there John only described what I've called the "Basic"
level.

(2) More than Two. The notion of controlling two Target cards can be expanded
to three, and even four, if you' re comfortable with holding that many cards as one. My
suggestion above of revealing them by having the spectator deal the packet into piles
w orks equally well (e.g., if you've controlled three Target cards, you could tell the
spectator to deal the cards into three piles), but with more than two piles, the visual
analogy or parallel to the Reverse Faro gets a bit stretched.

(3) Attitude. A key to having the Bluff Oracle succeed is for the spectator not to
think too hard about it or focus intensely on it. If you emphasize how fair or random
the procedure is, this can have the adverse effect of putting the spectator on her guard,
as she tries to check or verify it;., The procedure works best when you're completely
nonchalant and don't seem to care much about the procedure, just sort of haphazardly
divvying up the cards while you talk about something else.

(4) Uses. I leave it up to each reader to apply the Bluff Oracle to your own
routines. My personal feeling is that it's best used as just one part of a larger trick,
instead of as a standalone effect on its own. But if you're looking for a concise,
completely impromptu, double-discovery effect, try combining (1) the Bedwell Control
for two selections with (2) the Bluff Oracle Double Option- More than One Target
revelation. The Bedwell procedure instantly delivers both selections to the top. You
can then have a spectator cut off a random packet, and you're ready to discover both
using Bluff Oracle.
l=untky l=our-f or-l=our Switc~

his is a simple utility switch that Mergel Funsky has used for many years. It's

T basically a four-for-four switch that accomplishes a result similar to Derek Dingle's

"Nolap Switch," or to Stephen Hobbs' "Subterranean Switch."

In appearance the action is straightforward and simple. The performer spreads the
face-down deck and has one or more spectators freely touch four cards, each of which is
outjogged halfway from the deck. The four outjogged cards are stripped out and the
rest of the deck is placed aside, face up. At that point the four touched cards have
already been switched for the four Aces (or whatever four cards you need for your
particular effect).

I won't argue that this particular switch is better or more convincing than other
available methods, but it is one that I use quite often. To me, the virtues of the Funsky
Four-for-Four Switch are its efficiency and the fact that it's easy to do.

WOM~ll'lG

For this description let's assume that we're going to use the move to switch in the four
Aces. (I actually am not in favor of using this switch, or similar moves, for an
immediate magical production of four-of-a-kind, but let's save that discussion for later.)
Start with your four Aces on the bottom of the deck, in any order. You can shuffle the
cards so long as you retain the bottom block.

1) Spread the cards face down between your hands as you address your
spectator, "In a moment, I'll spread the cards like this, and I want you to extend your finger
and just touch a card. I'll go slowly, because you need to touch several cards." Use this
spreading demonstration to obtain a left pinky break above the bottom four cards; then
square up.
 tun5tW tOUfdOti-tOUh SWITCfl ~1

2) Spread through the deck, and

have your spectator touch any four cards.
Pace your spreading so that all four cards
have been indicated before you reach the
bottom four. As each card is touched,
outjog it for approximately half its length,
forming a rough fan (Figure 1). The wider
the fan, the better; it's going to close
somewhat on the next step, so the wider it
starts out, the more it will still be a fan
after it squares up a bit.

3) With your right hand, close up the spread, enough so that your left thumb can
lightly clamp down on the top card of the
deck, near the outer left corner, to grip the
entire deck; the deck is thus momentarily
held just by the left hand, by pressure
between the left thumb above and the left
first finger underneath (Figure 2). Note
that the right hand doesn't square up the
deck completely or precisely; it's just
enough so that the left hand can grip the
deck and free up the right hand.

The fan of outjogged cards will, of course, square up somewhat with this squaring of
the deck, but the four cards should still remain slightly spread; the more that the
outjogged cards remain spread, the more cover you'll have for the next move.

4) The right hand, now free, moves

inward and turns a bit more palm up, as
your left pinky pulls down to widen the
break above the four Aces slightly. This
allows the right fingers to enter the break
at the inner right corner of the deck. The
right hand now takes hold of all of the
cards (except for the Aces below the
break), gripping them at the inner right
corner, fingers underneath (in the break)
and right thumb above (Figure 3).

The left hand is still below the deck, now holding just the four Aces. The Aces are
lightly gripped at their inner end, held between the left pinky and the base of the left
 thumb. The left thumb still rests on top of
the deck, but isn't holding it. I find it helps if
I extend my left first finger so that it lightly
touches the outer end of the Ace block.

5) You'll now move the Aces to below

the outjogged fan, and then strip the four
outjogged cards out from the deck with your
left hand; those cards will fall on top of the
Aces, but the left pinky will maintain a break
between the two groups.

You have a choice of how to get into position

to do this strip out. One way is to hold the
deck in place with the right hand while the
left hand moves its Ace block forward; the
other way is to hold the left hand steady, as
the right hand pulls the deck and the
outjogged cards inward. Or you can combine
both motions, doing a little of each.

However you proceed, the Ace block should

stay hidden, covered by the fan of outjogged
cards. You can tilt your hands downward
slightly to provide more cover from the front.
Once you're in this position, press down with
your left thumb on the back of the uppermost
outjogged card (Figure 4, an exposed view
from the right side), pressing all four
outjogged cards onto the Ace block. Once the
eight cards are thus gripped, continue to
move your left hand forward, stripping the outjogged cards from the deck. All eight
cards are now flush at their outer end; your left first finger at the outer end, and your
left second and third fingers at the outer right side, help squeeze the two blocks
together while the left pinky still holds its break between the blocks at the inner right
side (Figure 5). You can rotate your left wrist clockwise slightly to turn the break more
toward the floor, if you need to hide it more from the right side, but you'll only be in
this position momentarily.

6) As soon as the outjogged cards have cleared the deck, your left hand reverses
direction and takes hold of the entire deck, taking it from the right hand, as follows.
Bring all the left-hand cards beneath the deck as the left thumb opens up to grasp the
deck at its left long side (Figure 6). Pinch the deck firmly with the left thumb on the
 fUl'l5tW fOUtdOh-fOUh )WITCH ))

outer left corner, while you open or extend

your left first finger enough to grasp the full
front end of the deck. The right hand
releases its grip entirely and moves away
from the deck (Figure 7). The cards above
the pinky break (the original outjogged
cards) will coalesce with the bottom of the
deck as your left hand takes the deck.

7) Without stopping, rotate your left

wrist, turning your left hand palm down
(thus turning the entire deck face up), and set
the deck face up onto the table (a bit to the left
of center), releasing all the cards except for
the Aces (Figure 8). Your face-down palm
w ill cover all, or most of, the face Ace.

8) As soon as the left hand tables the

deck, without stopping its movement the left
hand immediately rotates palm up, which
turns its packet of four cards face-down as
they come into view (Figure 9), and at once
moves toward the center of the table. You
can then either spread the cards face down
between your hands to display four backs (as
in Figure 10) or drop them onto the table and
then spread them.

* * *

That's all there is to Mergel Funsky' s switch.

Now a few points of finesse and touch-up.

First, I've broken it into small, separately

numbered steps for reference and so we can
isolate each action, but in practice it all flows
together. In particular, steps 5-8 are all done
as one continuous action: the left hand strips
out the four touched cards and places the rest
of the deck aside. There is no pause or
hesitation from step 5 through step 8.

Second, this is not a fast or furtive action. It's

done at your normal, casual pace. My attitude is to perform it almost as a nonchalant
lead-in, or a get-ready, something that happens before the trick "proper" starts. My
inner "mental" script runs something like: "Hey, for this next trick we'll need four cards, so
here, touch a few. Fine, we won't need the rest of this deck. Okay, now that we have these four
cards, let's begin."

Third, misdirection always helps. With this in mind, I consider two things. The first is
where should the deck be placed? The impression I'm trying to create is that I'm placing
the deck aside, because I no longer need it (at least for now) . So the deck is placed
offstage, into a "shadow" area, not at center stage. I generally place it off to the left,
near the inner edge of my mat, and as soon as the deck is down, my left hand with its
four-card packet immediately moves forward to center stage, as I lean forward;
attention is not on the deck.

The second thing I consider is doing something with my right hand, to draw attention to it.
As soon as the left hand takes the deck at step 6 (thus freeing the right hand), I may use
my right hand to point at a spectator, saying, "Mergel, you could have chosen any card, but
... ," or I may pick up something (a rubber band, paper clip, or wand) or move the card
box off (or onto) the mat. When all else fails, I can brush the imaginary dust off my mat
(it's amazing how often mats get dusty when sleights happen). The right hand does its
thing as the left hand is placing the deck aside.

Such misdirection isn't absolutely required because the switch is well-covered and quite
natural. In fact, try this experiment: perform the real, normal action you're trying to
simulate - but without switching in any cards! Don't use any Aces at all. Don't start
with a break. Just spread a deck, outjog four cards, and then strip them out with your
left hand. Now, with your left hand take the deck from your right hand. (Just grip the
deck at approximately its outer right quadrant, holding it with your left thumb above
and left first finger below; the deck goes right on top of the four left-hand cards, and
your left pinky naturally maintains a separation between the four-card packet and the
deck above it.) Turn your left hand palm down and deposit the now face-up deck onto
the table, retaining the four-card packet in your left hand. Turn your hand palm up and
spread the four face-down cards. You'll see that the natural actions when doing it "for
real" pretty closely resemble the actions of the switch.

But having said that, it's still better to employ misdirection if you can.

U5E5

Finally, a personal opinion on possible applications. I find that one of the most
common uses of such moves is to produce and immediately reveal four Aces or another
four-of-a-kind. While the magical effect achieved is undoubtedly quick and startling, I
 fUl)5fW fOUfrtOf\-tOUf\ SWITCH )5

have my doubts about whether the deceptive quality of such a use is long-lasting.
Consider the scenario from the spectator's perspective: she knows, or feels, that she had
a free selection of these four cards, but then instantly the cards are all shown to be
clearly related to one another (the values all match!) in an obviously non-random way.
An early conclusion, or even a first thought, by an intelligent spectator might well be:
"These can't be the cards I touched! He must have somehow switched them." That's a
perfectly acceptable conclusion if you want to be admired for your dexterous skill, but it
doesn't create a strong feeling of impossible magic. There are two problems with such
an immediate revelation: the cards and the timing. When four cards are seen to "belong
together," it sends a signal that that particular outcome was planned. And the moment
of magic occurs right on the heels of the moment of the move; some separation in time
would remove that connection.

My preference would be to use the Funsky Four-for-Four Switch as a way of

introducing four cards that are apparently random and unrelated but, by virtue of the
switch, are secretly forced. These cards can then be shown and later used for building a
coincidence effect that appears to have no explanation. If the four touched cards
visually appear to be unrelated (so nothing "magical" has yet occurred), there's no
suspicion at the moment when they're revealed.
/

I'm not going to describe specific effects here, but let me suggest the kinds of plots I'm
thinking about. First, the Funsky Four-for-Four Switch might be used in any effect in
which you secretly need to force several selections-perhaps a rising card effect, or a
card sword, or card stab, or virtually any effect where duplicates will later be produced
or revealed. I used to perform a gaffed Universal Card routine, which was enhanced if
the individual selections looked random. A prediction routine becomes stronger the
more free and unrestricted the selection procedure appears.

Second, the cards' properties can be used in a subtle way that doesn't reveal that those
specific four cards were "planned as a set." For instance, a spectator touches any four
cards, which are removed, and then their indices are added together to get a "random"
total. Since the total is, in fact, forced, you can plan for something magical to occur
when she counts down to that number (e.g., she finds a selected card or finds a named
card in a second deck, etc.) I've experimented with this methodology in connection
with my "Totals" effects, elsewhere in this book (see Comment 4 to "Total Recall").

Here's one more example I've tried. There are several powerful effects using the
"Gemini deal-down procedure" done four times (see, e.g., my "Quad-Mates Revisited"
in Simply Simon, or Allan Ackerman's "Gemini Mates" in his Las Vegas Kardma). These
can become stronger if you start by having any four cards freely touched and tabled; the
Funsky Four-for-Four Switch enables you to use these still-apparently-random cards to
discover their respective mates, through repeated use of the Gemini procedure.
I'm certainly not an absolutist on this "no four-of-a-kind" guideline, and I'm
occasionally guilty of using the Funsky Four-for-Four Switch to have four spectators
each "find their own" selections- but there at least the visual sense of four random and
unrelated cards is maintained.

Balancing the entertainment value of an instant visual effect against the mystery of a
seemingly impossible outcome is one of the enduring challenges of our art. While
there's often a tradeoff, it's always worth considering both sides.
tlronton Stripout 2.()

n my book Simply Simon I describe a simple full-deck false shuffle, which I titled the

I Aronson Stripout. It's fairly easy to do (as stripout shuffles go) because you aren't
ever working with a "fine" or slim brief; one portion of the deck remains protruding
a good half inch from the other portion, so there is little danger of losing any cards from
one half to the other. The protruding ends are masked by the fingers in front.

One feature of the Aronson St;ipout is particularly noteworthy: to accomplish the strip
out, the deck is cut forward on the table into three (not two) distinct piles, which are
then picked up one on top of the other to reassemble the pack. This triple cut generated
some attention, in both positive and negative ways. On the plus side, it truly makes it
appear as if the top card of the deck is buried. The gathering of the three piles seems to
change the order of the cards (it doesn't). On the negative side, the cut into three piles
does not conform to strict card-gaming procedure, and so it conceivably might raise
eyebrows.

This last criticism never bothered me, since

I've never sought to imitate gaming-table
protocol. I present myself as a magician, not
a gambler, and while I perform and enjoy
gambling themes in card magic, I've never
felt that a magician would be judged by
anything approximating such standards.
Magicians regularly handle and display cards
in ways that would be deemed eccentric,
silly, or deadly at a game table, but that's part
of what magicians do. Anything from a
Charlier one-handed cut to a pressure fan (let alone Sybil-like displays) would be cause
for being banned from a game, but that doesn't prevent such techniques from playing a
significant role in our magic.
)0 AM DECKO

When I give the deck a table riffle shuffle followed by a few cuts, as a magician I want
the spectator to believe two things. First, that the cards are really mixed up, in an
uncontrolled random way, and second, that I didn't do anything else. That's it. When
Juan Tamariz pushes two interlaced rows of cards together, or when Lennart Green has
a spectator push two rosettes of cards into each other-he achieves those two goals. No
one worries whether those procedures would be allowed in Las Vegas.

Nevertheless, I've long been intrigued by the question of whether I could somehow
adapt the Aronson Stripout so that the three packets would be immediately dropped
one on top of the other, in sort of a running cut action (instead of requiring a row of
three separate packets on the table). The Aronson Stripout 2.0 is my solution, and I'm
quite happy with it. It's not a replacement for the original, because I still think the look
of the three separate piles adds a distinct feeling of randomness, but the Aronson
Stripout 2.0 does more closely resemble a normal shuffle and running cut procedure. I
now use both versions regularly.

As a preview, so you'll understand where we're headed, let me explain that I'm going
to "build" toward my final goal, by describing the Aronson Stripout 2.0 in three stages.
Part One sets forth the basic shuffle and cutting procedure in detail. This sequence has
the overall effect of maintaining the deck in cyclical order but with one cut. If you use a
cyclical stack- like Si Stebbins or Eight Kings or any other full deck setup that does not
have a specific beginning and endpoint (such as an alternating red/black setup)-it is
completely practical for maintaining that cyclical stack. In addition, I'll show you how
you can incorporate a slight "ledge" or "step" to mark off the point where the original
bottom card lands above the original top card. By giving the deck one simple table cut
(at that step), the deck will be brought back to its full original order.

Part Two sets forth a minor variation of the first procedure; once you learn the first
procedure, you'll automatically know how to do the second. This second procedure
likewise has the overall effect of maintaining the deck in complete cyclical order, also
with one cut. It's convenient to have two variations, but the main reason for knowing
this second variation is explained in Part 3.

Part Three describes the breakthrough I'm really quite pleased with. When you
combine both variations (i.e., when you perform the Part One procedure immediately
followed by the variation in Part Two) the net effect of doing both together is to bring
the deck back to its original full order. You'll see exactly what I mean as we progress.

Pf'IOCEDUf'IE

I'm not really sure that there actually is a left-handed or right-handed way to perform
table riffle shuffles because you should be able to cut, say, the top portion either to the
 l'.if\Ol'l501'l )Tf\IPOUT 2.0 )9

right or to the left (which necessitates doing it with either hand); likewise, in doing the
riffle you should be able to drop cards off first from either the left-hand packet or the
right, and so on. But in order to be consistent with the descriptions in Simply Simon, I'm
going to describe this shuffle as most righties would probably perform it. (A personal
note: I'm left-handed-and was left-handed back in 1995-and thus most of the time I
perform both the original and this 2.0 variation with the opposite hands from those
described in the text. So, if you ever see me present these shuffles, don't be surprised if
it looks as if you're watching yourself in a mirror. Lefties, please do feel free to reverse
all right/left references if it feels more comfortable for you. It does work either way.)

For those of you who learned my original Aronson Stripout procedure from Simply
Simon, you're about 90% of the way already because the following largely tracks those
original actions. You'll quickly see the few places where it differs.

PAM On€-Tfl€ ·r,onom CU( Sfluttl€

1) Start with the face-down deck on the table in front of you in riffle shuffle
position. For ease of description, imagine the deck divided approximately into thirds,
labeled from top down A, B, aµd C. With your right hand, undercut the bottom third
(section C) to the right. It's because this Part One variation starts with a cut of the
bottom third that I've named it the "Bottom Cut" Shuffle. (The version in Part Two
varies only in that it begins by cutting the top third (section A) to the right, and I
unimaginatively call that version the "Top Cut" Shuffle.)

2) Begin a riffle shuffle of the two portions by first letting a substantial block
(about half the left-hand portion) fall from the left-hand cards to form a thick bed. I'll
call this block or bed section B since it was
the original middle section of the deck. The
left-hand cards that remain above this
dropped bed we'll call section A since it was
approximately the original top third of the
deck. Now shuffle the right-hand cards (C)
into section A, making sure that at least one
card from the left portion (section A) falls
last. Figure 1 shows the situation at this
point.

3) You'll now begin to push the halves into one another. Although your hands
assume similar positions, actually your right hand will do all of the moving, pushing
section C into section A, while your left hand will basically hold the aligned sections
A/B steady in place. The second, third, and fourth fingers of each hand are in front,
covering the ends of the deck. Push section C into section A for about three-quarters of
40 AMDEC~O

its length, until the left end of section C

slides just behind the left fingers. At this
point, from the front, only the exposed
middle of the front edge of the deck can be
seen; the right and left ends of the deck are
hidden behind the screen formed by the
fingers of each hand. The audience will see
only the fully-meshed middle portion, but
approximately half an inch of section C still
remains rightjogged, hidden behind the
right fingers. Figure 2 shows the deck from the performer's view.

4) Without pause, with your right thumb lift up slightly on the inner right corner
of the still rightjogged portion of section C. The left thumb at the inner edge of sections
A/B relaxes slightly to allow the break created by the right thumb to run across the
entire length of the deck, to the inner left corner. The front edge of the deck acts as a
fulcrum, or hinge, so that the break appears
only along the inner edge of the deck. This
break need not be large - indeed the smaller
the better-but don't worry if at the
beginning you want to make it a bit larger
than necessary. Figure 3 depicts this break.
The most important part of this step 4 is the
first two words: you lift to obtain this break
without pause in the action of pushing the
halves together. This apparent pushing
continues into step 5.

5) Your right hand, still gripping its section C, continues to move toward the left,
apparently pushing its cards "flush" into the left-hand portion; at least, that's what it
looks like from the front. Actually the right hand slides the entire upper block
(everything above the break, consisting of section C telescoped into section A) to the
left, for the remaining half inch, until the right end of section C is even with the right
end of section B below it. The left hand remains stationary, as the interwoven C/ A
block moves to the left. The right thumb maintains the break throughout this leftward
movement, allowing the upper portion (C/ A) to slide easily across the lower portion B,
because the only contact between the moving upper portion and the stationary lower
section Bis at the front edge.

After C/ A has slid to the left, the bed B will now be directly below C. At the end of this
sliding movement, the right ends of portions C and B will be roughly flush, while
approximately half an inch of the left end of section A will now be leftjogged. This
leftjogged portion will be screened from the front by the left fingers. The right thumb
 ~hOn5on )ThlPOUT 2.0 41

still maintains its break, between C and B.

Figure 4 depicts the deck at this stage (a
performer's view). Note how the right
thumb is now immediately above the right
end of the lower portion B. From the front,
the audience will have seen the top card of
the deck (the top of section A) continue its
movement to the left and will assume that
all the packets have been pushed
completely flush. They are unaware of
either the jog of section A or the break at
the rear edge.

As far as the audience is concerned, the shuffle has been completed.

6) You're going to immediately follow this shuffle by cutting three packets and
dropping one on top of the other. In the course of these cuts, the shuffled portion will
secretly be stripped out. To accomplish this, you may need to adjust the position of
your thumbs slightly. The right thumb reaches down a bit so that its tip can touch
packet B. Apply a light press~re so that the right thumb now grips both sections C and
B simultaneously while still keeping the break between them. The left thumb moves to the
left a bit, just enough so that it grips only the leftjogged portion (i.e., only the cards
constituting section A).

I don't want to make a big deal of this "adjustment" of the thumbs, because in practice
the necessary movement is minimal and takes only an instant. Depending on the size of
your thumbs and where you're already gripping the packets, you might not need to
move your thumbs at all. The goal is simply to have packets C and B gripped by the
right hand (thumb in back, fingers in front) while packet A is gripped similarly by the
left hand. Just make sure the right thumb maintains the break between C and B. This
"adjustment" happens as the hands apparently finish pushing their halves together;
they never release the deck.

Here's a tip that will make the upcoming stripout cut easier: take a moment at this point
to "aerate" the deck. Simply bevel the deck backward just a slight bit, and then bevel it
forward, back to its original condition. This isn't a "big" action, just a slight rocking of
the hands (really, just the fingers and thumbs, back and forth once) . This action allows
a bit more air to enter between the cards, and the resulting extra "breathing space"
allows the cards to stripout more freely.
42 f1M DECKO

7) For your first "cut," hold your left hand (with its packet A) stationary, as you
move your right hand forward and slightly to the right, carrying its combined C/B
packet with it. This forward motion of the C/B portion will strip the upper portion C
out from section A, while the right thumb maintains its break between C and B (Figure
5 depicts this stripping-out action "in process"). As soon as the C/B packet clears
section A, release your grip on A with your left thumb so A drops onto the table (Figure
6). This drop of packet A is your first "cut."

As you carry the C/B packet forward, try to avoid swinging it far to the right; the
movement of C/B should be only enough to clear A. The reason for this is that when
the C/B packet clears, its left short end is visibly vulnerable, and you don't want
anyone to catch a glimpse of the break at the rear corner. If you travel only a short
distance forward and keep your right wrist turned inward (so that the right-hand
packet doesn't swing outward), you should be fine, but it's something to be aware of.
See the handling tips for one more suggestion.

8) For your second "cut," immediately reverse direction with your right hand,
moving its C/B packet backward, over the tabled packet A. When C/B is roughly
above the tabled A, with your left hand grip the left end of packet C (the cards above
the break) between your left second finger (at the front) and left thumb (at the rear) as
your right hand simultaneously loosens its grip on C (Figure 7). Once your left hand
grips C, your right hand reverses direction and moves forward again, this time taking
with it only its remaining packet B.
 /!lti0rl50rl STtilPOUT 2.0 4)

Your left hand now appears to simply release or drop its packet C onto the tabled A.
Actually you "place" C onto A, and as you do, the side of your left thumb lightly
nudges or brushes the top card of the tabled packet A so that this top card slides
backward a bit (about one-quarter inch is fine) to form a slight injog at the rear of the
deck (see Figure 8). This slight jog will serve as a convenient" step" later on.

9) Finally, the right hand again reverses direction, carrying its sole remaining
packet B back over the C/ A tabled packet, and drops or slaps Bon top of C/ A. The
shuffle and triple cut is now complete.

In fact, the deck is still in its cyclical order; it has effectively been given one cut (which is
marked off by the injog) . Obviously if all you care about is maintaining the cyclical
order of a stack and don't care about marking off the original top card, you can
dispense with the injog at step 8. I mention how easy it is to create because you might
want to proceed with a final table cut per step 10 below, which will restore the original
order. This step or injog will be important when we get to Part Three later on.

At the end of this "Bottom Cut" Shuffle, the net effect of the shuffle and triple cut is
simply that you have cut the top third of the deck to the bottom. Figure 9 shows
diagrammatically what has oc5=urred, from start to finish. The arrows depict the
movement of each of the three packets during the stripout shuffle and the triple cut;
while it's certainly not necessary to memorize this, once you do get a feel for how each
packet moves, you'll understand how and why Part Three works.

A B
B
c
Before
x c
A
After
Figure 9

10) If you do want to perform a full deck control and return to original order, all
that's needed is to do one table cut at the injog. Simply grip the tabled deck with both
hands at the ends with your thumbs on the rear edge. Press down with your thumb (or
both thumbs) on the injog to form a break above it. While one hand holds the two-
thirds of the deck above the break steady, the other hand undercuts the cards below the
break forward until they clear, and then drops them on top of the deck. The deck is
now back to its original order. This entire sequence (the shuffle, triple cut, and final
table cut) is an easy, efficient, and casual looking procedure to apparently mix the cards.
44 f1M DECKO

PAf\T TWO-TffE "TOP CU( SffUttLE

This second version is almost the same as the "Bottom Cut" version. In fact, it's so close
that I'll describe it by pointing out the only two differences between the versions.

The first difference occurs at the very beginning. Step 1 of the "Bottom Cut" version
began by undercutting section C (the bottom third) to the right. This version begins by
instead cutting the top third (section A) to the right-hence the name "Top Cut" Shuffle.

From that point on, you'll do everything exactly as in the first version, all the way from
step 1 through step 9. However, although you're performing the same actions with the
same hands, and moving packets in the same right or left direction as in the first
version, keep in mind that, because your right hand initially cuts off a different third (A,
as opposed to C), you'll be working with packets that will be "lettered" differently.
Basically in this version, at step 2 you'll be shuffling A into B/ C, so C will form the
"bed." Then in step 5, the block that you slide across will be the interlaced A/B block.
When you do the triple cut, the first packet that gets dropped on the table in step 7 will
be B; then in step 8 the second packet will be A; and the final packet that is dropped on
top in step 9 will be C. (Please don't let this confuse you. I'm just trying to point out
which packets move where. You don't need to memorize this.)

The second, and only other, difference between this Top Cut Shuffle and the first
version is when you create the injog or step to mark off the original top of the deck. For
this Top Cut version, you'll create the injog as you drop the third or final packet at step 9
(instead of in step 8 as in the first version). That's because, in this Top Cut version, the
division between the original top and bottom cards occurs between the second and
third packets dropped. Figure 10 shows diagrammatically the before and after
condition of this Top Cut version and the movement of each packet.

A c
B
c
Before
><! A
B
After
Figure 10

Again, if you compare the two versions, you'll see that the net effect of the shuffle and
triple cut in this Top Cut version is simply that you have cut the top two-thirds of the deck
to the bottom.
 ~f\Orl50rl )Tf\IPOUT 2.0 45

Therefore, in this Top Cut version, if you do want to perform a full deck control and
return to original order, again all that's needed is to do one cut at the injog (i.e., between
c and A). An option: since in this version the lower portion that gets cut to the top is
approximately two-thirds of the deck (the A/B portion), that gives you enough cards to
give the deck an up-the-ladder cut (instead of just one straight cut). While any kind of
cut at the injog will work, my personal preference is to use a simple table cut for the
Bottom Cut version and an up-the-ladder cut for the Top Cut version.

If you pause to study the arrows themselves (as opposed to the A, B, C lettering) in
Figure 10, you'll note that the arrows in this Top Cut version are exactly a "vertical flip"
from the arrows in the Bottom Cut version (Figure 9). This "reverse" movement of the
packets in the two versions is what makes the combined sequence (described below in
Part Three) so efficient-because each version "undoes" the other.

PAtiTTflti€€-Tfl€ "Two SflUttL€" U€1'151on

So far I've explained two ways of doing the Aronson Stripout 2.0, each of which (with a
subsequent single cut) brings the deck back to original order. Part Three is actually the
sequence I use most often because it dispenses with any subsequent table cuts. It's
simply a combination of doing two Aronson Stripout 2.0 shuffles in sequence: the
Bottom Cut version followed by the Top Cut Version. The only addition is that at the
end of the first shuffle we'll use the injog as the point where we begin our shuffling on
the second shuffle. That's what's needed to control the position of the top card. Now
that you know the first two versions, the combined sequence is very easy to explain.
Here's the detail.

First, perform the Bottom Cut version of the Aronson Stripout 2.0, exactly as in steps 1-
9, including the injog of the top card of A at step 8- but don't do any final table cut as
described in step 10.

You'll now follow step 9 by doing the full Aronson Stripout 2.0 once more, this time
doing the Top Cut version. There is only one small difference, which occurs at the
beginning of this second shuffle sequence. In step 1, when you grip the deck to cut off
the top third with your right hand, at the same time with your left thumb press down a
bit on the injog at the inner left corner, just enough to open up a break above that jog.
That break should extend across the rear edge of the deck to the right edge. (For those
who are following the sections, original section C is immediately above that left thumb
break, and original section A is immediately below it. The original middle section B is
the one you're cutting off the top with your right hand.)

Then to begin the shuffle at step 2, with your left hand simply drop the cards below the
break as the "bed," and then begin your riffle shuffle by first dropping at least one card
46 ~MDEC~O

from the right portion onto this bed. That's the only "difference." Then complete the full
Top Cut version exactly as written through step 9-except, of course, you won't need
any second injog at the end, because the two sequences done in this order have fully
restored the original order.

Figure 11 shows diagrammatically the movement of each packet in each sequence. The
arrows on the left half of the page are those depicting what happens in the first shuffle
sequence, the Bottom Cut version (from Figure 9), while the arrows on the right side of
the page are those depicting what happens in the second shuffle sequence, the Top Cut
version (from Figure 10). When done together, you've got a full deck control.

A B A
B c B
c A c
After First Stripout After Second Stripout

Figure 11

UAf\IATIOl15

The Aronson Stripout 2.0 is amenable to several variant handlings, all of which adhere
to the above basic procedure. By calling them variants I don't want to minimize their
utility or imply that they're merely "sideline" choices. Some of you may prefer them as
your "regular" way of proceeding, instead of the particular handlings I've described
above. There are three ways I've varied the Aronson Stripout 2.0.

First, let's consider a case in which you're just doing one sequence-either the Bottom
Cut or Top Cut versions- but want to do a full deck control (not just" end" in cyclical
order). In either version, instead of doing a final table cut in step 10 to bring the deck
back to original order, you can substitute a pre-cut of the deck at the beginning of the
shuffle and then maintain the break until you begin shuffling; that's basically what
you're doing in the second half of the Two Shuffle version. By "precutting" one-third
or two-thirds of the deck at the outset, holding a break, and then beginning your shuffle
at that break, you're effectively accomplishing the first half of a Two Shuffle version.
And you can use this pre-cut on either the Bottom Cut or the Top Cut version. It's a
personal choice of whether you prefer to end, or begin, with a table cut; my choice is to
do the table cut after the triple cut (which is why I wrote the Bottom Cut and Top Cut
versions as I did) .
 11tiOl'l501'l 5TtilPOUT 2.0 47

A second way to vary these shuffles is to substitute a "push-through" instead of a

stripout. At step 1 (of either version), instead of cutting the initial packet with the right
hand to the right, use your left hand and cut it to the left. At step 2, shuffle it into the
upper half of the right hand's packet, leaving the lower half of the right-hand packet as
the "bed." Then for step 3 do a standard "push-through" of this packet all the way
through the "upper" packet, so that it protrudes about a half inch from the right side.
This will put you at the correct position to proceed with step 4 and the rest of the
shuffle and triple cut exactly as described. Since part of what makes the Aronson
Stripout 2.0 easy is the wide side brief (because the packets never really get close to
flush), a push-through becomes a serious alternative. I think a push-through provides a
convincing show of the outer ends of the packets going flush (they actually do-they
just keep on going, out the other end!). I've written the text with the stripout version
only because a stripout is probably in more common use than a push-through, but,
candidly, I feel more comfortable doing the Aronson 2.0 shuffle as a push-through.
Indeed, in order to write this up I've taken more time recently to practice the stripout
version, and it's not hard to gain facility doing it both ways.

A third variation is what I mentioned earlier: you could do it "other handed." As

stated, I'm a lefty, and I do the entire shuffle (both versions) exactly opposite from
what's described in the text. In order to write this up right-handed, I took some time to
learn it as a righty, and it's act~ally not too difficult to switch hands. While I'm not
recommending that you become ambidextrous, anyone who's done riffle shuffle work
for a while can attest that one way to throw people off the scent is to occasionally vary
the side to which you cut, or on which you strip out, or the side on which you, say, do
an up-the-ladder, etc. If you're doing the Two Shuffle version (my favorite) and you do
one sequence righty and the other lefty, it's more difficult to follow.

flAl'lDLll'lG TIPS

Let me offer a few tips and bits of finesse that might be of some help. (Some of these are
also in Simply Simon.)

First, in either version, each of the numbered steps should flow continuously into one
another. While I've broken the shuffles down into discrete steps for analytical
purposes, in practice the actions blend. The telescoping of the halves for three-fourths
of their length should continue directly into the sliding action of the upper section.
Likewise there should be no pause between the end of the shuffle and the beginning of
the triple cut. They should flow together into one seamless action.

Don't let any "windows" open up between the front fingers, or else your spectators
may catch a glimpse of the leftjogged portion. As you learn this, you may want to
constantly check a mirror, to make sure your fingers are touching each other.
40 ~M DECf)O

In step 5- as an alternative to sliding the upper telescoped section to the left- once the
right thumb lifts up to create the break, you may want to experiment instead with using
your left thumb to push the lower section across to the right, sliding or nudging it
across your close-up pad below the upper section. The result will, of course, be the
same; it's just a question of whether the upper section moves left or the lower section
moves right. In practice, it may actually be a bit of both.

In step 7, I mentioned the need to hide the break when you cut the telescoped packets
forward for the first of the triple cuts. In an effort to hide this further, I've also
experimented with using a step instead of a rear thumb break. To create such a step, at
step 5 (of the Bottom Cut version), when you slide the upper telescoped packets to the
left, you'll slide the double packet an extra 114" to the left (so that the left end of C is about %"
left of the left end of B, and correspondingly the right end of C is about%" left of the
right end of B below it). You can then release the break held by your right thumb since
this%" step will mark the division between C and B. At step 8, after stripping out the
C/B telescoped block, as you bring it back over the tabled packet A, your left hand
grips just the upper (slightly jogged) packet Cat the left end, taking all and only the
cards above the step, to deposit them onto A for the second cut. I'm not sure that this
"step" alternative is superior to the break; that's for each individual to decide. Basically
you' re substituting the visibility of a step for the possible visibility of a break, so it's a
question of which one is easier for you to hide.

It helps to keep in mind that there's always one and only one "division place" that
needs to be maintained (either by a break or by being controlled by separate hands) or
marked off (e.g., by an injog or by a step), and that's the place where C (the original
bottom third) is directly above A (the original top third). Once you understand where
the various packets are moving, you can keep track of this place mentally. This means
that whenever A is directly above B, or when Bis directly above C, you can freely
release that upper packet to coalesce with the one below it because there's no particular
required division point between them.

commEms
(1) Credits; Sources. I believe the technical description here is self-contained, but
since this is a direct outgrowth of "The Aronson Stripout" (Simply Simon (1995), p. 65),
I'd recommend that you look at the original. Comment 1 in that text describes how I
came to develop the Aronson Stripout.

Readers may want to compare Ed Marlo's "Block Strip Out with Triple Cut" (Marlo,
Riffle Shuffle Systems (1959), p. 27) and Steve Draun' s "Push-Through Shuffle and Triple
Cut" (Kaufman, Secrets Draun from Underground (1993) p . 28).
Tool Sett

magine two general contractors, both craftsmen at their trade. Both are skilled,

I inventive, knowledgeable, and well thought-of by their clients.

One of them, Dexter, likes to be self-sufficient. Armed with his carefully loaded tool
belt, which he wears wherever he goes, he can handle most of the problems he
encounters. He's outfitted himself with all the basics (hammer, screwdriver, pliers, tape
measure, etc.). He's proficient in how to use each one, both for its intended functions,
as well as for other purposes that his imagination allows him to improvise. With his
skills, his tools, and his adaptive capacity, Dexter can walks the halls of the buildings
where he works, keeping the occupants happy and satisfied.

Our other contractor, Packman, is equally skilled and carries an equivalent tool belt, but
he often wants to accept jobs that require, or would benefit from, more specialized
equipment. So Packman drives around the city in his well-equipped van, filled with
sophisticated power tools, shelves full of specialized supplies, and a greater variety of
gear adapted to more dedicated purposes. When his clients call him, he drives to their
buildings, assesses their situation or problem, and then does his best to address it.
Sometimes Packman uses only what's already in his tool belt, but other times he can
find a more specific remedy or solution, construct a superior artifact, or satisfy his
client's needs or wishes better by utilizing some of the special equipment and unusual
items he has in his van.

Dexter is more flexible. He can be ready at a moment's notice. He can enter and exit
easily and doesn't have to worry much about whether he's forgotten anything. As long
as his clients don't present a unique problem, he's usually prepared. Packman's van
imposes more limitations on his job. He can travel only to where parking is available,
sometimes he has to run back and forth to his van, and he has to keep his van restocked.
This all takes additional time and effort. But occasionally it enables Packman to
50 AM DE<f)O

accomplish certain tasks that Dexter can't and to impress his clients with something
more detailed, more crafted, more personal, or otherwise more exceptional.

Each of these workers has an important role; each fills a niche. Both are valuable. Lots
of things in the world would stay broken if there weren't both kinds of workers to help
fix them.
Un
the
§p()(
on TflE SPOT
This section contains impromptu effects that use only a regular, shuffled deck. Two of
them do utilize a small setup (four cards) that could be set up on the fly.

"Double Vision" and "Double-ment" are mental effects (a prediction and feat of mind
reading, respectively). They set challenge conditions that require the performer to be
correct not just once, but twice. "Double Vision" involves multiple methods working in
concert; the combination seems to cancel out any control by the performer. "Double-
ment" goes the other direction - it's about as simple as one can get. Both are essentially
self-working, and carry a high conviction that "you didn't do anything."

"Not a Chance" and "Switch Hit" both illustrate how far ahead one can get, when one
starts with the Bedwell Control/Funsky Glimpse combination. "Not a Chance" shows
how the odds against a "chance coincidence" steadily increase, but ends with a
demonstration of impossibility when a chosen card that a spectator has been guarding
magically transposes. "Switch Hit" is a quickie that packs two different tricks into one.

"Two-fer" likewise accomplishes two "classics of magic" at once, but here the spectator
performs both of them herself. The surprise is that she doesn't even realize that the
second effect has started- until she successfully finishes it.

Surprise continues to play an important role in my magic. "P.U.R.E. Surprise" explores

one specific way of building a theatrical surprise into a magic plot, by examining how
we can incorporate an apparent "irrelevance" as a triggering element. "I Already Told
You" illustrates this theme, with two transpositions of two selected cards. Only at the
climax does the audience realize that each of those magical events was announced
beforehand by the performer.

"Among the Discards" makes the concept of surprise the central focus of the trick itself.
The performer explains how magicians use surprise as a weapon, and challenges
himself to perform a trick without any surprise. So he tells his audience exactly what he
will do, and when he will do it, so they know just what to expect. And then he does just
that-but in a most surprising way.

I hope you find On the Spot "spot on."

Double IJition

ome self-working forces tread on a borderline: we wonder why they actually fool

S anyone, since their workings can seem blatantly obvious to one who watches
carefully. Yet when performed in the right context, with misdirection, or time delay,
or subtlety, or casual indifference, they can blow right by even a sophisticated audience.
This routine illustrates yet another way of disguising such openly apparent procedures:
by compressing several such forces together, so that each one hides some of its features
by blending into a larger whole.

t:ttECT

The effect could not be more straightforward: the performer writes a prediction, and
from a shuffled deck two spectators each select a card, using a random cut and a
random number. The performer has correctly predicted both cards.

Although quite simple in construction and easy to do, the several apparently free
choices allow this effect to be built into a powerful demonstration.

Have a deck of cards and a pad of paper and pencil handy. While this effect can be
done for just one spectator, it's cleaner when you use two different helpers.

1) Hand out the deck to your first spectator, Mergel, for shuffling. While it's
being shuffled explain to both spectators, "If I were to predict beforehand what card you
would pick, and I got it right, you'd probably react in one of two ways. Either you'd be
impressed or you'd think I was lucky. Well, I'm only looking for that first reaction, so to
54 f1M DECf)O

eliminate luck, I'll stick my neck out and make not just one, but two predictions, one for each of
you. And you only need to be impressed if I get both of them right."

Take back the deck and start to spread the cards between your hands, holding them so
that only you can see their faces. Act as if you're studying the cards, and upjog any
card for about half its length; this first card should be approximately a third of the way
from the face. Continue spreading through the cards and upjog a second card, this time
one that lies about fifteen cards from the top of the deck. So far this upjogging and your
pensive perusal are simply a ruse to make it appear that your predictions are located at
two disparate locations in the deck. In fact,
the identities of these upjogged cards are
irrelevant because as you look at the cards
you have ample opportunity to spread the
top few cards of the deck, enough so that you
can glimpse and remember the top two cards.
Figure 1 illustrates the performer's view; in
this example, the top two cards are the 3C
and the JS. Also note and remember the face
card of the deck (the SH in Figure 1).

At this point you've noted three cards. I mentally repeat their names to myself three
times, just to drill them into my mind. Don't worry, you only need to remember them
for a moment, and you'll have an opportunity to "check" again, just in case you're not
sure.

2) Close the spread, leaving the two outjogged cards still protruding, and table
the deck face down. Take your pad, and on the top sheet write the name of the card
you noted at the face of the deck, the "Five of Hearts." Pause, as if rethinking
something, look up at Mergel and, acting as if you've just changed your mind, tear off
that sheet, crumple it up, and toss it aside onto the table. Say something like, "No, you'll
probably cut just a tad less." Don't pay any further attention to that crumbled ball of
paper.

Pick up the pad again and this time confidently write down the names of the two top
cards you remembered, in either order. Tear off the slip, fold it in half, and leave it on
the table or give it to Mergel to hold. This slip is your prediction. (If you have trouble
remembering the names of three cards even for this brief time, or you're a bit unsure,
you can pick up the tabled deck and turn it to yourself, spreading it slightly as if to re-
look at the two still-outjogged cards; while you re-spread, you have ample opportunity
to re-glimpse the top two cards (simply as a way of checking your memory). This is the
reason we didn't push the outjogged cards flush immediately.
 DOUf>LE U15101'l 55

Once the prediction is made, push the outjogged cards flush and table the deck in front
of Mergel.

Remember, during this opening procedure your spectator has not seen the faces of any
of the cards.

3) Explain, "Mergel, we'll need a random number later, one that I couldn't possibly
have known beforehand. But to make it truly random, we want a number that not even you
might have decided on beforehand. So, to get such a random number, I want you to cut off a
packet of cards, right off the top, say somewhere between ten and twenty cards, more or less."
Have Mergel do so, and when he has cut off his packet, ask him, "Now count them onto
the table one at a time, counting aloud so we'll all find out what your random number is."
Mergel does so, reverse counting his cut-off packet face down onto the table. Let's say
he counts seventeen.

Whatever his total, mentally add one to it and comment, "Not eighteen? I'm glad I
changed my mind earlier. So, your random number is seventeen. Remember it, because we'll
use that number seventeen later on."

4) Turn to your second spectator, Ginny, and instruct her, "You'll choose a card
first, and to make sure it's random, we'll use whatever cards Mergel has cut. Please pick up
those seventeen cards and deal them back and forth into two piles on the table." Have Ginny
take the pile that Mergel cut and counted, watching to see that she follows your
instructions. (Actually, the only part that truly matters is that the last two cards she
deals, your two prediction cards, wind up on top of the two piles.)

5) Say, "Ginny, you 've narrowed it down to two cards" - here, point to the top cards
of her two tabled piles - "so, for your first card, you get to choose either one of them. And I'll
tell you upfront, whichever one you touch will be your selection. No ambiguity, no changing
your mind, you touch one, and we'll put the rest of the cards back in the deck." You can play
up this free choice because it doesn't matter which of the two she touches.

Pick up the balance of the deck. Once Ginny touches one of those two top cards,
carefully slide her selection off its pile in front of her, still face down, saying, "That's
your card, a truly random choice." Without comment, casually drop the balance of the
deck first onto the non-chosen pile (thus burying the non-chosen prediction card) and
continue by picking up all these cards and dropping them on top of the cards remaining
from the pile that Ginny did choose. The deck has now been reassembled, but if you've
followed these instructions, the remaining prediction card will be the sixteenth card
from the bottom of the deck (exactly one less than Mergel's random number, seventeen).
So far Ginny hasn't looked at her card.
56 ~M DEC~O

6) We now need to transfer one card from the top of the deck to the bottom.
Rather than do it as a "move," we'll use a subtlety to transfer it unnoticed, openly.
You'll now demonstrate to Ginny what you want her to do as follows . Say to Ginny,
"Earlier, Mergel cut off some cards at random, and you chose one of them. Now it's time to get a
card for Mergel, so Ginny, you 're going to determine a random starting point. I want you to
pick up your card, and stab it into the middle of the deck, like this." As you speak, first
gesture at Ginny's tabled selection, indicting that's "her card," and then demonstrate, as
follows. You' re holding the deck face down. Remove the top card of the deck and stab
it, still face down, into the center of the pack, leaving it protruding for about half its
length. Pause, to show the result to Ginny so she understands what to do, - and then,
gesture to Ginny to do it with her selection. As Ginny picks up her selection, without
comment remove your "demonstration" card and casually put it onto the bottom of the
deck; it has served its purpose, and you're simply clearing it out of the way for Ginny to
make her stab. No one will notice that in fact you have displaced this one card from top
to bottom.

Have Ginny hold her card, still face down,

and stab it somewhere close to the center of
the deck; just make sure it doesn't go too
close to the bottom. Once she does this, hold
the deck with her card protruding toward
her, and say, "You've picked a random starting
point for Mergel to count from, but before he does,
let's take a look at what your card is. "

7) You' re now going to spread the

cards to turn Ginny's card face up to display
it. As you do this, you'll perform the
venerable Bill Simon Prophecy Move. Here's
the detail. With the deck held in your left
hand, spread off all the cards above Ginny's
protruding card into your right hand. Your
left thumb holds Ginny's card in place
temporarily, as your right hand with its
cards turns inward at the wrist, turning palm
down; the right-hand packet will be face up
at this point (Figure 2). With your right
thumb immediately grasp the outer right corner of Ginny's card, pressing it against the
back of the right hand packet, as your left thumb releases its grip on the card. In one
continuing action reverse direction, turning your right hand outward at the wrist so it's
now palm up again (thus turning the right-hand cards back face down, with Ginny's
card now held on top face up, Figure 3). Place these right-hand cards, including
Ginny's card, to the bottom of the packet still in the left hand. All the cards in the deck
 DOU~LE U15101'l 57

will now be face down except for Ginny's card, which is face up and sticking out of the
middle of the deck. It looks as if all you've done is turn Ginny's card face up "in place";
actually, you've secretly cut the deck around Ginny's selection. As Ginny's card comes
into view, I like to name it aloud, "The Jack of Spades" (or whichever it is; it will be one of
your two predicted cards).

Then turn the deck face up, move it to the

right side of the table, and spread it across
the table from right to left in a wide spread,
so that each of the indices can be
individually seen. Ginny's JS will be face
down, still protruding halfway, clearly
marking off where she has (apparently)
stabbed (Figure 4, performer's view).

8) Scoop up all the face-up cards

that lie to the left of Ginny's card, square
them, and set them face down off to the left;
you won't be using them anymore (Figure
5, performer's view). Pick up Ginny's card
and turn it face up, saying, "You stuck your
Jack of Spades right here, so that's where we'll
begin counting to Mergel's random number."
Drop the Jack of Spades in front of Ginny,
and turn to Mergel asking, "And what was
your random number?" When he replies
seventeen, use your index finger as a
pointer to start counting along the face-up
cards one at a time, beginning with the one at the left (where Ginny supposedly
stabbed) and very clearly count the individual cards from one up to seventeen and stop
there; push the seventeenth card halfway out of the face-up spread to isolate it,
commenting, "The seventeenth card happens to be the Three of Clubs," (it will always be the
second of your predicted cards). It's important that you do not yet remove this card
fully from the spread- because we want the spectators to be able to easily note the card
adjacent to it, for the upcoming" convincer" in step 9.

9) One could end the trick right here, and reveal that your prediction was right,
as to both cards. But we've actually set things up for a subtle convincer, because the
card now immediately above (to the right of) this outjogged second selection in the
spread will in fact be the Five of Hearts (the original face card of the deck), the one
whose name you first wrote on the crumbled ball of paper you tossed aside.
58 ~M DE<l)O

Here's how I proceed. Point to Mergel' s Three of Clubs saying, "This is your card, at
seventeen, your random number. But if you had cut just one card deeper- if you'd cut off
eighteen cards -we would have instead counted to this card." Here, point to the next card in
the row, the Five of Hearts. "Remember, when we began I wasn 't quite sure, and I initially
thought you might cut off eighteen cards." Retrieve the original ball of crumpled paper,
and open it up to reveal "Five of Hearts." This is almost a mini-climax in itself because
it apparently implies that you were indeed spot on in predicting where the spectator
would "cut." (Your "one off" prediction was indeed correct, as to the adjacent card.)

10) You're now ready for the climax. "But I finally went with the prediction you've
been holding all this time. Your two cards, selected by your random cuts, your random number,
and your random choices, happen to be the Jack of Spades and the Three of Clubs. Take a look."
Mergel opens up the slip of paper to find that you have predicted both cards.

Mergel and Ginny break into thunderous applause.

commEm5
(1) Sources; Credits. I first published this effect in MAGIC Magazine, August
2009; I've since taught it at a number of my lectures, including MAGIC Live and the
PEA's Meeting of the Minds. Josh Jay suggested the addition of using the bottom card
to produce the" adjacent mistake" as a convincer (step 9).

The basic dealing force procedure used in steps 3-5 to arrive at the top two cards can be
found in Al Leech's book Cardmanship (1959), in his effect "The Spectator Does a Trick."
Typically the force is accomplished by initially having the spectator deal cards off the
top of the deck and stopping whenever he wants. I thought it more subtle to have the
spectator cut off a packet of cards and count them. The counting is subsequently
"justified" when you later use that random number.

Bill Simon's Business Card Prophecy Move has undergone a number of changes in
handling. Its first incarnation appeared in the effect "Double Prediction" (Scarne on
Card Tricks (1950), p. 103). In Bill Simon's own book, published shortly after Scarne's,
(Simon, Effective Card Magic (1952)), Simon explains his move in greater detail, and it
soon became popular, even though his published handling suffers from a significant
weakness: the bottom card is momentarily flashed to the spectator in the act of turning
over the "knife" card. Sometime in the early 1980s, Marlo personally showed me the
particular handling I describe at step 7 and pointed out its superiority over the original
(because the bottom card isn't seen), but my notes don't indicate whether Marlo
claimed this particular handling as his own. Marlo was a good friend and
correspondent of Bill Simon, so it's quite possible that this handling came from Bill
Simon himself. At any rate, I've used it ever since. Others have also discovered it as
 DOU~LE U1510r'I 59

well; there's a particularly careful description in Steve Beam's Semi-Automatic Card

Tricks, Vol. 2 (1995), p. 188.

While one could also substitute my Mark-a-Place move to accomplish this

displacement, I actually prefer the Bill Simon move in this situation. I typically use
Simon's Prophecy move when a card is stabbed and remains outjogged, but I prefer my
own Mark-a-Place move when a spectator is asked to "touch" a card that is "flush" with
the spread. My Mark-a-Place move simulates flipping it over while it remains in the
spread (to apparently mark that place in that spread); there isn't any sensation of ever
separating the deck into two packets.
l'Jot a C~ance

€ttECT

he performer offers to demonstrate the difference between chance and magic. From

T a shuffled deck, a spectator freely selects a card, remembers it, and replaces it into
one half of the deck. That half is isolated on the table under the spectator's hand.

The performer gives the remaining half a few overhand shuffles, stopping during these
shuffles wherever the spectator designates, to form three random piles. He explains
that, by chance, these piles might provide information about the spectator's selected
card.

The performer turns the first pile face up to reveal, say, a red card on its face. Sure
enough, the spectator confirms her chosen card is red.

He next turns the second pile face up to reveal that its bottom card is, say, a Diamond.
Again, the spectator confirms that her chosen card is a Diamond.

The performer lifts up the third pile so that only he can see its face card and asks, "Does
your card happen to be a six [or, whatever]?" The spectator nods that this value is indeed
correct.

"So far, the first two might be just coincidences, due to chance. But this can only happen by
magic ... " For the climax, the performer turns over this third pile to reveal not just "any"
Six, but the spectator's selected card, which has thus magically been transported from
under the spectator's hand.
 !')QT A(flAl)(E 61

ffiETffOD

I like effects that combine several disparate methods, and "Not a Chance" is a good
illustration. It incorporates a small stack (of just four cards), some sleight of hand, and
some minor "multiple outs" (all of which appear the same). The end result is
something that's close to impromptu, is relatively easy, and allows a completely free
selection from a (virtually) shuffled deck.

)ETUP

Before you begin, preset the bottom four cards of the deck so that there is one card of
each suit, in the following order (from the face): Spade, Club, Heart, Diamond. (The
values don't matter, but the climax will look more random if the two red suits aren't the
same value; similarly with the two black suits.) By using just two of these four cards,
you'll be able to match both the color and the suit of whatever selection the spectator
freely chooses.

1) With the deck on the table, give it a few casual riffle shuffles. Your only
requirement is to maintain the bottom four-card stack in its place, which is
accomplished by simply first dropping the bottom four cards (or more) as you begin the
shuffle. Since the rest of the shuffle is fair, the deck looks convincingly mixed. I say,
''I'm going to show you the difference between magic and chance."

2) We're now going to have a card freely selected from somewhere in the center
of the deck. We'll use the Bedwell Dribble Toss Control and the Funsky Glimpse (see
the Techniques section for a detailed description). Stop the control after the Funsky
Glimpse- that is, don't reassemble the two halves of the deck.

3) As you complete squaring up the tabled half, comment, "Your card is

somewhere among these cards. Ginny, put your hand on this pile, so we'll remember where your
card is." Push that tabled half toward Ginny, making it easier for her and isolating that
pile even further.

You're way ahead of your spectators. Ginny thinks her card is somewhere within the
pile she's holding, but in fact, it's already secretly on top of the half remaining in your
left hand. Your four-card stack is still on the bottom of your packet. And, because of
the secret glimpse, you already know the identity of her card- let's say it's the Six of
Diamonds.
62 ~M~CKO

4) Here's where we get into the multiple outs I mentioned. In one sense, they're
not really multiple outs at all, because the trick will always look the same no matter
what card the spectator has selected; the only variation that occurs is a slight difference
in your handling of your packet, depending upon the suit of the selected card.

Whenever someone shows me an effect that includes somewhat different endings or

procedures depending on the spectator's choices, I hate seeing only the best or cleanest
procedure because the alternatives are often disappointing. So in this description I'm
presenting the weaker or more complicated "handling" first, so you'll know that any
other alternative will look even better. (But, frankly, in this trick "weak" is inapplicable
because all of the four possible procedures are exceptionally straightforward.)

The alternative handlings will depend first on the color of the glimpsed selection- red
or black- and second, on whether the selected card is Major (Hearts or Spades) or
Minor (Diamonds or Clubs). Let's deal with the color first.

A. IF THE SELECTED CARD IS RED: Casually spread your remaining half

face down between your hands, saying, "If I were to look through this half, I might
learn some clue about your card. So I won't look at them." Use this spreading action
to casually take a break above the bottom two cards of the spread (the two black
cards in your stack) with your left little finger. Close up the spread, retaining
that break.

You're now going to lose those two black cards with a simple double undercut.
With your right hand from above, cut off approximately the top half of your
packet, as your left little finger pulls down on its break slightly. Insert the right-
hand portion into this break, allowing the right-hand cards to coalesce with the
two "pulled-down" black cards, as your left little finger re-takes a break above
the inserted portion. Now simply cut again at the new break and complete the
cut, squaring the cards. (The two black cards have now been lost, and the
bottom two cards of your half are now the two red cards of your stack, with the
Heart at the face). It appears simply as if you've just given your packet a couple
of cuts.

B. IF THE SELECTED CARD IS BLACK: As you may have noted, our goal here
is simply to position the two stack cards whose color matches the color of the
selection to the bottom of your packet. If the selected card is black, then the two
black stack cards are already in position, so nothing additional needs to be done.
Thus, if your glimpse tells you the selection is black, you'll omit the break, the
pull-down, and the double undercut entirely, and proceed directly to step 5.

In our example, since the glimpsed Six of Diamonds is red, you'd use option A.
 noT ACllArKE 6:~

5) Continue, "Instead, I'll try to get some clues to your card, entirely by chance. I'll
mix them up, and as I shuffle, please call out 'stop."' Using an overhand shuffle procedure,
you will divide your remaining cards into three piles - apparently at the spectator's
direction. Here you commence a slow, face-down overhand shuffle of your half, but
done in a particular way.

I'll assume that you've read my description of "The Milk Load" (in the Techniques
section) and that you're aware of my terminology that refers to the "upper" and
"lower" hand packets, instead of referring to "left" or "right" hand packets during the
shuffle. Remember (as mentioned in that discussion) it's safer if you explain to your
spectator what she's to do (i.e., call out 'stop') before you commence your shuffle.

Commence your overhand shuffle by first "milking" just the top and bottom cards of
the upper packet together. Then continue shuffling, immediately pulling off a sizeable
clump of cards from the upper packet, using your lower-hand thumb to reach up over
the upper edge of the upper packet to grasp them and pull them off. (We want this
lower packet to contain a significant number of cards for a subsequent shuffle, and by
pulling off a sizable clump we insure that it does). Now continue to shuffle off cards
either singly or in smaller clumps, slowly, as you wait for the spectator to call" stop."
As soon as she does, separate the hands and place the remaining upper packet onto the
table. For convenience, let's call this packet A. (In our example, the face card of this
tabled packet A will be a Diamond; if the glimpsed selection had been black, it would
be a Club).

Please note that this placing of the upper packet onto the table, instead of the lower just-
shuffled-off cards, is somewhat atypical, and thus can be a bit hard to remember.
There's nothing difficult about actually doing it, and it goes by completely unnoticed,
but I do want to call your attention to it, as an anomaly, when compared to what you
might be used to doing. (As I start the shuffle, I remind myself of this upcoming action;
such thinking about it beforehand makes it "automatic" as soon as Ginny calls 'stop.')

For greater ease and naturalness in step 6 below, when you table this packet A, right-
hand shufflers should place it slightly off-center, just a bit toward the left side of the
table; left-hand shufflers should reverse this and place it just a bit toward the right side
of the table. You'll see why in a moment.

6) Your remaining packet is fairly small. Next we'll divide these remaining
cards into two more piles, again apparently wherever the spectator calls' stop.'
Casually transfer the remaining cards from your lower hand to your upper hand and
ask Ginny to "call out 'stop' once more." Commence a second overhand shuffle, again
first "milking" the bottom card as you start this shuffle. Then continue shuffling off
cards singly or in very small clumps (since you won't have many cards left). As soon as
64 AMDEC~O

Ginny stops you, separate your hands, thus holding a small packet in each. Let's call
the cards remaining in the upper hand packet "B" (the face card of B will be the
spectator's chosen card), while the cards in the lower hand will constitute packet "C."

7) You'll now casually drop these two packets simultaneously onto the table, next
to the already tabled packet A. But here we reach the second "alternative" procedure.
It's a very small difference in handling, depending on the suit of the glimpsed selection.
More specifically, we'll place packets B and C onto the table slightly differently,
depending on whether the suit of the spectator's glimpsed selection is Minor (Diamond
or Club) or Major (Heart or Spade):

A. IF THE SELECTION IS A MINOR SUIT: Simultaneously drop upper packet

(B) next to and to the right of the already tabled packet A, as you drop lower
packet (C) next to but to the left of A. (Band C thus surround A.) The order of
the packets, reading from left to right, will thus be C, A, B.

B. IF THE SELECTION IS A MAJOR SUIT: Simultaneously drop lower packet

(C) next to and to the right of the already tabled packet A, as you drop upper
packet (B) next to and to the right of C. (B and C thus are both placed on the same
side, i.e., to the right of, A.) The order of the packets, reading from left to right,
will thus be A, C, B.

All of this occurs in the blink of an eye, as soon as the spectator calls 'stop.' Since you
already know whether the selected suit is Minor or Major early on, you'll have plenty of
time to plan ahead for which way to drop these last two packets onto the table. You
don't want to wait until the final moment to "decide," so it's safer to decide before you
even begin your shuffle; that way, there's no hesitation. (Since there are only two
alternatives - either to "surround" the tabled packet or for both to go on the "same
side" of the tabled packet- I simply remember "Minor Surround" as a mnemonic and
that reminds me of everything I need.)

The text description of these two alternatives may at first read complicated, but in fact
the actual placement action is simple and straightforward under either the Minor or
Major alternatives. Your placement of the two final packets will feel and look
completely natural because, under both scenarios, your upper and lower hands or arms
won't have to cross as they simultaneously table their respective packets next to A.

A caveat: the above Minor/Major alternatives are written for right-hand shufflers; left-
hand shufflers should simply reverse the left/right designations.

8) The spectator thinks you're just beginning; she thinks she's still holding on to
her selected card and you've just formed three piles, apparently at random. But in fact,
all your work is done, and you're ready for the climax. And, you'll be glad to know, the
 l'lOT A(HAl1CE 65

revelations at the climax all proceed exactly the same, regardless of the suit of the
selection.

Situation check: If you've proceeded as described above, you're now ready to reveal the
card at the face of each of the three tabled packets, moving from left to right, as the
Matching Color (but opposite suit), Matching Suit, and finally, the spectator's selection
itself. (For left-handed shufflers, if you've reversed the left/right packet placement
onto the table in steps 5 and 7, you'll have this desired order, but reading from right to
left.)

Here's how I present the several climaxes. Remind Ginny, "Your card is somewhere in
your half"-here, point to the half deck still under Ginny's hand-"but these other
11 11
cards here, gesture toward the three piles you've just formed on the table - will
-

hopefully tell me something about your card. For instance, this pile" - here point to the
leftmost tabled packet -"is the Color pile." Openly tilt that packet up a bit, to peek at the
face card of that packet, but keep it low to the table so that only you can see it. After
glancing at that face card, look up at Ginny and say, "You stopped my shuffle at exactly
this point. This indicates your card is a red one, right?" When Ginny acknowledges that
you're correct, only then flip that leftmost packet face up to reveal that its face card is
indeed a red one. (This delayetj. turnover establishes an action you'll use for greater
effect on the third pile.)

I say, "So far, so good. But the odds of getting the right color are only one out of two, so it could
be due simply to chance."

Proceed to the next pile (the middle one), saying, "This is the Suit pile. If we're lucky, it
should tell me the suit of your card." Lift it up slightly to peek at its face card, again so that
only you can see it. Then point at Ginny's hand (to subtly reinforce where her selection
supposedly resides) and say, "You picked a Diamond, didn't you?" Once Ginny confirms,
then turn your middle pile face up, showing that you weren't making anything up, and
indeed its face card is a Diamond. This time I point out, "The odds of getting the right suit
are a bit harder - it's one out offour - but again it might have been due to chance."

By this point the spectator will get the gist of where the trick is apparently heading.
Point to the final tabled pile, commenting, "This last pile is the hardest, because it's the
Value pile. There are thirteen different values in the deck, so the odds of getting your chosen
value by chance are just one out of thirteen." Pause as you let this fact sink in- and, once
more point to the spectator's hand, still holding on to her half of the deck- "And since
your chosen card is already out of play over here, it's even more difficult." The performer
gingerly tilts up this third pile, so that only he can see its face card, and asks, "Does your
card happen to be a Six (or, whatever)?" The spectator nods that this value is, indeed,
correct. She may think the trick is over since you've now fully identified her chosen
card; she expects you will turn over that pile to reveal one of the other Sixes.
66 AMDECKO

For the surprise climax, announce, "But it goes beyond chance and into the realm of magic, if
this isn't just 'any' Six - It's in fact your very own card, the Six of Diamonds." Turn this
third pile face up to reveal Ginny's selection on its face.

(Offiffi€nT5:

(1) Memory Guide. It's actually pretty easy to remember the alternative
procedures because they boil down to only two simple rules:

First, if the glimpsed selection is red, lose the bottom two cards with the pull-
down and double undercut; if the selection is black, omit this (see step 4).

Second, if the selection is Minor, drop the two shuffled piles "surrounding" the
tabled pile; if the selection is Major, put both shuffled piles on the "same side" of
the tabled pile (see step 7).

That's it.

(2) Setting it Up. The four-card setup is quite easy and can easily be done almost
impromptu. If you start with a shuffled deck and run through the faces, it's quite likely
that you'll spot two adjacent red cards in the order you need (a Heart with a Diamond
immediately above it). Just cut those two cards to the bottom of the deck. All that's left
is to casually move or cull any Club below the Heart and then a Spade below the Club.
Indeed, it's not unusual to find within a shuffled deck three out of the four needed suit
cards already in order; when this happens, cut all three to the face of the deck, and then
cull or place the remaining fourth suit card into the necessary position.

(3) Credits; History. I first published this effect in M-U-M Magazine, March 2012,
p . 46, under the title "Triple Play." I later taught it in my lecture at the Magi-Fest
(January 2013) and republished it in the Magi-Fest convention book under its current
title "Not a Chance."

In experimenting with this effect, I originally devised other methods. The entire effect
becomes much easier if you're willing to have the selection forced, because then you
only need a two-card setup, and you don't need any alternative procedures. My first
attempts were along these lines, but I decided that an obviously free selection added
much. I also developed a free selection version, with no setup at all- but it requires
that you turn your remaining half deck face up to cull the needed two cards. I
ultimately decided that the minimal four-card setup described here is a practical
compromise, and I hope you like it as well.
Switc~ ~it

€tt€CT

his straightforward effect is quick, impromptu, and multi-climaxed. The performer

T offers to perform two tricks at the same time. A spectator selects a card that is
replaced in the deck. The performer also takes a random card as "his" selection,
shows it, and isolates it at one side of the table. With a flourish, the performer produces
a card out of the deck. It is confirmed to be the spectator's selected card. He then takes
his previously isolated card and magically changes it-into the spectator's selection.
When he turns over the card thought to be the spectator's selection, it has changed into
the performer's card.

1) I begin, "Nobody asked me to do a card trick - so I'll do two. But since everyone's
into multi-tasking, I'll perform both tricks at the same time." From a shuffled deck, your
spectator Ginny freely selects a card, by calling 'stop' as you dribble through the deck.
You show it around and then bury it back in the deck. In fact, execute the Bedwell
Control and the Funsky Glimpse (both described in detail in the Techniques section).
At the end of the Funsky Glimpse, half the deck is on the table, and Ginny's selection is
apparently buried somewhere in this tabled packet. Actually her selection is the top
card of the packet in your left hand, and you know its identity via the glimpse. Let's
assume it's the Four of Clubs.

At this point you might elect to add a casual shuffle of your packet; any shuffle that
retains the spectator's selection as the top card is fine . (I typically flip my packet face up
and do a face-up overhand shuffle, milking the top and bottom cards as I begin the
shuffle to retain Ginny's selection on top.) This shuffle is totally optional; feel free to
omit it if you like.
 2) Still holding the left-hand cards, point to the tabled packet as you comment,
"Ginny, your card is somewhere among these cards." As you say this, your left thumb
pushes the top two cards of the left-hand packet slightly to the right, just enough so that
the left pinky can obtain a break beneath them, in preparation for a double lift. "For my
second trick, I need a card for myself" Call attention to the left-hand cards, saying, "It
doesn't matter if we all know my card, so I'll use this one" -here, perform a double turnover
of the top two cards and call out the name of whatever card shows (let's say it happens
to be the Ace of Hearts) - "the Ace of Hearts." Display it, and then casually turn the
double card face down back onto the left-hand packet. Thumb the top card off the deck,
dropping it face down to one side of the table. "We'll come back to my Ace of Hearts, later
on." You actually don't have to remember your card (since you'll get a visual reminder
in a moment); all you need to remember is Ginny's glimpsed selection.

3) With your right hand take the left-hand packet and casually dribble its cards
on top of the tabled cards. This visually reinforces the idea that Ginny's selection is
now buried even deeper in the deck.

You're way ahead of your spectators because your own card, the AH, is now secretly on
top of the tabled deck, while Ginny's selection is actually the card placed aside on the
table.

4) Announce, "And now, two of magic's classic tricks. The first one is where I try to
find your chosen card- like this." You're now going to apparently produce Ginny's card
from within the deck. Actually, you'll produce the top card of the deck (your AH) and
miscall it as Ginny's previously glimpsed selection (the 4C) . While any face-down
flourish production of the top card could be used at this point, since we're already at a
table, the Benzais Spin Out production is perfect.

I'm a lefty, so I'll describe how I do this move; feel free to reverse the hands. Hold the
deck with both hands, at the ends, as if you're about to split the deck for a tabled riffle
shuffle, and start to cut the lower half forward with your left hand. With your left index
finger, apply light pressure to the top card of the right-hand packet (the performer's
AH), while your right hand holds the top half stationary. Move your left hand to the
left a bit, sliding the top card just enough so it clears the right fingers (basically, you're
doing a tabled slip cut). Without pausing, move your left hand sharply forward for a
short distance and then suddenly stop. This stopping action will cause the top card to
spin forward, across the table. (Some practitioners use their left forefing~r to help
impart spin into the card). It really looks as if the card spins out from the center of the
deck. Replace the right-hand packet back onto the left-hand packet, and place the deck
aside.
 SWITCH ttn 69

5) Pick up the card that has just shot out of the deck, and tilt it up so that only
you can see its face. Glance at it, apparently learning its identity for the first time, then
look up at Ginny, and announce triumphantly, "The Four of Clubs, is that your card?"
Here you're simply miscalling the name of whatever card you secretly glimpsed at step
1. Toss it face down on the table as if you're finished with it. (But, in fact you've just
been reminded of your own card's identity, the AH, since it was staring you in the face.)

Ginny will confirm that, yes indeed, that card (the one you named) is her card. Since
Ginny believes that you had no idea of what her selection was, the miscall is quite
convincing.

6) But you're not done yet. Continue, "I promised a second trick, so let's get back to
my card, the ... " - here, turn your attention to your card previously isolated at the side of
the table, and lift it up so that only you can glance at it, apparently to remind yourself
what it was. " ... Ace of Hearts. Watch." Here perform some gesture to signify a magical
moment (for example, snap the face-down card, or spin it, or perform a thru-the-fist
flourish). "You won't believe this, but look! My card has changed ... into your Four of Clubs."
Turn your card face up to reveal that it is now Ginny's selected card.

7) Without missing a beat, immediately turn your attention back to the card that
you previously spun out from the deck. Say," ... and that's because your card has now
become my card, the Ace of Hearts." Turn Ginny's tabled supposed selected card face up,
to reveal that it is now the Ace of Hearts.

commEms
(1) Credits. This trick was first published in MAGIC Magazine (August 2010).
The Spin Out production is the creation of Johnny Benzais (who was a fellow member
with me in F.A.M.E. back in the late 1950s). It's from his trick entitled "Bewilderment,"
which appeared in The Best of Benzais (1967, p. 66). It's also described in Volume 1 of
Roberto Giobbi's Card College (1995, p. 116).

(2) Final Revelation. In our weekly session, we debated about the best order in
which to reveal the final transposition at steps 6 and 7. I've ultimately opted for the
procedure in the text, but there are trade-offs both ways.
tlmon~ the Dhcardt

pectators enjoy learning about what it's like to be a magician and the challenges we
j face performing magic. This effect incorporates both elements: the performer openly
acknowledges that a magician uses surprise, but he sets himself a challenge: to
eliminate the element of surprise by telling his audience beforehand exactly what he's
about to do. Despite this obstacle, the magician accomplishes his goal- and does it in a
surprising way!

€ttECT

A spectator chooses any one of the four Aces. The two black Queens are inserted face
down into different parts of the deck. The spectator's chosen Ace is inserted face down
into the deck, somewhere between the two Queens. The remaining three Aces are
tossed aside.

The performer announces that he will cause the two Queens to magically come together
to sandwich the selected Ace. This instantly happens in a surprising way: upon turning
over the three discarded, non-chosen Aces, they are seen to be the two black Queens
surrounding the selected Ace.

1) I introduce my theme, "I'll let you in on a secret. The most powerful weapon a
magician has is the element of surprise. Surprising an audience means showing them something
unexpected, and when you don't know what to expect, you don't know what to watch for. So to
challenge myself, in this next trick I'm going to eliminate the element of surprise. I'm going to
tell you beforehand exactly what I'm going to do, and I will alert you the moment before I do it."
As you explain this, run through the deck, faces toward yourself, and remove the four
 ~ TflE Dt5CAN>5 71

Aces, dropping them in a face-down pile on your left. Also remove the two black
Queens, dropping them in a face-down pile on the table in front of you. Ribbon spread
the rest of the deck face down from left to right across the table, making a broad arc in
front of the Queens (Figure 1).

2) Point at the Queen pile

commenting, "These two cards are for me. I'll
show you them in a moment. And we'll use
these four cards, the four Aces, for you." Here
pick up the Aces and display their faces .
Turn them face down, give them a casual
mix, and proffer the face-down fan of Aces
to your spectator Ginny, as you explain,
"We'll give them a little mix, and I want you to
have a free choice. Just point to any one of
them." When she does, remove the selected Ace from the fan, turn it face up on top of
the remaining face-down Aces, and square the packet. Comment, "You could have chosen
any one of the Aces, but you've picked the ... Ace of Clubs" (or whatever). Your goal here is
simply to establish a slight time delay or pause, because there's a minor visual
discrepancy coming up in a moment, and the delay helps cover it.

3) Point to the tabled Queens, saying, "Before we began, I removed two cards from
the deck." Casually drop the Ace packet onto the tabled Queens, pick up the six-card
packet, and put them into left-hand dealing grip. As you say this, turn over the entire
packet end-for-end, revealing a Queen on the face.

You will now apparently spread the top

two cards to display both Queens; actually
you will switch the Queens for two of the
Aces. With your left thumb, first push off
the uppermost (single) Queen to the right
for about half its width, and then
immediately follow with a block pushoff of
all the cards except the bottom one, as
apparently the second Queen. A fan of two
Queens will show, and underneath a back
will be seen, apparently the remaining block of Aces (Figure 2). (That's the discrepancy,
because logically an Ace face should show during the turnover, not a back. No one will
notice this discrepancy, and it's over in a flash.) In a continuing action, flip the spread
cards back face down onto the packet. As you do this, explain, "I said we'd use my two
cards. They happen to be the black Queens. These two Queens will help me with this trick ... "

4) As soon as the (apparent) Queens have been turned face down, deal the top
72 ~M DECKO

card into your right hand. Insert it face

down for about half its length into the tabled
spread, about 1/ 4 of the way from the right
end of the spread (Figure 3). Continue to
deal off the next single card and insert it in a
similar fashion, about 1/ 4 of the way from
the left end of the spread. And, suiting these
/1
actions to your words, continue, and they
•••

are going to go into the deck, about here ... and

here, so we have, oh, about twenty cards in
/1
between the two Queens.

5) You' re left holding a four-card packet, presumed to be the four Aces. Turn
your left hand palm up to casually flash the bottom card of the packet, which will be
/1
Ginny's chosen Ace, as you remind her, Now a moment ago you picked the Ace of Clubs,"
and then turn the packet back face down. "You could have picked any one of these four ... "
As you say this last sentence, casually count the four card packet, as apparently four
cards. In fact, perform a Jordan Count (see Comment 2). Snap the last (single) card of
the count, and drop it on top of the other cards. It should look as if you've simply
displayed Ginny's chosen Ace at the face of the packet and then reverse counted it to
the top. (In fact, the order of the packet, from top down, is: indifferent Ace, Queen,
chosen Ace, Queen.)

7) Immediately do a triple turnover (easy, because it's a block pushoff of all but
11
the bottom card) to display the chosen Ace of Clubs apparently on top, saying, but •••

since you chose the Club, we're going to do the trick with your Ace, which is going to go about
half way between the two Queens." Immediately do another triple turnover to turn the
Ace of Clubs (actually the block of three)
back face down, and deal off the top card
into your right hand. Insert it face down for
about half its length into the middle of the
spread deck, about equidistant between the
two outjogged (apparent) Queens. Lean
forward as you do this, to draw attention to
the tabled deck, as if that's where all the
action is about to happen. As you do this,
casually drop the remaining three-card
packet off to the left side of the working area, tossing it aside. You're simp!y discarding
the three Aces that weren't chosen. The layout now looks like Figure 4.

All the real work is now done. All that remains is presentation.
 AffiOl'IG THE Dl5CAf\D5 7)

8) Point to the three outjogged cards, saying, "I promised I'd eliminate the element
of surprise by telling you what I'm about to do. So watch the two Queens and your Ace of
Clubs. About a dozen cards separate each of the Queens from your Ace, but I'll try to make all
three cards come together at one spot. Watch." With both hands slowly square up the
spread deck, leaving the three cards still outjogged from the front; then turn the deck so
that its long side faces the spectator, so that
she can more clearly see the three
outjogged cards projecting from the side.
"And I'm going to tell you exactly when the
magic will happen. I'll do it at the very
moment I push these cards flush into the deck."
Here, box your hands around the deck,
indicating you're about to push the cards
flush (Figure 5). I milk it for drama, saying,
"Are you ready? You know what to expect,
and you know when it's going to happen ... 1, 2,
3 ... Now!" · Carefully push the three jogged cards flush into the deck, and triumphantly
ribbon spread the deck from left to right across the table in a wide arc, claiming, "They
should be all together . .. "

Pause for a moment and then explain, "But actually without some surprise, the trick won't
work. So I didn't eliminate every surprise. Although I told you what would happen and when
it would happen, I didn't tell you where it would happen." Point toward the center of the
deck as you explain, "Because it didn't happen over here ... " After a brief pause to let that
sink in, point to the three discarded face-down cards at the left as you continue, " ... but
over here." Dramatically turn the three discarded cards face up, to reveal the two black
Queens surrounding the spectator's chosen Ace of Clubs.

com~m5

(1) Credits; Sources. This effect is only partially my creation; John Bannon and
Dave Solomon also made major contributions to putting it together. Indeed, "Among
the Discards" was first published as our joint creation (the Chicago Session, MAGIC
Magazine, July 2004) . It was truly a group effort. I had come across an intriguing plot in
Wesley James' "Catch-Ace-Trap-Ee," (James, Enchantments, (2004), p . 23). I was
fascinated by its ending, but I didn't like the method, which was so closely tied to the
deck. I'm strongly in favor of isolating elements to get a cleaner look, so I presented it
to our session group and suggested that it would be much stronger if we could move
the packet away from the deck. At that time John was knee-deep in experimenting with
some of his "discrepancy packet switches," and he developed the clever switch at step
3. David suggested the use of the Jordan Count at step 5, which puts the three
sandwich cards in correct order for the climax.
74 11M DE<fiO

Each of us typically adopts his own presentation and patter, which adds a personal
stamp to the effect. Shortly after this effect was published in MAGIC, I developed my
premise of "eliminating surprise"; that presentation is included on Vol. 2 of my DVD
set (Sessions with Simon, 2006). John's presentation, which he extends into a longer
routine, can be found in his "Watching the Detectives" routine (Bannon, High Caliber
(2013), p. 34).

(2) Jordan Count. The Jordan Count (sometimes called the Flexible Count) is a
basic 4-as-4 count that hides the bottom card. In this routine it's used to efficiently
displace the order of the cards. It is described in Roberto Giobbi's Card College, Vol . 2, p.
314, and elsewhere. Briefly, the packet of four cards is counted from one hand to the
other, apparently taking single cards off the top on each count, thus reversing their
order. The first two cards counted are in fact single cards, but on the count of "3" the
first two cards are replaced squared under the remaining two cards, as you then
instantly push off a block of three cards from the top, retaining just the bottom card.
This last single card is then counted as "4." As with most false counts, the most
important thing is to maintain an even and consistent rhythm.
Double-Ment

M
any of my favorite card effects are of the mental variety, both because they segue
nicely from magic into the mind-reading act I often perform with Ginny and
because they're often hands-off. This piece is probably the one I've presented
most often for laymen for over three decades. While it may not fool knowledgeable
magicians, it nevertheless may appeal to them for the subtleties involved. It is
completely impromptu, requiring nothing more than a shuffled deck and two
/

spectators.

EttECT

Two spectators each think of a card. The performer takes a deck and removes two
cards, tabling them face down. Only after the cards are on the table do the spectators
announce their cards. The two tabled cards are then shown to be the thought-of cards.

Clearly something has been omitted from that terse description, but I wanted to set the
stage for what (hopefully) the spectators will remember. And, in fact, the actual
procedure will follow pretty closely the above scenario. Both thought-of cards are in
fact completely free choices, but the first one does involve a physical selection; that, and
a sly use of the one-behind principle, allows for a very straightforward display of
apparent mind reading. The patter helps to justify the procedures and also draws the
spectators away from what's actually happening.

1) Begin, "If I ask someone to think of a playing card and then I try to read her mind,
and I commit myself by putting just one card from the deck onto the table, and it turns out that
76 AM DECKO

I'm correct, I usually get one of two quite different reactions. Either she'll be impressed or she'll
think I was just lucky. I don't want you to think luck had anything to do with what's about to
occur. I'm only seeking that first reaction; I really want you to be impressed. So, to eliminate
any possibility of luck, I'll do this twice. I'll try to read two minds in a row, with two cards, and
you should only be impressed if I get both of them right."

As you say this, spread a deck face up, to casually show that it's mixed. If you can use a
deck that the spectators have already handled and shuffled, so much the better. You're
now going to have your first spectator, Mergel, peek at a card, and you're going to
secretly obtain a break below it. However, your patter will emphasize that Mergel will
simply "think" of his card and that he'll have a free choice. Hold the deck in standard
left-hand peek position, and address Mergel, explaining, 'Tm going to run my finger
across the cards like this, slowly, so you can see the cards go by"; here, demonstrate by riffling
the upper right corner with your right index finger, letting Mergel see the indices go by
in a slow, casual riffle. "And as I do, call out 'stop' wherever you want. If you like the
particular card you stop at, then fine, you'll think of that one, but if you don 't like it, we'll do it
again .. . Okay, call 'stop."' Hold the deck so Mergel will be able to see the indices, and
commence a standard riffle until Mergel calls 'stop.' When he does, ask if he likes that
card or if he wants to continue further or start over. Whatever he wants, comply. Once
he has his card in mind, say, "Burn it into your mind, " as you release your right fingers,
secretly maintaining a left pinky break below his card. Drop your left hand with the
deck to your side as if the cards aren't important anymore. You're still holding your
break, but it's better to delay obtaining a glimpse until a time separation has occurred.

2) Turn to your second spectator, Ginny, explaining that you also want her to
think of a card, "But make it a different card than Mergel' s." This request engenders a bit
of hesitation because, of course, Ginny doesn't have any idea what Mergel's card is.
You immediately realize this problem and, to solve it, turn back to Mergel and say,
"Now, don't tell us what card you're thinking of, but just tell us its color, red or black."
Suppose Mergel says black. Continue with Ginny, "Ginny, since Mergel is thinking of a
black card, you should think of a red one. Here, think of any red card you see in the deck." To
help her, you'll turn the deck face up and spread it between your hands so Ginny can
see all the faces .

It's at the moment when you turn the deck face up- immediately before you start to
spread- that you secretly glimpse the index of Mergel' s card by using Ed Marlo's Book
Break. Here's the detail. Your left hand has been holding the deck down at your side
with a pinky break. Raise your left hand in front of you, at about waist hejght, holding
the deck face-down and parallel to the floor. With your right hand from above, grip the
short ends of the deck near the left corners, holding it lightly between your right thumb
and middle finger (Figure 1). Your left pinky still holds its break. Now with your right
hand, lift the left edge of the deck up and over toward the right (as if turning back a page
in a book) to turn or flip the entire deck face up. The right long edge of the deck acts as
 DOUbLE-ffiEnT 77

the hinge on which the deck pivots. During

this turnover both hands will be holding the
deck, and the slight pressure of the left
pinky at the break will cause the portion of
cards above the break to slide slightly as a
block, exposing the inner index of Mergel' s
card. (Figure 2 captures a moment of this
/1
turnover midstream.") Once the deck is
face up, you could look down at your hands
at this point and you'd clearly see the index
of Mergel' s card- but your arching right
hand hides this exposed index from the
spectators (Figure 3). But do not look at
your hands when you first bring the deck
up from your side or when you pivot it face
up; you don't want to call any attention to
it.

Wait until the moment you're about to

spread the now-face-up cards between your
hands to show them to Ginny. At that point
it's completely natural to look down at the
cards, and you'll instantly see the index and
learn Mergel' s card. Let's assume that
Mergel is thinking of the 6S. Release the
break and begin spreading the cards, which
covers the glimpsed index. Make it a wide,
slow spread so that Ginny can see virtually
all the indices. At this point, you've
secretly learned Mergel' s card, and that's
/1
really the only move" or sleight in the
entire effect.

/1
My emphasis on having the two spectators think of" one red and one black card serves
several purposes. First, it adds a red herring to possible reconstruction; people think it's
somehow relevant (it's not) . Second, it gives me a reason to spread the cards before
Ginny (so she can find a red card she likes) and thus may cause a mis-recollection as to
/1
how Mergel also thought of" his card. Third, it provides a natural opportunity to
make the glimpse. And fourth, it guarantees that the spectators will not think of the
same card.

3) After Ginny says she's thinking of her card, square up the deck and start
acting like a mind reader. As I begin to talk, I like to give the deck a cut or a brief
7~ f1M DEC~O

overhand shuffle, just so that neither spectator will know precisely where in the deck
his thought-of card lies. Look first at Mergel somewhat hesitantly, and say something
like, "Black cards are always a bit more difficult, but I'll give it a shot." (If Mergel has in fact
chosen a red card, then reverse the colors in your patter accordingly; it's always going
to be Spectator #1 whose card gives you a bit of trouble.) Spread through the cards,
faces toward yourself, and remove the mate of Mergel' s glimpsed card. Toss it face
down onto the table, making sure no one sees its face. In our example, since Mergel is
thinking of the 6S, you'd find and table the 6C.

4) Turn to Ginny, smiling confidently, and say, "Red ones are usually clearer. Just
concentrate on your card." Here, spread through the cards again (faces toward you) and
this time remove Mergel' s actual glimpsed card, the 6S, supposedly as what you divine
to be Ginny's card, and toss it face down on top of the first tabled card.

5) Pause, apparently finished. You said you'd read two minds, and indeed
you've committed to two cards. Neither spectator has yet revealed his thoughts. You
act as if you're done-almost. Recap, "Remember, we ran through the deck and Mergel
thought of a black card; then we ran through again and Ginny thought of any red card. But I
said you should be impressed only if I get both of the cards right, so let me do one final check."
Pick up the upper card (the 6S), look at its face, and then glance back and forth between
Ginny and that card. Smile and nod, saying, "Yes, I'll stick with that one. That seems
pretty clear," as you confidently toss it face down on the table (not back onto the 6C, just
next to it). "Ginny, I've committed myself, so for the first time tell everyone what card you're
thinking of" Only now does Ginny reveal her thoughts; let's say she says the JH.
Breathe a sigh of relief, and turn to Mergel.

6) Say, "Mergel, let me just confirm yours," as you pick up the other tabled card,
the 6C. Look at its face, look again at Mergel, and pause. Hesitantly say, "Mergel, I want
to nail it exactly, and I don't think I have yet. Don't tell me what your card is; in fact don't say
anything, but take a look. I think I was very close, but not quite 100%." Here, show Mergel
the face of the 6C you're holding, cautioning him not to tell you anything. He should be
quite impressed, because he sees that you did get about as "close" as you could (and
still not be dead on). But you're going to do even better.

Continue, "I want to get it exact, so Mergel keep thinking of your card." Replace the 6C back
into the deck and again spread the cards in front of your eyes, apparently looking for
Mergel' s "correct" card. Actually you look for and remove Ginny's named card (in our
example, the JH), and casually toss it face down on top of the already tabled 6S. Put the
deck down, and announce, "OK, Mergel, I'm committing myself, this time for good. No more
changing my mind. So, for the first time, tell everyone what card you're thinking of"

7) You've now got the two correct cards on the table, one on top of the other-
but in reverse order from what they're supposed to be. (In similar situations, I've seen
 DOU~LE-ffiEnT 79

other magicians go to great lengths to cover up or get past this apparent discrepancy.
Some have resorted to "toying" with the cards, switching them back and forth until the
spectators can't remember which was which. I know of at least one case where a
performer used a Mexican Turnover to switch the two cards.) If you've followed the
procedure in the text, there is no problem here. The entire plot is designed not to
emphasize which card is whose, but that the performer is reading two minds. You've
tossed two cards onto the table (together), and all that matters to the audience now is
whether you got them both right. So you're going to pick them both up, one in each
hand, and show that you did.

As all eyes turn toward Mergel to hear him reveal his thought, that's when you do your
non-move. The lower card of the tabled pair is Mergel' s card. Assuming Mergel is
sitting on your right, with your right hand grasp the right edge of the lower card as
simultaneously with your left hand you grasp the left edge of the upper card, and
casually separate them, one card held in each hand still face down. (Obviously, if
Mergel is sitting to the left of Ginny, just reverse hands.) Do not make a move of this or
do it quickly or pay attention to it; you're simply picking up two tabled cards, one in
each hand, to prepare for an applause-cue finish. Pay full attention to Mergel' s
announcement.

When Mergel says he's thinking of the 6S, dramatically repeat the names of both
thought-of cards, and then lift both hands to reveal the faces of the two cards. I end
with, "I hope you're at least a little bit impressed."

(1) Credits; Sources. I've been performing "Double-Ment" for over thirty years,
and in the course of that experience I've done a fair amount of streamlining, adding a
few subtleties, and developing the script written above, but the essential principles owe
their genesis to others. The seminal routine that seems to have started this two-
selection plot is Ed Marlo's "Double Thought" (from Rufus Steele's collection, 52
Amazing Card Tricks (1949)). Marlo's routine used two decks and involved putting
down cards singly, but it introduced the "one behind" idea at the core of the effect.
Clayton Rawson, in his "Sleight-of-Mind" (Hugard's Magic Monthly, Vol. VII, No. 9, Feb.
1950), called the Marlo routine a "lulu" and added the subtlety of suggesting the use of
a card that is "almost but not quite correct" (Rawson's example was a Six of Spades,
when the actual card was a Seven of Spades). Rawson's effect still involved two decks.
When Marlo later republished his "Double Thought" in The Cardician (1953), he added,
as a completely separate effect buried near the back of that book, an alternative version
entitled, "Double Thoughts-Single Deck." In some ways that effect was a
methodological step backwards (it introduced key cards), but plot-wise it did eliminate
the second deck. Many years ago, I witnessed Mike Skinner perform a similar routine
00 ~MDECKO

and recall that Mike used the "mate" as the" almost correct" card. My own effect "Two
Minds and a Mate" (The Aronson Approach, p. 50) is a somewhat more sophisticated (but
possibly more convoluted) approach to this same plot.

I presented and taught "Double-Ment" in my lecture at the PEA' s Meeting of the Minds
convention in 2013. As far as I can tell, one of my own additions is the idea of tabling
both cards together, before either spectator has uttered his thoughts; this timing both
speeds up the procedure and helps disguise the one-behind principle. The specific
presentation and patter, the red/black throw-off, the acting and hesitancy, and the
choice of peek technique in the text are also mine. But, for those who do choose to
perform "Double-Ment," a strong nod of thanks belongs to a lot of people before me.

(2) Knowing the First Card. Bottom line, all one needs is to surreptitiously know
the first selection; the rest is all presentation and acting. So, any glimpse, peek, or force
that secretly gives you this information will theoretically work; I say "theoretically"
because in practice not everything appears the same, and when doing mind reading, a
strong case can be made that less is more. This means both less handling of the deck
and less procedure. Forces generally involve more touching of the deck by the
performer and usually emphasize the physical selection of a card, so I'd opt for a
glimpse in this kind of effect.

Marlo's Book Break Glimpse, done at the commencement of spreading the deck, is both
well-justified and well-timed by asking the second spectator to look for a card to think
of- but it's certainly not the only option. I will often use B. J. Bueno' s "dribble stop"
procedure instead, glimpsing the freely stopped-at card a moment before the deck is
raised up to show that card; I can then very openly turn my head away while I show the
spectator the face card, and then immediately let the rest of the cards dribble off, thus
clearly losing this first "thought-of" card. The deck can then be handed directly to the
second spectator, to look for any card of the opposite color. One of my favorite peeks is
Steve Draun' s Pressure Fan Glimpse, but because a pressure fan looks like fancy card
handling, it's a bit out-of-place for a mind reader.

(3) Doing it Twice, Twice. Readers will note that my introductory patter in
"Double-ment" (about proving my skill only if I can get it right "twice") follows the
same patter theme I used in "Double Vision." I plead guilty, but I would rarely perform
both pieces in the same set.
Two-fer

ay people have a curiosity about, sometimes even a fascination with, the "inside"

L world of magic. So scripts and patter that inform spectators about what it's like to
be a magician- about the ways magicians interact or about how we learn or practice
our arcane art- have an automatic "hook." Spectators enjoy the opportunity to
apparently learn from an insider, so your willingness to open up and confide in them
builds a personal relationship. Instead of "doing a trick with patter," you, in effect, step
back to a meta-level, by performing an effect in which you "patter about doing tricks."
(What you say doesn't necessarily have to be completely true, so long as it sounds
plausible, but truth often helps.)

That's one of my reasons for including this little piece in the book. Its theme (the two
"classic" card tricks) is a topic that laymen are tangentially familiar with and certainly
interested in hearing more about. So they'll be intrigued to hear how you've
"personalized" these classics. You then go on to demonstrate both effects in an unusual
and surprising way.

This could qualify as a beginner's trick (except for the particular control I've chosen to
use). While it's almost self-working, the surprise ending makes it quite deceptive.

€tt€CT

The performer explains that there are two "classic" card tricks that all magicians
perform: the pick-a-card trick and the four-Ace mystery, so he will perform his version
of each of them. He first performs a pick-a-card trick, with four selections- and a
spectator herself finds all four cards. The performer then reveals that he's actually
performed both classic tricks simultaneously because the spectator has, surprisingly,
also found all four Aces.
02 ~M DECl)O

WOM~ll'lG

Since you'll have four cards selected, this effects works best for a larger group of
spectators (see Comment 3 for a single selection version). Begin with the four Aces
secretly on top of the deck, in any order. Shuffle the deck, retaining that top stock.

1) I explain, "There are two card tricks that every magician performs, the famous pick-
a-card trick and the mystery of the four Aces. Because these two tricks are in every magician's
repertoire, a creative magician tries to come up with his own unique version. I'll show you my
take on both of them. Let's start with my version of the famous pick-a-card trick. First, I make it
special by increasing the challenge: instead of just one card, I have four cards picked." Here,
spread the deck, either on the table or between the hands, allowing four cards to be
freely selected; just hold the top few cards as a block, to prevent any of the Aces from
being selected. Have the selected cards shown around and remembered.

2) You're now going to have the four selections replaced and apparently lost
back in the deck, but in fact you need to secretly control them so that they wind up on
top of the deck, immediately above the four Aces. This is an interesting challenge. It's
not particularly hard to accomplish, but since the rest of the trick is self-working, it
would be nice to come up with an equally self-working control. I've worked on this
problem, but keep coming back to my first preference, which does require a bit of
technical skill. (While ease is certainly an admirable goal, sometimes efficiency wins
out; for alternative control suggestions, see Comment 2.)

I opt for Martin Nash's Table Multiple Shift. Here's how I do it. Once the four
selections have been removed and noted, have them tossed on the table face down. The
rest of the deck is on the table, in position for a riffle shuffle. Hold the left end of the
deck with your left hand, as your left thumb riffles up the rear long edge of the deck,
stopping about halfway. While your left thumb maintains a gap, pick up one of the
selections with your right hand and insert it into the gap from the right end, so it
protrudes for about half its length (Figure 1). Immediately riffle up a few more cards
with your left thumb, and then similarly insert a second selection. Repeat this for the
remaining two selections, so that you've inserted all four selections into the upper half
 TWO-tEti 8~

of the deck, each a few cards apart (Figure 2).

Now grip the deck with both hands in

position to perform a push-thru shuffle, left
hand at the left end and right hand at the
right end of the outjogged selections (Figure
3). Execute a standard push-thru action, but
instead of pushing one half of the deck
through the other, you're only pushing the
four outjogged selections through the rest of
the deck until they emerge out the left end.
At the end of the push-through action, the
four selections will wind up protruding from
the left end of the deck for about half an inch.
This, however, is hidden by the left fingers
(Figure 4), so it looks as if the selections were
simply pushed flush into the deck.

In a continuing action, with your left thumb

at the rear edge, lift up slightly pn the corner
of the lowermost selection, thus lifting up the
four sidejogged selections together with all of
the cards interlaced with them (Figure 5,
exaggerated for clarity). Immediately slide
this entire upper block to the right for a half
inch. This causes the four protruding
selections to be aligned with the bottom half of
the deck at the left, while all the cards
interlaced between them are now jogged to
the right a half inch (Figure 6). Now adjust
your grip so that your left thumb holds the
four selections and the lower portion of the
deck, while your right hand grips the right-
jogged upper portion (which now comprises
all the upper cards except for the four
selections). Both hands pull their respective
packets apart, setting them into position for a
riffle shuffle. (If you want, your left thumb
can maintain its slight break between the four
selections and the portion below it.) At this
point the four selections are the top cards of
the left-hand portion and the four Aces are
the top cards of the right-hand portion.
04 l'.IM DECl)O

Now it's a fairly simple matter to riffle shuffle the two halves together, making sure that
as you complete the shuffle the top four cards of the right-hand portion (the Aces) drop
immediately below the top four cards of the left-hand portion (the selections). Then
square up.

It appears as if the selections were pushed into different parts of the deck and the deck
was given one riffle shuffle; actually the top eight cards are now the selections followed
by the Aces. Once you've completed this control, the rest of the trick is self-working.

3) "So far I've made the classic pick-a-card trick four times more difficult by having four
cards picked. But to put my individual spin on it, I'm not going to find them; you're going to
find them yourself! First, we'll narrow it down. I'd like you to cut off a bunch of cards from this
shuffled deck, about half the deck." As you explain this, pick up the deck and extend your
hand toward one of the spectators, Ginny, asking her to cut off a packet from the top of
the deck. Once she cuts off her packet, set the balance of the cards aside on the table
(you won't use them further), and take the packet she cut off from her, making it clear
that you're not doing anything furtive. You're simply going to demonstrate what she's
to do.

4) "Ginny, you're going to deal all your cards into four piles, like this ... "-here,
demonstrate by openly dealing the top four cards off her packet in a face-down
horizontal row across the table, and then pause and look up at her, as if to verify that
she understands. As you look at her, casually gather up the four cards you've just dealt
(in fact, they're the selections) and nonchalantly replace them to the bottom of your
packet (thus subtly displacing the four selections to the bottom of Ginny's cut-off
packet). Hand Ginny the packet so she can deal it out as you've demonstrated.

5) As Ginny deals the top four cards in a row, continue," ... and keep dealing them
on top of the first four ... " as you gesture to indicate that she is to continue dealing to form
four piles until her packet has been exhausted. (The last four cards dealt thus become
the top cards of each of the four piles.) Now sum up, "You guys picked four cards from
anywhere in the deck, and then we stuck them back in different places, and then we shuffled the
deck. And then you cut off however many cards you wanted, a free choice, and you dealt them
out. I told you this is my version of the classic pick-a-card trick. Let's see how well you did."
Dramatically turn over the top card of each of the four piles, to reveal that Ginny has
"found" all four selections.
-
6) The spectators think the trick is over. Now you can remind them, "That's my
version of the famous pick-a-card trick. But I also promised to perform my version of the classic
four-Ace mystery. And you helped me there as well. Look." Here, turn over each of the four
piles, to reveal that the four bottom cards are the Aces.
 TUJO-tEti 05

commEm5
(1) Credits; Sources. Martin Nash's Tabled Multiple Shift was originally
published in Steven Minch's Ever So Sleightly (1975), p. 30, and also appears in Roberto
Giobbi's Card College, Vol. 3 (1998), p. 676. A tangential note: if you want to maintain
the order of the entire deck when you do the riffle shuffle, Zarrow shuffle the entire
right-hand portion under the four selections and square up. That isn't necessary for this
trick, but it's an easy and helpful maneuver. I use it in my "Rap-acious" routine.

The" demonstration" subtlety (which I use in step 4 to secretly displace the selections to
the bottom) is something I saw Shoot Ogawa perform in his lecture. Thus inspired, I
came up with this presentational ploy of performing "two" classic card tricks
simultaneously.

(2) Alternative Controls. If you don't want to do Nash's Tabled Multiple Shift at
step 2, there are alternative controls available to secretly place the four selections above
the Ace stock in the act of apparently losing them in various places in the deck.

Perhaps the easiest follows a suggestion by Joshua Jay. While the spectators are
holding and displaying their respective selections, give the rest of the deck a casual cut
but hold a break (i.e., above the block of Aces). For the first replacement, spread the
cards quickly and have the first selection replaced at the break, and then square up, still
maintaining the break. Move to your second spectator, telling her you'll put her card
further down; actually spread to the same place, but a little slower (perhaps pushing
over two clumps of cards with your thumb), and then square up. "Then a little further
still for your card" as you push over three clumps of cards (still, arriving at the same
place), for the third selection. For the final replacement you could repeat once more, or
for variation just overhand shuffle to the break, and stop there for the final replacement
(or, since you've got a break, just insert the final card into the break from the rear,
simulating a Tilt insertion). Note that you have some flexibility as to where you take
your break after each replacement (either above or below each replaced selection), since
the order of the selections doesn't matter. After all four cards have been replaced, cut
your eight-card stock back to the top, and continue as in the text.

Here's another control, for those willing to do four Tilt' s in a row. Just gather the four
selections together in a face-down packet and drop that packet on top of the deck,
secretly obtaining a break below it. Holding the deck in your left hand, with your right
hand pick up the top card off the deck, raise it up to show its face, and then insert it (a la
Tilt) into the break. It appears to go somewhere into the center of the deck, but actually
it becomes the fourth card down from the top. As you insert it, maintain your break
below that inserted card. Now simply repeat this "show and Tilt" action for the next
three cards. At the end, you've displayed each selected card and apparently stuck it
06 (lM DECKO

somewhere into the center of the deck; in fact, without any further cuts, you've reached
the desired situation.

For those who already do Neal Elias' Multiple Shift, David Finklestein suggests a
variation that is quick and efficient and in fact keeps the entire deck in order. Holding
the deck in the left hand, insert the four selections from the front into the upper half of
the deck, leaving each outjogged for about a third of its length. Perform the standard
Elias handling to apparently push them in flush, actually causing them to be secretly
sidejogged out the right side of the deck, hidden under cover of the right hand. Now
do the standard Elias swing cut, but do it with the entire deck (except for the four
selections, which are held in place in standard Elias fashion by the right fourth finger
and thumb). As the left-hand portion (basically, the entire deck minus the selections)
moves toward the left and strips free from the right-hand (four) cards, the right hand
moves rapidly and slaps its four cards on top of the left-hand packet, handling it as
though it were a larger packet. If done quickly, it looks as if the deck were simply given
a cut. (As soon as the right-hand cards hit the top of the deck, I like to immediately lift
up about half the deck and to dribble it back on top. This aids the impression that
approximately half the deck was cut.)

(3) Single Selection Version. While the effect as written is my preferred way of
using the patter theme of "doing two classics simultaneously," often I won't have four
spectators available. So here's a variation for just one spectator.

This version requires a secret set-up of eight cards: the four sixes on top of the deck (in
any order) followed by the four Aces (also in any order). Shuffle the deck, retaining
that secret top stock. Follow the patter theme in step 1, laying the groundwork for
doing the two "classic card tricks," and explain to your one spectator, Ginny, that you'll
perform the pick-a-card first. You're now going to force any one of the Sixes, as
supposedly a free selection, and then you're going to have it replaced back into the
deck, actually controlling it anywhere back among the top three remaining Sixes.
Obviously the choice of a particular force and control is up to you. A classic force is
fairly easy since there are four eligible cards to force. You can then simply have it
replaced back where it came from, square up, and then cut the set-up back to the top. A
riffle force also works well. Whatever you choose, make it fairly quick and
straightforward (avoid any dealing or counting force, since the effect already involves
dealing half the deck later on).

Once Ginny has noted and replaced her card (it will be a Six), proceed ex<!_ctly as in
steps 3, 4, and 5 of the text, telling Ginny that she's going to find her own card. Once
she's dealt out her four piles, sum up the conditions and then point to the top card of
each of the four piles, explaining how she's "narrowed down the possibilities." Then
ask her to name her selected card out loud and to touch any one of those four cards.
 TWO-tEf\ 07

When she does, dramatically turn that card over on its respective pile, for one of two
possible endings to the pick-a-card trick:

i) If the card she points to is not her card, say, "Well, it's a Six, so you got the hard
part, the value. But sometimes the suit is a bit tougher, so I'm glad you played it safe, by
getting all of them!" Here, rapidly turn over the top cards of the other three piles
to reveal all four Sixes staring her in the face.

ii) If the card she points to is in fact her selected Six, I stop there and don't reveal
the other three Sixes. (You could go on, saying, "But you're a better magician than
you thought, because not only did you find your card, but you found all its mates as
well," and then reveal the other three Sixes. But that seems to me to be a weaker
effect. It's stronger when she's unaware of your other options.)

For those willing to do a bit more work, there are also ways of positioning the selected
Six on the pile most likely to be psychologically chosen, or of your mentally following
the selected Six so you know which pile it's on and then using equivoque to make
Ginny "choose" that particular pile (but candidly I doubt that this is worth the effort).
Regardless of which way you end the pick-a-card trick, you've still got one more climax
coming up. Because, once Ginny has discovered her own selected Six, you'll then
conclude with step 6 in the tex( to show that she's also helped you with the classic four-
Ace mystery, by finding the four Aces.

Obviously, although I've used four Sixes (at Mergel Funsky's behest), almost any four-
of-a-kind can be substituted (but see Comment 4 for my thoughts on the second climax).

(4) Two Tricks or One? This routine raises an interesting presentational

question, which is connected to why I prefer the four-selection version over the single-
selection one. In the single-selection version, three out of four times you'll wind up
producing four-of-a-kind (the Sixes) and then you'll follow it up with the (hopefully)
surprise production of the four Aces. It's a subtle point, but I feel that the first four-of-
a-kind could slightly undermine the surprise of the second climax. While I'm not
implying that the spectator will fully anticipate what's coming up when you turn the
piles over to reveal the Aces on the faces, I am suggesting that, having produced one
four-of-a-kind, the second production of the Aces then loses some of its thunder,
because it's now "more of the same." You've produced one four-of-a-kind, and then
you do it again. Although the first climax is very strong (you not only found the
selected card, but also the other three matching values), it will be "felt" as a "four-of-a-
kind" trick.

Contrast this with first finding four (unrelated) selections and then producing four
Aces - both tied together by your original claim that you'd perform the two classics of
card magic. In this situation you seem to have accomplished a second wholly different
trick-which was nevertheless foreshadowed by your opening callback patter. It's a
stronger, more impressive surprise, when your spectators suddenly realize that they
just saw two different tricks performed simultaneously than if they saw a single trick with
two similar endings.

Naturally, context matters. I'm certainly not arguing that producing four-of-a-kind
followed by a second four-of-a-kind is never a good idea. Clearly there are many poker
routines where one produces, say, four Kings, followed by, "but of course I dealt myself
the winning hand," as you turn over your poker hand to reveal four Aces. This makes
perfect sense because the second four-of-a-kind isn't just" another" one-it's a "better"
one. It trumps the first one and thus fits in with the gambling theme of winning.

That's one reason why, when I'm doing the single selection version, I'll use Sixes or
another innocuous spot card. I would intentionally stay away from using Jacks,
Queens, or Kings. A court card four-of-a-kind followed by the production of the four
Aces is a bit too reminiscent of a poker routine and thus deflates my desired goal of
presenting two distinctly different effects.

(5) Other "Different" Tricks. Assuming you want to pursue the idea that the
bottom four cards should somehow make for a second, "different" trick than the top
four cards, it's completely open to your creativity to decide on possible combinations
that achieve this. You certainly don't have to follow my example of "finding selections"
and then "four Aces." The dealing procedure with the demonstration displacement
subtlety is so efficient, easy, and clean that it's open to many other possible effects.

Here's one example I've played with. It combines the single selection version (in
Comment 3) with the date on a coin. Ask to borrow a quarter from someone (secretly
switching it for your own quarter), and then have a card selected and replaced (actually
forcing one of the four pre-set Sixes). Proceed as set forth in the text and Comment 3,
but at the point where you ask Ginny to select one of the four piles, instead request that
she merely think of her card and drop her quarter onto one of the piles (thus organically
integrating the coin into your card trick). Finish the first climax as per Comment 3,
revealing either the selection alone, or all four matching values, depending on whether
she drops her coin onto her selected Six. For a climax, turn over the four piles to reveal,
say, an Ace, a Nine, an Eight, and a Four. Ask, "Do the numbers one, nine, eight, and four
mean anything to you?" When Ginny replies, "No," ask her to look at the date on "her"
quarter. She'll be surprised to discover that the date is 1984.

Other ways of using the four cards may present themselves to you.
P.U.~ .(. Surprite

urprise is a wonderful component of magic. Since, by definition, surprise is

S unexpected, it helps produce certain ingredients that are important in creating the
sense of astonishment (wonder, amazement, etc.) that one associates with the special
awareness that something magical has happened. Such ingredients include "shaking
up the viewer," not in any bad q,r uncomfortable sense, but in opening her up to the
momentary possibility that the ~orld isn't constrained by logic or cause and effect. This
can be a liberating feeling, freeing the imagination, even allowing one to feel silly,
childish, and playful without embarrassment. Surprise can disorient a spectator
momentarily, which in turn interrupts or even disarms her normal thought processes
and perceptions. This helps both to cancel out those normal curious or suspicious
processes we desire to put at bay and to open her up, to make her more receptive to
suggestions or ideas that would otherwise be considered unusual, fanciful, outre, or
strange.

One critical question is what kind of event should be used to trigger the surprise, and
here it's often been observed that not all such events are equal. Being "unexpected" is
necessary, but hardly sufficient, for a surprise to be theatrically appropriate. As far
back as Aristotle, dramatic theory has held that the best kind of surprise is one which is
unanticipated, but once it happens, is seen not only to have been foreshadowed, but in
fact to be the logical and fitting-ideally, the inevitable-outcome of what has come
before. You want your audience to both be surprised, but also to feel satisfied that the
surprising event both rounds out and fulfills (and thus is a "correct" ending for) the
earlier elements of the plot. (That's why gratuitous "kickers," though surprising, are
seen and felt as, well, gratuitous.)

Back in the 1970s many cardicians were experimenting with versions of the then-
popular "packet twisting" effect, in which individual cards (the four Aces, or the A-2-3-
4 of a suit) would successively turn face up, one at a time. Given the many available
90 ~hT DECf\O

packet counts and displays, the actual mechanics for such plots were relatively easy to
accomplish, but the presentational challenge was how to climax such tricks. Various
kicker endings were suggested- the final card might change color, or have an odd back,
or change into a selection- and since such a finale was unexpected, it added the
element of surprise.

I was intrigued with trying to create a climax for the packet twisting effect that, on the
one hand, would be felt as a surprise (i.e., the spectator wouldn't have guessed it was
coming), and on the other hand, once it happened, would be perceived as something
appropriate and fitting. After much experimentation, I came up with the idea of using
"irrelevance" as a way of bridging both of these key components.

I devised a presentation, patter, and plot that together illustrate a particular- and at
that time a new -way of creating this desired theatrical surprise for the packet twisting
effect. Here's the original opening description of "Simon's ' Favorite Card' Trick" (first
published in Card Ideas (1978), later reprinted in Bound to Please (1994)):

"The initial patter is spoken to the spectator in a kind of rapid-fire staccato series
of one-liners; it appears to be just introductory chatter, uttered as you prepare for
the trick. "I'm now going to perform my favorite card trick for you. It may not be the
best trick I do, but I call it my favorite card trick because it's done with my favorite cards.
You probably didn't know that everybody has a favorite card in the deck - but they do.
For example, what particular card would you say is your favorite card, the one you like
the best?" Wait for a response; you may have to prod the spectator to get him to .
name a particular card. As soon as he does, you continue uttering your inanities,
which, however, are designed to serve a subtle purpose - they subliminally
reinforce, in the mind of the spectator and the rest of the audience, the name of
the card which the spectator has just stated as his favorite card. At this point, all
your comments and the spectator's response will be considered simply as so
much comic introductory commentary; later on, however, because of this
reinforcement, everyone will immediately recall what the spectator's casually
mentioned "favorite card" was.

For example, suppose, in answer to your question, the spectator has said that his
favorite card is the Jack of Hearts. You continue, "The Jack of Hearts? Excellent
choice! Did you know that, in the Bulgarian book of dreams, the Jack of Hearts stands for
sexual potency? I know a woman in Wisconsin who has the Jack of Hearts as her favorite
card; she keeps a complete collection of Jacks of Hearts. At any rate, this_trick is my
favorite card trick because I do it with my favorite cards. I have had a hard time deciding
on favorite cards, because I have four favorites, and so I am going to do this trick for you
four times, once with each of my favorite cards." As you say these last few lines, you
take the deck and run through it face up and remove the Ace, Deuce, Three and
Four of Clubs. While doing this, you have ample time to locate the JH and
 P.U.f).E. SUtiPtil5E 91

secretly get it to the top of the deck. Since no one thinks anything important has
happened yet, no one is particularly concerned to watch as you cull the Club
cards, and it is a simple matter to merely cut the JH to the top, or, when you
locate it, to run it under the face-up spread to the top of the deck."

"Simon's 'Favorite Card' Trick" then proceeds by having the spectator select a card
which is returned to the deck. You then perform a fairly standard twisting routine with
your four favorite cards; after the Ace, the Two, and the Three each turn over, at the end
the Four of Clubs appears face down, among your other three face-up favorite cards.
The performer attempts to change this face-down card into the spectator's previously
selected card- but he suddenly realizes that this isn't a pick-a-card trick, it's the favorite
card trick! And, lo and behold, the face-down supposed Four of Clubs changes into -
the Jack of Hearts- the very card that the spectator had casually announced as his own
favorite card at the outset of the trick! (To round things out, the performer then goes on
to immediately find both the missing Four of Clubs and the spectator's selected card.)

This trick (which I still occasionally perform) was my first experiment with a particular
kind of surprise that I've found to be quite intriguing. It follows the dramatic pattern
for the kind of surprise outlined above, but with one important caveat: the reason the
surprising outcome is unexpected is because the foreshadowing event is initially perceived to
be irrelevant. Your opening comments, wherein you casually ask the spectator what his
favorite card happens to be, are made casually, on an off-beat, in the context of simply
explaining that everyone has a favorite card. When the spectator plays along and
names his favorite card, you don't pay attention to that response. Indeed, you immediately
focus on your own four favorite cards and proceed to make them turn over four times.
The spectator's initial response gets submerged, because the trick "proper" takes the
limelight. When something is perceived not to be relevant, it gets overlooked, it's not
something that people focus on, and it stays only in the shade of one's memory (to
paraphrase Ascanio).

But the spectator's seemingly irrelevant mention of "his" favorite card, just in passing,
is in fact cemented and remembered; that's the function of your follow-up jokes or silliness.
The spectator's named 'favorite card' is heard, chuckled at, and then buried in the back
of his mind, because your trick is about to begin. But because you reiterated it, joked
about it, and associated it with a memorable reference, it will be perceived and
absorbed. Much later, when you, the performer, remind the spectator of his earlier
comment, it will not only be recalled, but the climax will point out how it was in fact
relevant all along-this IS a trick about "favorite cards," so of course the card that
appears at the climax should be another "favorite" one, indeed, the spectator's own
favorite card. The plot has come full circle, and what seemed to be irrelevant banter or
chatter is ultimately perceived to be part of the essentials, a critical part of the
beginning, that sets the stage for the climax.
92 ~M DECKO

These features and techniques - intentionally making something appear to be irrelevant

(while at the same time making sure it will later be recalled once you remind the
spectator of it), and then at the climax having it recalled and realized to be essentially
relevant-together set up what I call a P.U.R.E. Surprise. P.U.R.E. here doesn't mean
perfect, or without impurities; rather it's simply an acronym I've coined for planning
this specific kind of surprise. It's a Planned Unanticipated Relevance Ending (P.U.R.E.).
You've "planned the relevance to be unanticipated until the ending."

Now, I'm certainly not trying to coin some comprehensive theory about surprise, or say
that all surprises should follow the above pattern, or even that this concept can always
work. Rather, I'm pointing it out because it seems to be a particularly satisfying (to
both the spectator and the performer) dramatic tool that is underutilized. A P.U.R.E.
surprise requires careful scripting and a sense of balance. If you' re too subtle, the initial
comment may in fact be really missed or not get remembered; if you're too heavy-
handed, it can fall flat or become obvious too early. But in the right context, with the
right touch, a P.U.R.E. surprise can prove helpful. It adds theatricality, humor, and a
through-line from beginning to end. Thank Aristotle for the underlying theory.

The following effect, "I Already Told You," is structured to utilize P.U.R.E. surprise. In
the guise of apparently giving a spectator some innocuous instructions, you are in fact
subtly describing a specific impossible event that is about to occur. But your spectator
won't realize this until the climax. And, to drive the point home, you do this twice, for
two different spectators.
I tllready Told ~ou

he strength (and uniqueness) of this effect lies in its premise and plot. It involves

T two transpositions and two selected cards, but in a surprise twist, at the climax the
spectators realize that the performer has already told them precisely what would
happen. Moreover, what does happen for each spectator is something impossible.

The effect is completely impromptu, uses only a regular shuffled deck, and doesn't
require a table; indeed, it could be used for strolling or cocktail situations.

1) Spread your shuffled deck face up between your hands to show that the cards
are mixed. Use this opportunity to secretly spot the AS, and casually cut the pack so
that the AS is approximately eighth or ninth from the face.

Approach your two spectators, Ginny and Mergel, commenting, "Doing the impossible
means taking something that can't happen and making it happen anyway. But normally a
magician doesn't tell you beforehand what that impossible thing will be. This trick is special.
I'll do something impossible for each of you, and I'll announce beforehand what it will be."

Start slowly spreading the cards face up

between your hands, so that Ginny can see the
index of each card, as you explain, "Ginny, I'm
going to ask you to pick a card by simply naming
one that catches your eye. I'll run through the
cards, like this ... " By the time you've said this,
you'll have reached the AS. Pause your
spreading action, splitting the spread just a bit
so the AS is quite visible (Figure 1), as you
94 AM DECt)O

caution her, "... but you can't pick the Ace of Spades. Any card other than the Ace of Spades,
/1
because everyone names that card. So name any other card as it passes by ... Make your
reference to the AS a seemingly innocuous comment, almost an aside. It's a perfectly
natural thing to say, and some spectators might actually have been intending to name
that particular card. But there's a subtlety here that won't become apparent until the
end of the effect. You'll want your spectators to later recall your prohibition about the
AS, but you don't want to dwell on it.

2) As you close the gap at the AS and continue your spreading through the rest
of the deck, you'll secretly perform an under-the-spread cull of the AS. Most cardicians
already know how to cull a single card, but here's a brief description. When you pause
at the AS in the spread to call attention to it, your left fingertips apply a slight upward
pressure on the back of the AS from underneath to hold it in place. Your left thumb-tip,
above the spread, lightly rests on the right edge of the card immediately above the AS.
With your right hand, casually move or slide the eight or nine already-spread cards
toward the left, so they fully cover the face of the AS. (This covering block of the few
already-spread right-hand cards prevents the otherwise telltale "visual vanishing" of
the culled AS.) As soon as the AS is covered, the left fingers release their pressure on its
back, as the right fingers beneath the spread take control of it and pull it slightly to the
right, until the left edge of the AS clears the cards still remaining in the left hand - you
/1
may feel a slight click" as it clears. The AS has thus secretly been culled below the
spread. Underneath, the right edge of the AS contacts, and is gripped by, the base of
your right index finger.

3) Now continue your face-up

spreading through the deck (with the AS
riding beneath the spread), showing cards to
Ginny at a relaxed pace so that she can easily
see the indices and name one. Try to time
your spreading action so that she names a
card somewhere approximately near the
center. Assume she names the 6C. When she
does, pause your spreading action and
separate your hands so that Ginny's named
card is the leftmost card of the right-hand
spread, with its index plainly visible (Figure 2). The culled AS is still hidden beneath
the right-hand cards. Call attention to Ginny's selection, saying, "The Six of Clubs, please
/1
remember the Six of Clubs.

As you say this, you'll apparently turn Ginny's 6C face down. Actually you'll switch it
for the culled AS. Here's how. Start to turn your right wrist inward, to turn the entire
right-hand packet of cards face down. As you do this, your left thumb rests against the
left edge of the 6C and pushes a bit toward the right, as the right fingertips, still on the
 I llltiEADY TOLD YOU 95

back of the culled AS, straighten out and

push toward the left, moving the AS to the
left. Continue turning your right wrist until
your right hand is palm down. The pushing
action of the right fingers causes the AS to
slide across (or under) the 6C so the AS,
now face down, becomes sidejogged to the
left. It will be - and be seen as - the leftmost
card of the now face-down right-hand cards
(Figure 3). In a continuing action, the left
thumb presses on the back of the AS,
pinning it face down onto the face of the
remaining left-hand face-up cards (Figure
4).

Move your right hand away toward the

right, taking all its cards (except the pinned
face-down AS). In a continuing action, turn
your right wrist outward, to turn the right-
hand cards back face up; as thi~ is done the
right fingers somewhat square up their
cards, just enough so that the index of
Ginny's 6C is pulled behind the packet, so
that it won't be visible when the cards are
face up (Figure 5). Place that entire right-
hand packet under the left-hand cards, and
grip the entire deck with your left hand,
thus freeing your right hand.

4) With your right hand take the

single face-down card (apparently Ginny's
6C, actually the AS) and nonchalantly place
it back out into your shirt or jacket breast
pocket, propping it in the pocket diagonally,
so it remains visible (Figure 6). Tell Ginny,
"We'll get back to your card in a minute."
Apparently all that's happened is that
you've removed Ginny's named selection
from the deck and placed it so that all can
keep an eye on it.

If you're performing at a table, you can combine steps 3 and 4 together, as follows:
when you turn your right-hand cards face down to switch the AS for Ginny's named
96 AMDEC~O

card, instead of depositing the AS onto the face of the left-hand cards, just nonchalantly
toss it face down onto the table, and leave it there until the climax. That dispenses with
any need for a pocket.

5) Address your second spectator, "Mergel, I also want you to choose a card, but in a
quite different way. You'll pick your card face down, so no one will know it. And we'll use a
process of elimination, to make it random. You might wind up with any card- except that you
can't pick Ginny's Six of Clubs, which is why we took it out of the deck." Here I casually
gesture at my pocket, as a reminder of where Ginny's selected card resides.

With the deck still held face up in your left hand, lightly buckle the bottom card
(Ginny's Six of Clubs) with your left fingers, just enough to obtain a left pinky break
above it at its inner right corner. Then, start spreading the deck slowly in front of
Mergel, and say, "First, you'll touch a bunch of random cards, and then we'll narrow it down
to one of them. As I run through the cards like this, please extend one finger and touch a card .. .
and keep touching a few more cards at random,
until we have a half dozen or so ... Touch another
... and another ... and keep going, a few more ...
and, say, one more ... Fine." Outjog each card
Mergel touches for about half its length, so
that the_outjogged cards form a rough fan
(Figure 7) . As I spread, I press my left pinky
against the bottom right edge of the deck,
just to make sure that Ginny's Six of Clubs
stays square with the deck and doesn't
inadvertently "peek" out. Act nonchalantly,
as if the exact number of cards doesn't matter; in fact, you secretly count the outjogged
cards until there are seven.

6) At that point, you stop, acting as if Mergel has touched enough cards, and
apparently strip out the face-up outjogged cards. Actually, using a Vernon Addition,
you secretly add the Six of Clubs onto the bottom of the outjogged cards as they're
stripped out. The break makes this addition easy. Simply square up the spread,
allowing your right pinky to enter the break; your right hand grips the entire deck
(except for the Six of Clubs) as your left hand moves out beneath the outjogged cards to
strip them free from the rest of the spread. Your left hand carries its single card (the
Six) as it moves, and the outjogged cards completely mask the Six as it is added at the
back of the outjogged cards.

As soon as the cards have been stripped out, with your left thumb flip this packet of
cards face down, extending them toward Mergel, saying, "Here, take these." Meanwhile,
your right hand casually flips the rest of the deck face down and holds it.
 I f1lhOOY TOLD YOU 97

7) Mergel is now holding a face-down packet of exactly eight cards;

unbeknownst to him, the top card is Ginny's named Six of Clubs. We' re now going to
have him perform the venerable Duck and Deal procedure to narrow down his packet
to just one card. When talking to laymen, I prefer to use the terms "Keep" and
"Discard" (they're clearer). Say, "Mergel you've narrowed it down to just a few cards. Now
you'll eliminate all but one of them by randomly keeping or discarding them, like this. First,
'keep' the top card by placing it to the bottom of your pile ... " - watch to make sure Mergel
complies-" ... then 'discard' the next one, by putting it back here, onto the deck." As you say
this, extend your right hand so Mergel can easily deposit his second card onto your
face-down deck. "And continue, alternately keeping one and discarding the next and so on,
until you're left with just one card remaining .... Great. That's your card, which no one knows."
In an eight-card packet, with the first card being a 'Keep,' the mathematics will
automatically force the bottom card (the Six of Clubs) as the final card. Make sure
Mergel' s card remains face down.

8) Announce, "Now, both of you have picked a card. But I promised I would tell you
beforehand precisely what impossible thing we would make happen. Well, believe it or not, I've
already told you!" Pause here to let this comment sink in, because your spectators won't
understand what you mean. As far as they're concerned, you haven't told them
anything.
/

So now you'll clarify your cryptic comment. "Mergel, remember earlier I said you could
pick any card - except for Ginny's card. And we even made it impossible for you to pick
Ginny's Six of Clubs by removing it from the deck. But look ... " - here, make a magical
gesture over Mergel' s card-" ... you've actually done that impossible thing - you picked the
one card you couldn't possibly have chosen." Have Mergel show his card around, revealing
Ginny's card, the Six of Clubs.

9) Turn back to Ginny, reminding her, "When we began, I said you could pick any
card-except that you couldn't pick the Ace of Spades. And I told you, that's the card everyone
picks. Well, I was right. You did the one thing that was impossible, because look!" Here,
remove Ginny's card from your pocket and show its face, revealing the Ace of Spades.

commEm5
(1) Credits; Sources. This trick was first published in Genii, the Conjuror's
Magazine (November 2013).

(2) Duck and Deal. Many magicians, including me, have a love/hate
relationship with the Duck and Deal procedure. The love is based on methodological
fascination, while the hate is focused on some of the presentational problems.
98 ~MDEC~O

The underlying binary basis of D&D links it to other mathematical concepts in ways
that are alluring. Mathematically inclined magi periodically discover new combinations
of faro shuffles, Klondike shuffles, and subtle formulae that, sure enough, allow a final
discovery by D&D. My notes over the years are filled with charts that track D&D
variations and oddities. I once spent a week pondering ways to generate the "starting
positions" for what would wind up as the final two cards (not just the last one) that
remain after a D&D procedure on a packet of "n" cards. So I'm fully susceptible to the
tempting "puzzle" nature of D&D.

But when we look soberly at D&D from the layman's perspective, we need to confront
several obvious issues. First, the D&D procedure can easily become tedious. Second, it
can't be done quickly; there's just too much risk of someone missing a beat or forgetting
which step comes next if it's performed rapidly. And third, it strains for a rationale,
some pseudo-explanation, of why we're proceeding with this strange pattern.

All hope isn't lost. So long as (1) the number of cards in the packet isn't large (I'd
probably put my maximum limit at around ten), and (2) you provide a plausible
explanation for why you're proceeding thusly, and (3) you don't overdo it (e.g., using it
once is about right), then I think it can actually be an intriguing activity for the spectator.

Using D&D as an" elimination procedure" is a perfectly plausible presentation ploy. I

think it works particularly well in "I Already Told You" because Mergel' s previous
actions (in step 5, where he narrows down the full deck by randomly touching a small
number of cards) already establish that he's going to choose his card by the process of
elimination; the D&D at step 7 is just the next step in that process.

There are a few (very few) other presentations where you can justify D&D to lay people.
The "Keep, Discard" procedure has been used successfully with a "She loves me, she
loves me not" script, in a light or comic way, to find the one single card that's been
previously dubbed as a "romantic target." I once published my tongue-in-cheek
presentation for Duck and Deal, in which, immediately before the climax, all the
eliminated cards are turned face up, revealing a random mix of indifferent cards. My
final patter line was, "Only this final card, the one you're now holding, has consistently and
always been a 'Duck.' Take a look." When it's turned face up, it shows a picture of Donald
Duck. It was a funny, unexpected ending (see, "Donald Duck and Deal," M. U.M
Magazine, February 1983, p. 28). And the math for controlling the Duck card is
sophisticated and practical; there's even an application for use with a memorized deck.
-
(3) An Alternative to D&D. If you like the plot of "I Already Told You," but
don't want to do a D&D, at step 7 you could substitute any force procedure you want,
(since Ginny's card has secretly been controlled to the top of the deck). The Funsky
Force would work well here.
 WU-
/

aced
TWO-fACED

Some magicians eschew gaffed cards; others are fascinated with them.

Purists spurn them. An ordinary deck plus dexterity is all that's needed, and anything
more is considered unnecessary, limiting, and maybe even" cheating." I completely
agree that one can create a full act of miracles without resorting to gaffed cards.

Others rely on gaffs extensively (and not just gaffed cards, but gaffed decks). I've seen
magicians attend sessions with a briefcase full of decks. With a quick bathroom break,
you're ready with your next trick.

I take the middle road, which is paved with cliches that tout balance and tradeoffs.
Aristotle's "Golden Mean" (not too much, not too little) is the correct and safe answer.
You should use gaffs when the benefit is worth the cost. But what does this mean in
practice?

The next three routines each use only one or two double-faced cards. Two of the effects
utilize double-faced Jokers, which allows you to subtly introduce the gaffs whenever
you want to, so you can start and end clean. The third uses one double-facer that's
innocuous at the end, and since it's a specially gaffed Ace, it could be used to good
advantage in a subsequent Ace effect.

But while practicality is an important consideration, for me the acid test is whether a
gaff can help us achieve a magical effect that would be hard to duplicate by any other
means. It's the deceptive quality of our effects that ultimately makes us magicians, and
sometimes a gaff can add a cleanliness, a transparency, or an efficiency that carries our
deception to a new level.

"About Face" is my favorite solution to a classic problem. Think "Hofzinser Aces"

meets the "Mystery Card" for a new twist to an age-old plot.

"Thinking Inside the Box" takes a commercial card change and uses it in an unorthodox
way, to produce a signed card to an impossible location.

"Twice Removed, Once Again" re-visits and streamlines a methodology I created over
thirty years ago, and adds a new and humorous presentation that makes this double
transposition both impossible and funny.

I hope you'll agree that, in these three routines, the gaffs are worth it.
tlbout f:ace

his is my take on the classic Hofzinser Ace problem or plot, combined with a time-

T warp twist that's a bit reminiscent of Elmsley' s "Between Your Palms" or

Hamman' s "The Signed Card." Like most of my favorite routines, this effect relies
on a combination of disparate methods (a gaff, a small stack, some simple sleight of
hand, and a subtlety or two) .
/

€ttECT

The four Aces are removed from the deck and placed aside. The performer and the
spectator each then select a card. The magician's card is left on the table and remains
unknown-a "mystery" card. The spectator signs her card and replaces it into the deck.

The magician displays each of the four Aces, remarking that they represent the four
suits. He holds the packet of Aces face down and instantly one of them magically turns
face up; let's say it's the Ace of Clubs. That Ace matches the suit of the spectator's
selection.

The magician now calls attention to his own previously tabled "mystery" card. For the
first time, he peeks at this card and asks, "Was your card a Four [or whatever]?" The
spectator acknowledges this value is correct.

The performer continues, "Do you think it would be possible for the card that I put down at
the very beginning to actually become your signed card? ... Well, this is even more amazing.
Look!" He snaps his still face-down card and then slowly turns it face up, to reveal it
has become the very Ace of Clubs 6that just a moment ago had magically turned over in
the Ace packet.
102 l'.IM DECl'O

Naturally attention shifts back to the packet of Aces. The Aces of Hearts, Spades and
Diamonds are still face up, surrounding the face-down Ace of Clubs. The performer
turns over the erstwhile Ace of Clubs, revealing that it has changed into the spectator's
signed card.

Pf\EPAf\ATIOn

You'll need one gaffed card: a specially printed double-facer, showing an Ace of
Clubs/ Ace of Diamonds. Have a marking pen, suitable for signing cards, handy.

We need to make certain that the spectator chooses a Club card. The easiest way would
be to simply force a specific Club card (see my suggestions in Comment 4), but since
only the suit matters, I prefer to go the extra mile and make it feel like a truly free
choice. So I use a bank of all the Clubs.

Set up the deck as follows. Remove the four regular Aces and all twelve of the
remaining Clubs. Put the twelve Club cards on top of the deck (in any order), and then
insert the regular Ace of Clubs below the eighth Club card (i.e., the Ace of Clubs will be
the ninth card from the top of the deck) . Insert the four Aces (the other three regular
Aces together with the double-facer showing as the Ace of Clubs) into various places in
the deck all below the Club stack, in C-H-S-D order from the face (i.e., the Ace of Clubs,
actually, the double-facer, will be closest to the face of the deck). That's it. We're ready
to begin.

W0f\Kll1G

Removing the Aces (actually removing only three, masquerading as all four)

1) Begin by commenting that both you and your spectator, Ginny, will each
select a card. As you say this, turn the deck face up and start spreading the cards
between your hands. Tilt the deck slightly toward Ginny, so she can see the faces .
Spread fairly rapidly, outjogging each Ace (for about two-thirds of its length) as you
come to it. When you reach the last Ace (the Ace of Diamonds), outjog it somewhat less
than the previous three. All four Aces should now be outjogged in a fan, with the Ace
of Diamonds protruding slightly less than the other three (Figure 1) .

2) You're now ostensibly going to remove the four Aces and place them aside.
Actually, during this removal the lowermost Ace (the Ace of Diamonds) will secretly be
pushed back into the deck. Here's the detail. Square up the spread deck, and hold it in
the palm-up left hand. Your left hand tilts downward slightly to give the spectators a
better view of the Aces (and to hide the
next action). Your right hand comes across
the front end of the outjogged cards, with
the right first finger contacting the
uppermost three outjogged Aces, at the left
side of their index corner (Figure 2). Under
cover of the right hand, extend your left
first finger under the Aces to the outer end
of the Ace of Diamonds, and push it flush
into the deck (the shorter outjog of the Ace
of Diamonds makes this easy). Without
hesitation, with your right hand swivel the
remaining three outjogged Aces to the
right, as apparently all four cards, until
they clear the deck, using the outermost
joint of the left second finger as the pivot
point (Figure 3). Immediately square up
the Aces and drop them in a face-up packet
off to the right side of the table.

I perform this entire action offhandedly

and fairly rapidly, without comment. My
reason for not commenting here is that,
later on, we're going to clearly display this
packet as containing each of the four Aces.
Your action of openly removing the Aces
speaks for itself- the audience plainly sees
you remove the Aces and realizes that
they' re not available for the selection
process. (The Ace of Clubs on the face of
the tabled packet acts as a subliminal message that the Ace of Clubs wasn't in the deck
during the selection procedures).

The Two Self!ctions (performer removes the real Ace of Clubs as his selection and forces
any of the Club cards as the spectator's selection)

3) The performer turns the balance of the deck face down, announcing, "Each of
us will select a card. To make it fair, I'll go first." Casually start spreading the deck face
down between your hands, secretly sight counting to the ninth card (the Ace of Clubs).
This is easy if you simply push off three groups of three. When you reach the ninth
card, break the spread and casually toss that card face down onto the table, saying, "I
won't even look at it." The goal here is to make your actions look as if you don't care
which card you get, so the less attention or deliberation, the better.
104 ~M DECf)O

Square up the rest of the deck.

4) The spectator will now pick her card. Since the only requirement is that you
force any one of the twelve Club cards on Ginny, you have a lot of leeway, and the
handling can be exceptionally free. You could just cut the deck, maintain a break, and
classic force any of the twelve cards below the break. I use a procedure (shown to me by
my friend John Bannon) that is perhaps more convincing. Here's how I proceed.

I want to make it look as if the spectator's

selection comes from somewhere in the
middle of the deck. Holding the deck face
down in my left hand, I slowly riffle down
the outer left corner with my thumb, asking
Ginny to call out 'stop,' timing my riffle to
stop somewhere near the middle. When she
says 'stop,' my left thumb maintains the
break at the stopped point as my right hand
comes over to grasp the deck from above. At
the front, the right forefinger holds the upper
portion, while the right second and third
fingers grip the front of the lower half. Your
right thumb holds the back end of the deck
(Figure 4).

With your right forefinger, swing cut the

upper portion into your waiting left hand, as
your right hand retains the lower portion
(Figure 5). Immediately turn your left hand a
quarter turn clockwise at the wrist, so the
left-hand packet is perpendicular to the right-
hand packet. With your right hand, tap the
left edge of the right packet against the left
packet to square it (Figure 6). Then your
right hand drops its packet face down onto
the table in front of you.

5) Your left hand r~m~ins holding the

original top half of the deck. Direct Ginny,
"Please, take any card," and begin to spread the left-hand packet slowly into your right
hand. She has a free choice of any of the top twelve cards. The fact that she's choosing
from only half a deck ensures that she won't wait too long before picking one. When
she removes one, have her look at and remember it, as you square up the cards in your
 ~f>OUT fACE 105

left hand. Hand her the marker, and have her sign her name or initials across the card's
face, as you turn away so you can't see her card.

Control (replacing the spectator's selection while secretly controlling it to the top)

6) You're about to reassemble the two halves of the deck and have the
spectator's selection apparently lost back in the deck. Actually, you'll control it to the
top. While there are a myriad of controls available, it's important that the spectator
believes that her selection is lost. For sheer economy and conviction, I opt for the
Bedwell Dribble Toss Control. Since a card has already been selected and the deck is
already divided into two portions (one on the table and one still in your left hand)
you're in a perfect position to do the Dribble Toss portion of the Bedwell procedure.

Retrieve the signed selection with your right hand and, without looking at its face, place
it onto the still-held left-hand packet, sidejogged to the right for about half its width.
Raise your left hand to display its face to the rest of the audience and then lower it.
With your right hand pick up the tabled half and start to dribble its cards onto the table.
During-this dribble, your left hand apparently tosses Ginny's selection amongst the
dribbled cards. Both hands then square up the tabled cards. In fact, as you appear to
lose Ginny's selection somewhere in the tabled half, you'll proceed with the actions of
the Dribble Toss Control and the Funsky Glimpse (described in the Techniques section).
After you complete the glimpse, finish by dribbling the left-hand packet on top of the
tabled cards. This visually reinforces the idea that Ginny's selection is now buried even
deeper in the deck. In fact, her selection is secretly on top, and by virtue of the glimpse
you know which value Club it is.

Displaying the Ace packet (as containing apparently all four Aces)

7) "You and I have each selected a card at random. I know only one thing about our two
cards - neither one is an Ace. That's because, before we began, I removed the four Aces." Here
you call attention to the Aces for the first time, as you pick up the Ace packet. We're
now going to employ a rarely used move, Norman Osborn's Double Count, to show
that the packet contains each of the four Aces. The genius of the Double Count is that
both sides of the double-facer will be seen, thus visually displaying all four Aces.
Here's the detail.

Hold the Ace packet face up, in your palm-up left hand. With your left thumb push off
the top Ace (which is the double-faced card, showing as the Ace of Clubs), and take the
Ace of Clubs with your palm-down right hand, gripping it at its outer right corner
(your right first and second fingers are on top of the card, your right thumb below).
106 ~M l)E(f)O

With your right hand turn the card up to a

vertical position to show its AC face as you
say, "Clubs" (Figure 7, audience view). Now
that you've displayed this first Ace, you're
going to apparently turn it face down and put
it to the bottom of the left-hand packet-but,
of course, you can't really turn this gaff "face
down" because then the AD side would be
revealed. Happily, the Double Count will
allow us to create the illusion of displaying
the face of each Ace, turning it face down, and placing it to the bottom of the packet,
one at a time, in a very easy and convincing way. Here's how.

You're displaying the AC in a vertical

position, per Figure 7. Tilt your left hand up
to a vertical position, backs of the left fingers
facing the audience; a back will be seen on
the underside of the left-hand packet (as it
should be) . Your left thumb grips the packet
at its upper right corner. This allows you to
open your left fingers slightly, so that your
right hand can place the still-vertical Ace of
Clubs to the back of the left-hand packet
(apparently back-to-back with the cards above it, Figure 8, audience view). You've
displayed the first Ace and then "turned it over" to the bottom of the Ace packet.
Lower your left hand so its packet is once again parallel to the table; the Ace of Hearts
will show on top of the packet. Bottom line: the double-facer has been turned over and
placed to the bottom of the packet without your flashing its Ace of Diamonds side. (If
there are people standing at your side, you may want to "necktie" the Ace packet
during this first display.)

You'll now continue to display each of the remaining "three" Aces in a similar manner.
The Ace of Hearts and the Ace of Spades are handled just as you did the Ace of Clubs,
as you name the suits, "Hearts," and "Spades," except that you can let their backs flash
slightly, if you so desire. The fourth Ace will be the Ace of Diamonds (now showing
the opposite side of the double-facer), and it is handled in exactly the same way as the
first card, the Ace of Clubs. After the Ace of Diamonds has been turned over and
placed to the bottom of the packet, when you now lower your left-hand!_ a back will
show on top of the packet. This is as it should be and confirms that the audience has
seen all four (?) cards in the Ace packet. Hold the packet face-down in your left hand.
 ~f>OUT fACE 107

The Ace of Clubs magically turns face up

8) The audience thinks your packet contains four face-down Aces. The actual
situation is that the packet contains only three cards, reading from the top: face-down
AH, face-down AS, and the double-facer with the Ace of Clubs side face up. You're
now going to perform the easiest "magical reversal" in card-magic history.

With your right hand take the Ace packet from above by the ends, while you pick up
the tabled deck with your left hand. Hold the packet face down over the deck. Say to
Ginny, "Concentrate on the suit of your chosen card." Although she had a (fairly) free
choice, the "force" guarantees that she'll be thinking of Clubs. Say, "Watch," as you
very cleanly drop the Ace packet on top of the deck. As soon as the packet lands,
spread the top four cards and take them into your right hand for the first piece of
"magic." The third card from the top will
show as a face-up Ace of Clubs (Figure 9).

With your left hand place the rest of the

deck aside; it won't be used any longer.
But since the audience thinks the
spectator's signed selection is still buried
within it, it's nice to "distance;, the deck
from the Ace packet, to reinforce the later
transposition.

An option: When I perform this step, as I initially pick up the deck, I push the top card
(the selection) to the right a fradion, just enough so that I can obtain a left pinky break
below it. Then, instead of dropping the Ace packet onto the deck, I bring the Ace
packet above the deck and square it, using the left fingers from below to help this
squaring action. I add the single card above the break to the bottom of the three-card
Ace packet in this apparent act of squaring. At that point the dirty work is done and
there's no need for the Ace packet to drop onto the deck. If you make a magical gesture
with the Ace packet over the deck, it will (hopefully) be remembered that the Aces
never touched the deck.

Turning over the Ace packet (so that the Ace of Clubs (?) is face down and the other
three Aces are face up)

9) The magical appearance of the face-up Ace of Clubs is quite startling. And
you're way ahead. Although the audience is convinced that the remaining three face-
down cards in the fan are the other three Aces, in fact, the lowermost of the four cards is
actually the signed selection.
100 AMDEC~O

We'll now reinforce the supposed situation

by actually showing the other three Aces
again. In a moment, you' re going to turn the
Ace packet over to display the reverse sides
of the four cards - but in the process you'll
perform a simple move which will set us up
for the climax. Here's how.

Square the packet and hold it in left-hand

dealing position. With your right hand palm
up, take hold of the right edge of the packet
in a pinch grip (thumb above, fingers below,
as if you were about to perform an Elmsley
Count), as your right thumb pushes the
upper three cards to the left slightly (Figure
10, brief exaggerated for clarity). In a
continuing motion, use the bottom card to
flip (or snap) the upper three cards up and
over to the left (Figure 11), where they fall
face up into the waiting left hand.
Immediately, with your left thumb, spread
these three cards to the right to display the
three face-up Aces, as your right hand moves
its face-down card (apparently the Ace of
Clubs, actually the signed selection) forward
in front of the face-up Aces (Figure 12).

With your right hand, insert the face-down

"Ace" among the fan of face-up Aces, just
above the Ace of Hearts, leaving it partially
outjogged (Figure 13). Drop this fan of four
cards, still spread, onto the table. You've
apparently finished with the Aces; they've
done their job of revealing the suit of Ginny's
card.

This turnover of the Ace packet occurs on the

offbeat, after the "magical mQment" has
happened. Your patter can add a question,
as misdirection. At step 9 the Ace of Clubs
has just turned face up, and as I square the
packet into my left hand, I pause, look up at Ginny, and say, "This tells me your card was
a Club. Is that right?" As attention shifts toward Ginny's affirmative response, I casually
 Af>OUT fACE 109

do this turnover, without further comment. There is a momentary discrepancy, but

your audience sees three Aces face up and one card face down so everything appears
copasetic. It's really quite deceptive. But the key is not to draw attention to it.

Revealing the value of Ginny's card (miscalling the performer's selection)

10) Much magic is now about to happen, and all your work is done. The rest is
presentation.

Call attention to your "mystery" card, which has been sitting face down on the table
since the very beginning. Say, "Just as the Ace disclosed the suit of Ginny's card, my
'mys tery' card will tell us its value." Lift up the edge of the "mystery" card and peek at it
(so that only you can see its face). Leave the "mystery" card on the table as you turn to
Ginny, asking, "Does your card happen to be a Four [or whatever]?" Ginny should be
surprised-apparently, the value of the "mystery" card somehow matches her selection!
Actually you simply miscall the value, naming whatever value you glimpsed earlier via
the Funsky Glimpse.

The Climax: (revealing the Ace of Clubs and the spectator's selection)

11) Pick up the "myste~y" card, and hold it face-down in your left hand, asking,
"Do you think it would be possible for the card that we put down at the very beginning to
become your signed card?" Let this question sink in for a moment, and then continue,
"Bu t this is even more impossible. Look." Slowly turn your card face up to reveal that it is
the Ace of Clubs. I look stunned, as I utter, "I think something truly impossible has
happened. "

12) Once this surprise registers, all eyes should move to the Ace packet. The
face-down supposed Ace of Clubs has remained in full view. Point to it, as you say, "I
think I know what's happened. I said the first card we put down at the very beginning
would become your card. But the very first cards we put down at the very beginning were
actually these Aces ... " Make a magical gesture, pick up the supposed Ace of Clubs, and
turn it over, to reveal that it has become Ginny's signed selection, concluding, " ... and
that's why this is truly impossible."

While it's not true that "everything can be examined," the picture is particularly clean.
Moreover, both of the cards that have magically changed are ordinary, and the single
gaff is now innocently out in full view, disguised as the Ace of Diamonds.
110 ~til DECKO

com~m5

(1) Credits; Sources. I first published About Face" in MAGIC Magazine,

/1

September 2007. That issue came with the required double-face gaff, so past subscribers
may be able to locate the gaff in their old MAGIC files. (I've also had the gaff printed by
the U.S. Playing Card Company and will make it available on my website.)

The basic underlying plot (of the suit-matching Ace turning over, and then transposing
with the selection) is usually attributed to Hofzinser (although apparently he used only
two Aces, which changes the premise somewhat). Many cardmen have put forth
variations. (A thread on the Genii Forum from December 2004 contains a lengthy
historical discussion as well as a posting by Reinhard Mueller which lists about fifty
such contributions (and stops as of 1993).)

In step 2, the method of secretly holding back one of the outjogged cards during the
swivel removal comes from Ed Marlo's Linking Ring Parade, February 1975, p . 56.

The Double Count is, as far as I know, Norman Osborn's only substantive contribution
to card magic- but it's certainly a significant one. Norman was already an elderly
gentleman when I first met him in Chicago many years ago. He was an unassuming
hobbyist who loved card magic. He came up with the basic idea of counting both sides
of a double-facer to make the packet appear to contain one more physical card than it
actually did; he then could cause a card to vanish from the packet. Norman showed his
11
move" to Ed Marlo and asked Ed whether he was aware of any such similar use of a
double-facer earlier in card history. Marlo praised Norman's move, confirmed that, as
far as he was aware, it was original with Norman, and offered to help Norman market
it. Together in 1953 they published the 29-page manuscript Unlimited (authored by both
Marlo and Norman), and Norman's move was thus preserved for posterity. The
Unlimited manuscript contains alternative handlings for the move, and a slew of
applications, mostly by Ed. Marlo offers suggestions for using the Double Count in an
Ace assembly (to make an Ace vanish in a MacDonald's Ace type routine). To my
knowledge, the combination of the Double Count with a special double-facer that
shows Aces on both sides is original with me. This allows you to work with one less
card than you're supposed to have and yet still display a full 11four- of-a-kind." I've
experimented with other applications, e.g., in Daley Ace effects, and in effects where the
Aces are split into colored pairs to sandwich different cards.

I believe the packet turnover move in step 9 is the brainchild of Larry West and was
used in several of his twisting routines.

(2) Alternative Glimpses. As long as you secretly learn which Club card Ginny
selected, you'll be ready for the miscall (in step 10). While the Funsky Glimpse is
 ~~OUT fACE 111

certainly the most efficient way (if you're using the Bedwell Control), a glimpse of
Ginny's selected card can also be accomplished in other ways.

For instance, at step 9, just before you flip the Ace packet over, when you square up the
packet you could do a casual All-Around Square Up, secretly glimpsing the bottom
card of the packet (the selection).

You can also glimpse the selection immediately after you flip the Ace packet over at step
9. As your left hand spreads its three face-up Aces, tilt the three Aces down a bit
toward the audience, ostensibly to give the spectators a better view of their faces . It's
then natural for your right hand to tilt its card downward also. Then, as you insert your
right-hand, face-down" Ace" among the left-hand cards, just take the opportunity to
glimpse it. Tilting it forward makes it easy to glimpse the face of the selection. There's
no heat on the cards at this point so don't make a move out of this.

(3) Cleanup. Cleaning up is a relatively simple matter since you only need to get
rid of one card (the double-facer). Actually, you may not want to clean up immediately,
since the extra Ace can potentially be put to good use in a subsequent effect. However,
if you want to end clean, it's efficient to casually gather up the four Aces (with the Ace
of Diamonds at the face) and r~place them at the bottom of the deck. It's then a simple
matter to either lap the bottom card (the double-facer) or to bottom palm it. You can
then drop it into your pocket as you go to retrieve a prop for your next effect.

(4) Streamlining. For those looking for a somewhat more impromptu version, or
one with fewer moves, here are some suggestions.

At steps 1-3, if you don't want to perform a "move" as you remove the Aces, you could
simply dispense with the stripout and start with the Aces Gust the three of them)
already out of the deck, waiting in a packet on the table. Since the audience will
eventually see all four (thanks to the Double Count), not much is lost. My preference
for the stripout removal is simply that I think it quells any potential curiosity about the
Aces at an early point. If you begin with a tabled packet that has an Ace on the face,
someone might wonder what the rest of the cards are, but if they've seen you remove
four Aces and table them, there isn't a question.

At steps 5-6 you could eliminate the entire twelve-card Club stack and simply force any
specific Club card. I'd recommend an under-the-spread force, but any short, quick, and
direct force could be used; the Funsky Force is a fine alternative. Forcing a specific
(known) Club also eliminates the need for glimpsing the selection.

At step 7, you could theoretically employ any control that secretly brings the signed
selection to the top- but not all controls are equal. Since the Ace packet will be
dropped on top of the deck (at step 8), for maximum impact, I think it's important that
112 AM DECKO

the spectator positively believes that her selection is definitely not on top (as opposed to
her simply having no idea where her card might be). The Bedwell Dribble Toss Control
yields strong conviction that the card is in the middle of the deck. A pass or a side steal
could be used. One simple, direct control is to apparently replace the selection into the
middle using Tilt (under the top card); then show that the selection is not on either the
top or bottom, and bury those two cards.

I have on occasion embellished the routine at step 3 (where the performer picks his own
/1
card, the mystery card") by instead having the spectator herself "pick a card for me, so
we know it's fair." I then use an under-the-spread force to force the Ace of Clubs, which
is then left on the table unseen. Any force will do, and it helps strengthen the sense that
/1
the mystery card might have been any" card.
TMnkin~ ln~i~e t~e t1ox

andidly, my entire impetus for devising this routine is the climax in phase 3, in

C which two Jokers capture a signed selection-while the Jokers are in a card case,
completely isolated from the rest of the deck. I'm cognizant that multi-phase
sandwich routines are a dime a dozen. I remember early on being captivated by Fred
Kaps' version, which was straightforward, deceptive, and more challenging with each
phase. Those are the standards I'm trying for in this present effect, with an added twist.

EttECT

Three cards are selected, with one being signed on the face, and all three are returned
and lost in the deck. The performer introduces the two Jokers, which are charged with
finding each of the selections under increasingly challenging conditions.

The pair of Jokers is first placed into the center of the deck and magically rises to the
top, capturing the first selection between them. The two Jokers are next dropped on top
of the deck, and instantly the second selection appears between them. The two Jokers
are then placed into the empty card case. When they are removed, the third signed
selection is found between them.

SETUP

In addition to a deck of cards, you'll need its card box with its cellophane sleeve and
tw o Jokers. You'll also need one double-face card showing a regular Joker on one side
and any other card on the reverse side. The standard double-face decks obtainable from
U.S. Playing Card Company come with two such double-face Jokers, one showing a
Five of Hearts and the other showing a Five of Spades. (If you have the two double-
faced Queens for "Twice Removed, Once Again," you could also use one of those.) For
114 ilM DECl)O

descriptive purposes, let's assume we're using a Joker/Five of Hearts double-facer.

Finally, have a marking pen handy.

There are alternative options available (see Comments 3 and 4), but for purposes of this
explanation, let's assume that (1) your card box is one that has a full back design
printed on one side of the case (still a standard feature of many card cases printed by
U.S. Playing Card Company), and (2) the pair of Jokers consists of one regular Joker and
one Guarantee Joker. The Joker side of your double-facer matches the regular Joker.

Tear off the two small side flaps from the case. This simply makes it easier to insert and
remove cards. Insert the regular Joker "back out" under the cellophane on the moon-
cutout side of the box; its back design should look like part of the case, so for practical
purposes this Joker is invisible. Take the double-face Joker, and put its Five of Hearts
face against the face of the Guarantee Joker; then place this pair into the card box, with
the back of the Guarantee Joker toward the moon-cutout side of the box. Place the case
thus prepared on the table, a bit off to the side.

The deck is ordinary and unprepared, so you can do any other effects you want. When
you're ready to perform this piece, secretly move the regular Five of Hearts to whatever
position you need for it to be forced. In my description, I'm going to recommend
having the selections made, replaced, and controped using a spread cull technique, so I
position the Five of Hearts at sixth position from the top (my favored position for
forcing). We're ready to begin.

1) Here's an overview of the selection process, so you'll know where we're

headed. Briefly, three cards will be selected. One of them, the SH, will be forced, and
the other two will be free . One of the free selections will be signed. All three selections
will be replaced into the deck and apparently lost. In fact, you'll control the two free
selections to the top of the deck while the forced SH will be legitimately lost. Once this
is accomplished, we'll introduce the Jokers.

For purposes of economy and uniformity- not to mention deceptive quality- a spread
cull technique is the most efficient way of producing these results. We'll begin by
forcing the SH, using a standard spread force technique. Here's the detail.

(i) Begin spreading the deck between your hands, until you've spread six cards.
Your left thumb-tip now lightly contacts the back of the fifth card while your left
second and third fingertips (underneath the spread) contact the exposed face of
the sixth card (the SH).
 Tffll)l)ll)G ll'l51D€ TffE bO~ 115

(ii) Pause your spreading action as you look at your first spectator, Ginny; during
this moment the right hand moves the top five already-spread cards to the left, as
though partially re-squaring them. The left thumb also moves to the left slightly,
to help slide the fifth card leftward, but the left fingers underneath prevent the
SH from being moved. The result is that the left edge of the fifth card will now
completely cover the SH. Underneath, the right edge of the SH contacts, and is
gripped by, the base of the right index finger. This momentary re-squaring is
accompanied by your comment, ''I'm going to spread the cards like this ... and as I
do, please extend one finger and touch the back of just one card, anyone you like."

(iii) Again spread the cards, drawing

the top group of five cards to the
right as a block. The right index
finger below holds the right edge of
the SH lightly against the underside
of the right-hand cards. The SH will
thus be culled under the spread.
Your right first finger maintains its
pressure on the right outer corner of
the SH, to hold it in place; the left
edge of the SH drops just a bit, forming a slight gap (Figure 1, an exposed view,
with the gap exaggerated) . Immediately the left thumb continues spreading the
deck, feeding its cards into the gap. During the spreading action, proffer the
face-down cards toward Ginny so she can easily touch the back of one.

(iv) Once she touches a card,

separate the spread below the
touched card. The touched card
becomes (apparently) the bottom
card of the right-hand spread.
Actually, the right edge of the
touched card has slightly entered the
gap between the SH and the rest of
the spread. The right fingers below
press the SH upward against the
spread cards; this holds the touched card in place. About 1/2" of the left side of
the touched card should still remain visible (Figure 2, exposed view).

(v) You'll now lift your right hand, raising its spread cards to a vertical position
so that Ginny can see the faces . As you do this, you'll secretly exchange the
hidden SH for the touched card. To do this, start by moving your left hand just
slightly to the right, so that your left thumb contacts the left edge of the touched
card. Now as your right hand begins to raise its cards, two actions happen
116 ~M DECi)O

simultaneously: your left thumb pushes the touched card to the right (squaring it
with the right-hand cards), while your right fingers below, on the face of the
hidden 5H, simultaneously extend leftward, pushing the 5H to the left. The
right-hand cards will square up, not fully but in a slightly skewed packet, as the
touched card and the 5H slide across each other. The result is that the full face of
the 5H will come into view as the (now visible) bottom card of the right-hand
portion.

This exchange of positions happens in an instant, and is covered by the broad

upward motion of the right hand. It's not a quick or sudden motion; it's actually
somewhat soft. Apparently the left hand simply helps to square the right-hand
packet partially so that the right hand can hold its cards more securely, as it
displays the face card of its packet.

(vi) Hold that vertical position for a moment, as you display the 5H to any
spectators on you left and your right, saying, "Everyone, please remember Ginny's
card." Then lower your right-hand cards onto the left-hand cards, closing the
spread and legitimately losing the 5H somewhere within the deck. We won't
need it again.

2) Turn to your second spectator, Mergel, for him to select a card. Continue to
spread the deck between your hands and have him touch a card in a similar manner as
did Ginny. When he does, separate the spread below his touched card and lift up the
right-hand cards to display Mergel' s legitimately freely selected card at the face of these
cards. Let's assume it's the KC. This selection and display procedure should mirror, as
closely as possible, the procedure used to force the 5H on Ginny, only here the selection
is free. Ask that everyone help remember Mergel' s card, and close the right-hand cards
onto the left-hand cards, apparently losing this selection as well. But for this second
selection, you'll perform a standard under-the-spread cull to control it to the bottom of
the deck. Here's a brief description.

(i) As you lower the right-hand cards onto the left-hand cards, your left
fingertips apply a slight upward pressure on the face of the KC from underneath,
to hold it in place. Your left thumb-tip, above the spread, lightly rests on the left
edge of the card immediately above the KC. With your right hand, casually
move or slide the still-spread right-hand cards toward the left, so they fully cover
the back of the KC. (This covering block of the already-spread right-hand cards
prevents any otherwise telltale "visual vanishing" of the culled KC.)

(ii) As soon as the KC is covered, the left fingers release their pressure on its face
as the right fingers beneath the spread take control of it and pull it slightly to the
right, until the left edge of the KC clears the cards still remaining in the left hand;
 Tflll'\t)ll'\G ll'\51DE TflE f>O~ 117

you may feel a slight "click" as it clears. The KC has thus secretly been culled
below the spread.

(iii) If you continue spreading cards from the left hand toward the right, they
will feed between the KC and the right-hand cards. The KC will ride beneath the
spread, and thus when the spread is finished and the deck squared, the KC will
be the bottom card of the deck

3) After Mergel' s selection has apparently been lost in the deck, almost as an
afterthought, address a third spectator Carol, saying "Let's try something special with you.
Here, take a card." Again spread for Carol to freely pick and remove a card (that's why we
said 'take,' instead of just 'touch'). When she complies, have Carol sign her name or
draw a doodle on the face of her selection. She can show it around, and if you want,
you can avert your eyes so that you don't see its identity.

When she's done, spread the deck between your hands and split the spread, gesturing
for her to replace her signed card onto your left-hand portion. When she does, sidejog
it a bit and raise your left hand to display it around. Lower your hands and square the
right-hand cards onto the left-hand cards, apparently to lose Carol's selection, but in
fact cull it to the bottom of the deck, using the same under-the-spread cull described in
step 2 above.

Situation check: Three cards have been selected and apparently lost in the deck. In fact
Mergel and Carol's selections are actually at the bottom of the deck, with Carol's signed
card lowermost.

4) Casually spread the cards, just enough to obtain a break above the two bottom
cards, and then perform a simple double undercut to move those two bottom cards to
the top. (If you prefer, you could bring the bottom two cards to the top with an
overhand shuffle instead of a double undercut; just be sure that Carol's signed card
winds up as the second card from the top.)

Some magicians have difficulty performing a double undercut that moves a few cards
from bottom to top (as opposed to from top to bottom). It's actually fairly easy if you
substitute an injog for the customary break. As an alternative, I typically use Frank
Thompson's Triple Cut to the table. This well-known cut gets away from the odd-
looking image of "cutting the deck in half, twice" that results from a standard double
undercut. But the Frank Thompson Triple Cut is also a very efficient way to move a
few cards from bottom to top, as follows.

(i) Start with the deck held in your left hand, left pinky secretly holding its break
above the bottom two cards. With your right hand from above, grip the deck by
the ends, with the right thumb-tip at the inner end taking the break With your
11e, llM DECKO

right first finger, swing cut the top third of the deck into the left hand. The left
hand carries this third to the bottom of the deck, where it coalesces with the two
cards below the break, as the left pinky re-takes the break. Both hands are now
surrounding the deck (left hand below, right hand above), but the right hand is
gripping only the two-thirds of the deck above the pinky break.

(ii) The right first finger breaks off about half the cards above the break and
swing cuts them to the left, where this block is taken and held in the left thumb
crotch; the left thumb grips this block at its outer left corner, holding it between
the left thumb and the base of the left finger. The right hand now holds only the
lower half of the cards above the break, gripping them between the right thumb
at the rear and the right middle and ring fingers at the front.

(iii) The right hand cuts its block to the table. As the right hand moves to the
table, the cards held in the left thumb crotch drop or coalesce with the left-hand
block below them, but the left pinky maintains a break between these two blocks.

(iv) The right hand returns and immediately takes the cards above the break
(i.e., those that had been held in the left thumb crotch) and slaps this packet onto
the tabled packet.

(v) The right hand takes the remaining left-hand cards and slaps them onto the
tabled pile, thus reassembling the deck.

The above five steps are done as one continuous, flowing action. The end result
is that the bottom two cards have been brought to the top (and the rest of the
deck stays in order) .

5) I've spent several pages detailing the forcing, selection and control
procedures, but in practice the entire selection process moves fairly quickly. Now the
fun begins. We're about to perform three productions/revelations in rapid succession.
It's time to introduce the Jokers.

The plot from here on is direct and clear: the sandwiched Jokers will locate and produce
each of the three selections. I won't offer any particular presentation; there are a lot of
options, from humorous representational stories to straightforward "adventures of the
prop." You could refer to the Jokers as a pair of detectives who finds missing people, or
as two bikers or court jesters or whatever. In what follows I'll just calfthem my
assistants, who help me find lost cards.

Open the card box, moon side up, and dump or take out the two Jokers, keeping them
together so as not to reveal the SH face-a back will be seen. Once they're out of the
 TtllrlKll'lG ln51DE THE ~o~ 119

box, turn the two cards face up, spread

them, and casually drop them separately
onto the table to display the two Jokers. I
comment that every deck comes with two
Jokers, as I casually show the card box
empty as in Figure 3. By bowing the case
between your hands and flashing the
inside briefly, the audience will see that
nothing else resides inside, while your
fingers naturally cover any portion of the
hidden Joker that might be peeking through the moon cutout. This "show" establishes
an action we'll repeat later at step 10.

Let me offer one observation about the forthcoming productions. We're going to
produce the three selections in the following order: first, the unsigned free selection
(which is currently sitting on top of the deck); second, the forced 5H (which is on the
opposite side of the regular Joker); and finally, the signed free selection (which is
currently second from the top of the deck). This revelation order is not the same order
in which the selections were made (the first two selections have been inverted). I've
found that spectators don't care about, or even keep track of, the order in which the
cards were picked, and since the first two selections are both unsigned, this re-ordering
isn't ever noticed. My reason for re-ordering is simple. You'll see that the methodology
requires that the forced card (the 5H) be produced second, but I've found that there are
good reasons to perform a force on the first selection (e.g., the first spectator is less "on
guard" at the initial selection, and the legitimate losing of the 5H puts spectators at ease
and makes them less suspicious about the two replacements that follow). I've never
had a problem with my re-ordering, but for any OCD readers, feel free to order your
selections so they're parallel to the revelations. This can be accomplished by simply
reversing the order of steps 1 and 2 above.

6) The two Jokers will now magically find Mergel's card, the KC (which is secretly on
top of the deck). For this first revelation, I use an unusual combination of two standard
sleights, which together produce a very visual result. It will appear as if you bury the
two Jokers face up into the middle of the deck, but when you wave your hand over the
deck, both Jokers instantly travel to the top, capturing the first selection sandwiched
between them.

We'll accomplish this using Tilt and an Erdnase Color Change. (Please don't let these
particular "sleights" scare you away from this routine; if you' re at all hesitant, there are
many alternative sandwich productions that can be easily substituted in their stead.
Comment 2 mentions several options.)
120 f1M DE<f)O

We'll apparently insert the Joker sandwich into the middle of the deck using Tilt, as
follows.

(i) Hold the deck face down in your

left hand, and obtain a Tilt break
below the top card. With your right
hand place the Regular Joker face up
onto the face-up Guarantee Joker.
Pick up the pair by its inner right
corner and hold it at the rear of the
deck, as if you're about to insert the
two Jokers into the middle of the deck
(Figure 4, audience view).

(ii) I use Daryl's Book-Break handling

for Tilt. Briefly, with your left thumb
at the outer end of the left long edge,
lift up the left side of the deck about
112", opening up the upper half, with
the right long edge of the deck serving
_ as the hinge (Figure 5, performer's
view). The left pinky still maintains
its break below the top card.

(iii) Apparently insert the pair of

Jokers into the center of the deck, as
your left thumb starts to lower its
raised half. Actually the pair is
inserted into the break below the top
card. The Jokers still protrude for
about half their length from the rear of
the deck. If you coordinate these two
motions, from the front it looks exactly
as if the pair of Jokers goes into the
middle of the deck (Figure 6, audience view). (The above Tilt handling is, of
course, optional. Feel free to use whatever Tilt insertion you prefer.)

(iv) Close up the deck and then push the Jokers flush.

7) Explain to Mergel that your two Joker assistants will climb their way up
through the deck, as you gesture at the top card. This top card is in fact Mergel' s
selection, and hidden immediately under it is the face-up Joker sandwich. All we need
to do is perform the actions of an Erdnase Color Change, and it will seem as if a three-
 Tflll'lKll'lG ll'l51DE TflE bO~ 121

card sandwich has visibly risen to the top. Most magicians are familiar w ith this classic
move, but for completeness, here's a bare-bones summary.

(i) The deck is held face down in left-hand dealing position. Cover it with your
face-down right hand. Press down lightly on the outer right corner of the top
card with the pad of your right little finger, and slide the top card (only) forward
so it protrudes about%" over the front edge of the deck. This exposes about%"
of the Regular Joker at the rear end of the deck. All of this is hidden by the right-
hand cover.

(ii) Lower the heel of the right hand

so that it touches the exposed portion
of the Joker. If you now slide your
right hand backward (or, alternatively,
your left hand and the deck forward),
this friction will cause the Joker to
slide backward also (Figure 7 shows
an exposed view, from the left side).
Your rationale for pulling your hand
back is to display the top (face down)
card one more time. Move your right
hand (together with the Joker) back
just enough for the outer end of the
Joker to "clear" the inner end of the
still-outjogged top card-you'll feel a
click as it clears.

(iii) Tip the right heel down slightly,

which raises the outer end of the Joker,
as you now reverse direction, moving
your right hand forward. The Joker,
still hidden beneath the right hand,
will slide forward, now riding above
the face-down card (Figure 8, exposed
view) . Let the Joker lower onto the
top of the deck.

(iv) Square the cards (your left first

finger can help by pushing the
outjogged card flush) and make a waving motion of the right hand over the deck
as you slowly open your right fingers (Figure 9). Move your right hand away
from the deck, to reveal that the face-up Joker has magically appeared.
122 AM DECtsO

Clearly, this is only a brief outline of this standard color change. Many tips and
interpretations are available in the literature (see Comment 1), but the bottom line is
that, in this instance, it creates a quite visible appearance of the Regular Joker.

8) But there's still more to reveal. Your spectators have just seen you bury a pair
of Jokers in the center of the deck. As soon as the Regular Joker appears face up on top,
immediately spread the top few cards of the deck to reveal a three-card sandwich: the
two face-up Jokers, with a face-down card in between. Take the fanned three- card
sandwich into the right hand, table the rest of the deck, and then with your left hand
outjog the face-down card for half its length. (Our goal here is to offer, in a subtle way,
as many displays as we can that show two Joker faces).

Ask Mergel to name his selected card (in our example, the KC). When he does, slowly
and dramatically rotate your wrist inward to turn your right hand palm down,
revealing the face of the outjogged card to be Mergel' s selection. As you turn the
sandwich over, with your right thumb slide the regular Joker so that it aligns with the
Guarantee Joker; this hides the SH face
behind the Guarantee Joker. With your left
hand, withdraw Mergel' s face-up selection
from the sandwich (Figure 10) and drop it
face up onto the table off to the right.

The first production is over. The next two

will be quicker and easier. Let me reiterate
that any sandwich production you desire can
be substituted for this first phase; the above
is simply my preferred way (and, when the angles or circumstances aren't right, I'll
sometimes use one of the alternatives mentioned in Comment 2).

The next two phases take advantage of an ingenious combination developed by

Andrew Normansell, albeit with a twist.

9) Turn the right hand palm up and spread the Jokers face up, as you say, "For
Mergel's card, the Jokers went into the deck and hunted for it. Now they'll try to find Ginny's
card in an even more challenging way, because they'll stay in plain sight, right here on top of the
deck." Pick up the deck in your left hand, and casually flip the pair of Jokers bookwise
face down on top of it, making sure that the Jokers coalesce so that the SH face doesn't
flash.

Snap your fingers over the top of the deck, and immediately spread the top three cards
into the right hand, just as you did in step 8, revealing another startling sandwich- only
this time, the outer two cards of the sandwich will be face down, and the SH will be face
up between them. This is quite a startling appearance, since the face-up card seems to
 Tttlf)Klf)G ll'l51DE THE f>O~ 12:~

just materialize. As this sinks in, casually place the rest of the deck aside, face down.
We're not going to need it any longer, so we'll distance the rest of the cards from the
apparent Joker sandwich. At this point we're already far ahead. The spectators
naturally assume that the two face-down cards surrounding the SH are the two Jokers
that they just saw a moment ago; in fact, the lowermost face-down card is actually
Carol's signed selection.

Ask Ginny, "This time the Jokers have captured the SH. Does that happen to be your card?"
When Ginny confirms, casually split the sandwich below the 5H by taking hold of the
lowermost card in your left hand, as your right hand carries the other two cards to the
right, where it drops the 5H face up onto Mergel' s face-up selection, slightly
overlapping it toward the left. Then casually bring the right-hand's remaining face-
down card back to the left, and place it under the card in the left hand. This subtle
displacement positions the Guarantee Joker at the face of the two-card sandwich.

This second phase is over, and you're left apparently holding the two face-down Jokers.
I don't try to "prove" that the two face-down cards are "still" Jokers. The spectators saw
two Joker faces at the beginning of this phase, and the natural and logical assumption is
that these two face-down cards are exactly what they just saw a moment ago. Further
convincers are not only unnecessary but potentially dangerous insofar as they raise the
issue. (If you feel you must engage in such proving, see my suggestion at Comment 3.)

10) For phase 3, we're going to cleanly place these two cards into the empty card
box. When they're removed there will be a three-card sandwich, with Carol's signed
card in between the Jokers. (In each phase, the "sandwich" looks different; in this final
phase, Carol's selection will wind up facing the same direction as the Jokers, not the
opposite way.) Perhaps you can already guess how this will be accomplished: we'll
simply put the two apparent Jokers (really the Guarantee Joker with Carol's selection
behind it) into the box and then remove them, secretly adding the regular Joker that's
been kept in hiding under the cellophane. I add a small finesse that allows Carol herself
to open the box and to remove the sandwich at the climax. Here's how I proceed.

You're holding the two face-down cards in your right hand. Spread them slightly just
to remind your audience that there are only two cards there (without verbally saying
so). I say, "The Jokers are now going to try to find Carol's card. This would normally be easy
because all they need to do is look for Carol's signature. But we'll make it harder for them." As
I say this, I gesture a bit with both hands (I do this a lot, anyway) and, in the course of
this gesture, I make sure to raise my hands slightly so that the face of the Guarantee
Joker is seen (again, make sure that as you do this, your thumb moves the upper card,
Carol's selection, so it's hidden behind the Joker).
124 AM DECKO

With your left hand, pick up the card box and

hold it with the flap side toward your
spectator, opening pointed toward your
right, as your right hand inserts the pair into
the box with the Guarantee Joker facing the
spectators (Figure 11 depicts the start of this
action, audience view). Note that your right
thumb is at the back of the pair, ready to
grasp the small portion of the hidden Joker
that sticks out into the moon cutout. Insert
the pair of cards all the way into the box,
keeping them against the rear side of the
case-but as soon as the two cards reach the
bottom of the case, secretly pinch the hidden
Joker behind them and immediately reverse
direction to withdraw the cards (now three held
together) out of the case. With your left hand
turn the opening of the card box toward the
spectators, as your right hand (still holding
its cards) pulls or bows open the moon end of
the case so that the audience can see that the case is completely empty (Figure 12).

This is similar to how you showed the case empty when you first removed the Jokers
(step 5) and thus will seem a familiar view to the audience. The entire action is done as
a double-take; it's as if you start to put the two Jokers into the box but then realize that
you haven't shown it empty again, so you withdraw the cards and show the case
empty. Once you've shown the box to be empty-and you only need to flash it for a
moment-reinsert the right-hand cards into the box and close the flap.

11) You're now ready for the climax. You can play it however you like (e.g., put
the box onto the deck or riffle the deck toward the box or just make a magical gesture),
and then ask Carol to name her card aloud. Have her open the box and remove what's
inside. She'll find three cards and nothing else. I aim to have her slide out the three
cards still face down, just to delay the climax a bit. When that occurs, I'll leave the three
cards spread on the table, all face down, and then I'll slowly turn one Joker face up, and
then the other, surrounding the still face-down card between them. I then cleanly flip
the entire three-card sandwich over, so Carol's signed card is revealed between the now
face-down Jokers. All three cards are, of course, ordinary.

12) The trick is over, but it's always nice to end clean. Here's how. Pick up the
two Jokers face up in your left hand. With your right hand, pick up Carol's selection,
and use it to scoop up the first two selections (which, you'll recall, are sitting face up in
an overlapped condition off at the right). Flip all three of the right-hand cards face
 Tttll1tsll1G ln51D€ THE f>O~ 125

down onto the left-hand cards, and immediately push off the top two face-down cards
with your left thumb; a Joker face will appear below them. Take the two right-hand
cards and drop them onto the deck, and place the left-hand cards (apparently just the
Jokers, actually three cards) into the box. It looks as if you're simply replacing the
selections back onto the deck and putting the Jokers back into the box. You're now left
with an ungaffed deck, ready for your next miracle.

(Offiffi€nT5

(1) Sources; Credits. Andrew Normansell's Joker Sandwich Production (used in

step 9) originally appeared in his effect "Club Sandwich," where it climaxed with a
magical change of one selection for a second selection within the sandwich. Our Chicago
session group was intrigued with the cleverness and efficiency of Normansell's concept,
and we all worked out several alternative ways of handling the change of the first
selection into the second one. As magical as this change was, I kept thinking it would
be even more deceptive to not reveal the hidden second selection by a visual change,
but instead to get far ahead in a "Between the Palms" type of effect. With that goal as
my starting point, in 2005 I developed "Thinking Inside the Box."

The Erdnase Color Change (apparently the creation of Houdini) is described in many
places. More complete descriptions, with excellent finesses and subtleties, can be found
in Roberto Giobbi, Card College, Vol. 3 (1998), p. 744; Erdnase, The Expert at the Card
Table, (1902) p. 151; John Carney, The Book of Secrets, (2002) p. 188; and Gladwin & Jay,
The Definitive Sankey, Vol. 1 (2012), p. 37.

(2) Alternative Sandwich Productions. While the sandwich productions of the

second and third selections are dictated by the method, the procedure for producing the
first selection (at steps 6-8) is open to whatever sandwich-type maneuver you prefer.

Here are some alternatives. Perhaps the easiest and most flexible way is to secretly load
the top card between the two face-up Jokers, using a Biddle-steal: just obtain a left
pinky break below Mergel' s selection, and flip the pair of face-down Jokers face up onto
the deck to display them. With your right hand pick up the cards above the break, and
peel off the uppermost (regular) Joker with your left thumb. Immediately replace it
below the (apparently single) Guarantee Joker, to form what appears to be just a two-
card Joker sandwich. You can now produce Mergel' s selection between the Jokers,
using the familiar "pinchers" or "tweezers" move, visibly producing the face-down
selection as you riffle one end of the deck and suddenly stab the Joker sandwich into the
riffle. Alternatively, once the selection is secretly loaded between the Jokers, you could
ask Mergel to lift off about half the deck and then drop the Joker sandwich into the
middle of the pack. When the cards are ribbon spread across the table, a face-down
card will be seen between the Jokers.
126 11M DECKO

Another sandwich production that is easy and visual is Reinhard Mueller's Three Card
Catch. This requires that Mergel' s selection start on the bottom of the deck (instead of
the top), but such a situation is easily obtainable: at step 4, instead of double
undercutting two cards from the bottom to the top, just move one card instead. This
will move Carol's signed selection to the top but leave Mergel' s selection on the face.
You can then place the regular Joker face up on top of the deck and the Guarantee Joker
face up on the bottom, sidejogged to the left. Hold the deck in your left hand palm up,
with your thumb on the top Joker and your fingers underneath the deck. The fleshy
part of your left fingers touches the Guarantee Joker, while the fingertips press lightly
against the exposed face of Mergel' s selection. If you apply light pressure with your
thumb and fingertips as you toss the deck to the right into your waiting right hand,
you'll be left with the three-card sandwich held in your left hand. It's a sudden and
quick production of the first selection.

As long as your first production stays within the plot parameter of the sandwiched
Jokers finding Mergel' s selection, anything goes.

(3) Jokers. I originally presented this routine using two matching regular Jokers,
which allowed me to introduce Flushtration-type displays, both at the beginning (to
apparently display two backs) and at the end (to apparently display both Joker faces,
right before the pair is inserted into the box). I eventually switched to one regular and
one Guarantee Joker for several reasons. First, I think the Guarantee Joker makes things
look more casual and normat since that's what comes with a deck. Second, I don't
think there's any heat on the Jokers or any suspicion of a gaft so the Flushtration moves
are probably gilding the lily. Third, when the Jokers are different, it's easy to remember
which is which for purposes of hiding the SH side. If you do experiment with two
matching Jokers, I'd suggest making a subtle mark on the face of one, to help you keep
track of the gaff.

(4) Card Cases. One lesson I've learned from this trick is to save your old
Bicycle card cases. After decades of regularly printing a full back design on the outside
of its Bicycle card boxes, the U.S. Playing Card Company recently discontinued this
practice, on some designs. It's probably not a crucial requirement; even if there's no
back design printed on the case, you could still put the Joker under the cellophane, thus
creating the image of a card back. When that Joker is ultimately removed from the
cellophane, so long as the case is placed that side down, it's likely that no one will
notice that you've also performed an inadvertent "changing card case" effect. But, to
avoid such a discrepancy, it's worth saving a few of the old-style cases.
Twice ~emove~, Once tl~ain

ver thirty years ago I published the effect "Twice Removed Transposition" in

0 Sessions (my first hardcover book (1982), written with Dave Solomon). That effect
incorporated some clever and deceptive switches, but I've never seen anyone
perform it. I think that's partly because it required two special double-face cards
(which at that time had to be custom-made) and partly because it lacked an entertaining
presentation.

Fast forward to the present. I've re-worked and streamlined the procedures, added a
humorous theme, and changed the gaffs (and had them printed by the U.S. Playing
Card Company, available at my website while the supply lasts). Since Sessions went
out-of-print long ago, and because the effect has undergone a radical transformation,
I'm happy to present its reincarnation.

€tt€CT

The performer introduces the two Jokers and places them face down onto the table. He
also uses the four Queens which are placed aside, face up. From the rest of the deck,
two cards are freely selected, noted, and lost back into the pack. The two red Queens
are now sandwiched face up around one of the face-down Jokers, and the two black
Queens are sandwiched face up around the other Joker.

Even though those sandwiches never approach the deck, instantaneously the two Jokers
change into the spectator's two selections, and when the deck is spread face down
across the table, the two Jokers are found face up in the center.

That's a dry, bare-bones but pretty accurate description of what the spectators see and
of what actually happens. Absent from the above description is my script about the
126 AM DECKO

"Acrobatic Card Family" and the death-defying feat performed by the "Flying Joker
brothers." You'll learn about them below.

You'll require two double-faced Jokers. I've had two special double-face cards custom
printed for this effect: a Joker/Queen of Diamonds and a Joker/Queen of Clubs,
because they lend themselves to the humorous patter theme of an "acrobatic card
family" made up of four sisters and their two brothers, the Jokers. But it's not essential
that you use my double-faced Queens to perform this effect. A standard deck of Bicycle
double-facers (obtainable at most magic dealers) usually includes one Five of
Hearts/Joker and one Five of Spades/Joker, so if you obtain a set of those two double-
faced Joker/Fives, you can perform this effect by simply substituting the four Fives in
place of the four Queens.

The effect starts and ends clean. Just carry the two double-faced Jokers in your card box
and leave them there while you perform other effects with the rest of the deck.
Whenever you're ready to perform "Twice Removed, Once Again," just dump out the
Jokers to introduce them.

WOt.Klr1G

1) I explain," At practically every magic convention, the act that gets the greatest
applause isn't a magician - it's always a novelty act: maybe a juggler or a ventriloquist. So, we
interrupt my magic performance to present a special variety act: the Acrobatic Card Family."
As I speak I remove the four Queens from the deck and arrange them (from the face) in
D, C, H, S order (one way to remember this is to first set them in standard CHaSeD
order from the face and then just move the Diamond from the back to the face). Spread
the rest of the deck across the table face up. Finally, bring out the two Jokers from the
box, making sure that the uppermost Joker has the Club on its hidden side.

Put the two Jokers on the face of the Queens and casually spread the six cards between
your hands as you enthusiastically introduce them (as if you're an emcee or a
ringmaster), "Direct from the U.S. Playing Card Company, this family act features four
sisters - two ravishing redheads and two black haired beauties - and the stars, two identical
twins, the Flying Joker brothers." Separate your hands, taking just the two Jokers in your
right hand, and gesture with them as you point out, "The Joker brothers got their start
riding their bicycles on the high wire. But now they feature a unique death-defying stunt." The
display here (Figure 1, audience view) is clean and disarming. While you're displaying
the Jokers with your right hand, use this opportunity to obtain a left pinky break below
the left hand's Queen of Clubs.
 TWICE f)EffiOUED, GnCE ~Alf'l 129

2) Place the Jokers, still spread, back onto the Queens, freeing your right hand to
point at the spread deck, saying, "The audience, over here, is dying to see it, but in show
business, you first build up suspense. So, the Joker brothers wait over here, in the wings. As
fl

you say this, your right hand squares the Jokers onto the left-hand packet and flips all
the cards above the break bookwise face down onto the left-hand packet. Immediately
thumb off the top face-down card (the real QC) into your right hand and move both
hands to the forward-right corner of your table or working surface; then drop the right
hand's face-down card onto the table as, with your left thumb, you simultaneously
thumb off the top card of the left-hand packet (the real QD), dropping it face down
beside and to the left of the right-hand's tabled card (Figure 2, audience view).

All of this happens in one continuous motion. It appears as if you have simply turned
over both Jokers and put them aside face down on the table. As soon as you've done
this, casually spread the remaining four cards between your hands, showing the four
face-up Queens still in their original order. This final" show" confirms that everything
is exactly as it should be; you don't need to say anything more. Square up the four
Queens and leave them in a face-up pile on the table.

3) "The sisters appreciate the value of audience participation, so they ask for two
volunteers from the audience - this is the audience. Here, scoop up the face-up deck and
fl

turn it face down. You're now going to have two cards freely selected from the pack,
shown and remembered, replaced, and apparently lost in the deck. Actually, the two
selections will be controlled to the bottom of the deck. You can use any selection and
control method you wish, but an under-the-spread control is probably the quickest.

Briefly, spread the cards face down and have your first spectator, Ginny, point to one.
Split the spread above her selected card and sidejog it with your left thumb as you raise
the left-hand cards vertically to show the face of Ginny's selected card. Then lower the
left-hand cards and continue your spreading action; as you do, your left and right
fingers beneath the spread cull the sidejogged card below the right-hand cards, where it
rides under the spread. Ask a second spectator, Mergel, to repeat the process for a
second selection. Once his card is also culled under the spread, square up the spread
into your left hand. This delivers both selections to the bottom of the pack, in 2, 1 order
BO AMDECKO

from the face. Let's assume as an example that Ginny picked the 4S and Mergel chose
the 8C; the 8C is thus the bottom card of the deck.

If you want, you could have both selections signed across their face. It takes a bit more
time, but the signatures provide proof that you're not using duplicates.

My script during these selections refers to the playing cards as the" audience members"
and runs something like, "So let's have two members of this audience selected at random.
Ginny, will you help by pointing to any one of these audience members? Remember who he is ...
And another volunteer ... Mergel, please remember this one too. Got it? ... Your two chosen
audience members will play a special role."

Once the deck is squared, you'll adjust the

your left hand's grip, as follows. With your
right hand, momentarily grip the deck at its
inner end, right fingers on top and thumb on
the face, and lift the inner end up, turning
the deck to a vertical position so that the
bottom card (the 8C) faces your body. Your
left hand meanwhile turns inward at the
wrist and retakes the deck, with the left
thumb on the face and the left fingers on the
back of the deck, still holding it in a vertical position (Figure 3, performer's view).
Basically, you're now holding the deck in what is essentially a face-up mechanic's grip,
but with the deck tilted up vertically, backs toward the spectators. This adjustment sets
up the next move while preventing the 8C from being seen.

4) Call attention to the Queens by picking up the Queen packet with your right
hand (by the ends, in Biddle grip) as you say, "The four sisters are cheerleaders; they get the
crowd excited. Does anyone remember their order?" While the spectators' focus shifts to the
Queens, with your left thumb push off the two face cards of the deck (the selections)
slightly, just enough so that you can obtain a left pinky break beneath those two cards,
and then square up.

You'll now proceed to answer your own question by showing that the colors of the
Queens alternate; you're going to do this by peeling off the Queens one at a time. To do
this, it's natural to bring your hands together, as follows.

Bring both hands together with the cards still in a vertical position, backs toward the
spectators, as you momentarily place the Queen packet against the face of the deck. As
the packets come in contact, your right fingers and thumb pick up the two cards at the
break (the selections) and transfer them to the rear of the Queen packet. Immediately
lower both hands and separate them slightly, turning each hand out and forward so
 TWICE f'\EmOUED, OIKEf1GAtf) l~1

that spectators see the face card of each

hand's packet (an indifferent card will show
on the face of the left-hand cards). Extend
your left thumb onto the face of the QD and
peel it off onto the face of the deck (Figure 4,
audience view), calling out its color, "Red."
The cards are held tilted down, displaying
the faces to the audience. Note that your
right fingers and thumb cover the edges of
the Queen packet, to hide the extra thickness.

Continue by peeling off the QC onto the QD, saying, "Black," and then peel off the QH
as you call, "Red" -but obtain a left pinky break between the QC and the QH. Finally,
with a continuous rhythm, place the final QS (really a block of three cards held as one)
onto the QH, saying, "Black" - and immediately separate the hands, taking the cards
above the break into your right hand, as you do a wrist turn with your left hand to put
the deck face down onto the table (thus hiding the QC that is on the face of the deck).

In this step it should appear as if the only reason for bringing your hands together is the
natural motion of using both hands to accomplish the successive peeling display. (If
you mentally begin step 4 by "thinking" or "visualizing" a peeling action, the steal of
the two selections happens almost automatically in the action of reaching with your left
thumb to peel off the first Queen, the QD). In fact, you've secretly loaded the two
selections into the Queen packet and have also unloaded both Jokers into the deck.

5) Turn your now-empty left hand palm up and, with your right fingers, flip the
Queen packet bookwise face down into your left hand. You' re now going to deal the
four Queens into two face-down piles, dealing left, right, left, right. Start by pushing off
the top face-down Queen (the QH) into your right hand and turn your right hand wrist
inward to display it as you glance at its face "to remind yourself" of its color. The
audience also sees its face, as you say, "Red." Turn the QH face down and deal it face
down.

Deal the second Queen (really the 4S) face down to the right of the first Queen, calling,
"Black," and then deal the third Queen (really the SC) onto the first dealt Queen, saying,
"Red." Finally, deal the last Queen (the QS) onto the second dealt Queen. (You can
"accidently" flash its black face as you deal, calling out, "Black.") Your patter as you
deal back and forth is thus a repetitive, "Red, black, red and black."

Everything appears exactly as it should. In the peeling action, you showed that the
colors alternated, and then you dealt the four Queens back and forth into two piles,
apparently separating them by colors.
1:~2 AM DECKO

6) Using both hands, reach over to the two face-down (apparent) Jokers (which
you placed aside at step 2) and slide them to the middle of your performing surface, one
in front of each of the two Queen piles. I say, "The Jokers, with complete disregard for their
own safety, take center stage ... "

At this point the layout looks like Figure 5 (performer's view); your audience believes
that there are two red Queens behind the leftmost Joker and that there are two black
Queens behind the rightmost Joker. (Solely for explanatory purposes, Figure 6 reveals
the true situation by showing each of those six cards turned face up.)

7) We will now apparently pick up the two red Queens and use them to
sandwich the Joker in front of them, turning both red Queens face up in the process.
We'll do this by performing Brother John Hamman's Sandwich Switch, as follows:

(i) With your right hand, pick up the upper

card of the red Queen pile (the SC), holding
it face down by its right long side, right
thumb above and fingers below; your left
hand simultaneously picks up the lower card
(the QH) and holds it by its left long side in a
similar thumb and finger grip. Both hands
now move forward to the supposed Joker in
front of them (really the QD) (Figure 7,
audience view).

(ii) Scoop the left-hand card underneath the

left side of the Joker as the right hand
simultaneously slides its card on top of the
Joker from the right side (Figure 8). Move
your two hands toward each other until the
three cards are square (Figure 9)- but don't
stop moving.
 (iii) Continue to push the bottom card of the
sandwich (the QH) toward the right, so that
the right hand, fingers below and thumb
above, can take hold of this card and pull it
to the right. The right hand turns palm
down, turning its card end-for-end face up,
and deposits the QH face up on top of the
other two cards, where it is held in place by
the left thumb (Figure 10).

(iv) Turn your right hand palm up, and with

your right hand, thumb above and fingers
below, regrip all three cards by the right
edge; this frees up the left hand.

(v) With your left fingers, slide the bottom

card (the QD) out to the left, holding it by its
left edge, and turn it end-for-end face up
(thus showing the QD face). Replace it face
up below the other two cards (Figure 11).
Don't try to make the sandwich square at
this point; you want it to be spread, so that
the picture of two face-up red Queens
surrounding one face-down card sinks in.

(vi) Immediately place the three cards in a

slightly spread fan onto the table.

This entire sequence of steps (i) through (vi)

is done as one continuous action. It can be
done at a leisurely pace and certainly should
not be furtive. All the supposed cards end up where they should be, dispelling any
notion of anything sneaky. The "Flying Joker" is still in the middle and has apparently
never left sight; indeed, it's now even more isolated by its two sandwiching sisters.

As I sandwich the Joker, I explain, "And now the acrobatics begin. These two sisters do a
couple offlips ... " The end-for-end turnovers in the Hamman switch are timed to this
patter about doing flips.

8) We're now going to repeat the same steps with the two black Queens to
sandwich the remaining Joker-with one small exception. In the supposed black Queen
sandwich, the real Queen (the QS) is the upper card (it was lowermost in the red Queen
sandwich); this simply means that at step 7(i), when you first pick up the two Queens,
you need to take the upper card with your left hand, and vice versa. This will put you in the
correct position for all the rest of the steps, which you can follow verbatim.

At the conclusion, the two black Queens will

be face up surrounding the face-down Joker,
and the entire tableau will look as in Figure
12, audience view. My patter for this second
time around is, " ... and these two sisters
somersault around the Joker."

An option (and my preference): I like

variation. I think it's less likely that a
spectator will notice or suspect a move if it's
not repeated exactly the same way. Accordingly, I will typically not use the Hamman
handling on both Jokers. I'll usually do the Hamman switch for one Joker and a
different Hamman-type sandwich switch for the second Joker. Many years ago Mergel
Funsky showed me the following alternative, which he calls the Funsky Flipover
Switch. Here's a brief description.

Start with the situation that exists at the beginning of step 8: the QC is on the table
(masquerading as the Joker), and the sandwich consists of the QS on top of the
selection. All three cards are face down. With your left hand pick up the QS by its left
side as you pick up the selection by its right side with your right hand. Both hands
move their respective cards forward and
sandwich the QC, scooping the QS underneath
while the selection goes on top.

(i) Square the packet and hold it face

down with just your left hand, thumb above
and fingers below. The right hand, now free,
turns palm down and re-grips the packet by
its right side, fingers above and thumb below
(Figure 13, audience view). The left hand lets
go, while the right hand turns palm up, thus
turning the entire packet face up, end-for-end.

(ii) With your right thumb pull the QS

a bit to the right as simultaneously your right
fingers push the lower two cards to the left
(somewhat like the start of a Rhumba Count).
This reveals the QC index, but since the two
lower cards stay roughly squared, the
selection (which is hidden beneath the QC)
 TWI<E hEmOUED, OrKE AGAll'l 1)5

won't show (Figure 14). In a

continuing motion, the right
fingertips lever up the two lower
cards (Figure 15) and flip them both
over bookwise, so that they fall face
down onto the palm-up left hand.

(iii) The left thumb pushes

the now-face-down top card (the
selection) to the right and sticks it
under the face-up QS, sidejogged to
the left for about half its width,
where it is held by the right
fingertips (Figure 16).

(iv) The left fingers now flip

its remaining card (the QC) face up
bookwise and slide it under the face-
down selection, where it is also held
by the right fingertips. The QC is
sidejogged to the left below the
selection, so that it also remains
visible. The resulting picture is a
casual fan of three cards, with the
two face-up Queens sandwiching the
face-down card (Figure 17).

Mergel' s bookwise turnovers are timed to

the patter about the sisters doing
somersaults. This Funsky Flipover Switch
is quite flexible. You can use it regardless
of whether the QS starts above or below the selection in the sandwich, so long as the left
hand initially takes the QS and scoops it underneath.

It's your choice whether to use the same sandwich switch procedure for both Jokers or
two different switches. I'll sometimes use David Oestreicher' s Optical Switch
(described in detail in "Fate Accompli"). Comment 2 mentions some other alternatives.
Just remember that different procedures may begin slightly differently, so you need to
coordinate each switch handling with where the "real" Queen is in each sandwich.

9) The audience thinks you're now about to begin the grand "Flying Joker" stunt,
but in fact, methodologically, everything has already been accomplished. The two
1:~6 f'.JM DECKO

sandwiched "Flying Joker brothers" are actually the two selected cards, and the Jokers
are already on the bottom of the tabled deck.

All that remains is to cut the deck to centralize the Jokers. I like to do this with a bit of
subtlety that adds to the presentational build-up. So I continue my spiel, "The suspense
mounts ... A drum roll for this Joker ... " Suiting actions to words, I cut off about half the
deck, hold it in left-hand dealing position, and riffle down the outer left corner, while
aiming it toward the sandwich on the right; the "whirring" noise of the riffling action is
quasi-drumroll-like and brings a smile. I then place these cards down on the table.

I pick up the remaining half deck and make a similar riffling action toward the
/1
sandwich on the left, saying, And a second drumroll for this Joker." Be careful on this
/1
second drumroll" that you don't riffle all the way to the bottom; you don't want to
inadvertently flash the face-up Jokers there. After this second riffle I drop these cards
onto the first half, thus reassembling (and subtly cutting) the deck.

10) We're ready for the climax, which should come as a surprise since we
haven't yet announced what the "big stunt" will be. My presentational style is to
occasionally "ham it up," so I milk it just a little more, saying, And now the feat you've
/1

all been waiting for ... the two Joker brothers ... will instantly SWITCH PLACES!" This
typically brings groans, because after such a build-up, the notion of two identical Jokers
changing places is clearly disappointing. So I hasten to add, "No, not with each other, but
believe it or not, with your chosen members in the audience ... "

At this point your spectators will recall their selected cards, apparently somewhere in
the deck. But it's too late for any reconstruction, because you now move forward with
three startling climaxes.

Point first to the black Queen sandwich and ask your first spectator, "What card are you
remembering?" When Ginny responds, "The Four of Spades," snap your fingers over the
supposed Joker and turn it face up, revealing that it is now Ginny's selected card.

Repeat the same revelation with the red

Queen sandwich. When I reveal Mergel' s
card, the Eight of Clubs, I comment, "Yes,
the Eight also is surprised to find himself
onstage."

For the finale, I say, "But what's even more

surprising is that now, sitting in the midst of
the audience, still on their bicycles are ... " -
here, I ribbon spread the deck across the
table from right to left, revealing the two
 TUJICE hEmOUED, oneE AGAll'\ l~7

11
Jokers together face up in an otherwise face-down deck - the Flying Joker brothers.
•••

Let's give them a hand. Figure 18 depicts the audience view of the final tableau.
11

11) The effect is over. I remove the two Jokers from the spread and hold them
up, as if triumphant. It's an easy applause cue because your spectators can applaud the
Jokers for their amazing stunt while you can bask in their limelight. It's then
completely natural to toss the Jokers aside or to put them back into the card case, which
leaves you completely clean.

comffi€m5
(1) Sources; Credits. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, I first presented
this transposition plot and methodological sequence in my effect "Twice Removed
Transposition" (Aronson and Solomon, Sessions (1982), p. 102), but circulation of
Sessions was quite limited (a total of only 600 copies were printed).

The methodological concept of first isolating one card as a prediction and later secretly
switching it for one that is subsequently freely named/ chosen goes back at least to Hal
Leroy's "Self Control" (Hugard, The Encyclopedia of Card Tricks (1937), p. 27). A year
later R. W. Hull's introduction of a duplicate made the switch method more convincing
by allowing a clean "show" of both relevant cards after the switch (Hull, "The Three of
Clubs Trick" in Hilliard's Greater Magic (1938), p. 327). Ed Marlo may be the first one to
use a sandwich to effectuate the switch(" A Sandwich Approach," Hierophant #7 (1976),
p. 35), but it was Brother John Hamman's particular handling that really caught on after
he taught it in his Desert Seminar lecture in Las Vegas, in March 1981. I included
Hamman' s handling of the sandwich switch (with full credit to Hamman) in "Twice
Removed Transposition," and the following year the publication of Hamman' s classic
effect "The Signed Card" (Richard's Almanac #14(October1983), p. 125) brought his
sandwich switch into the repertoire of many cardicians. My notes on the Funsky
Flipover Switch are dated June 2004, but I can't be certain when Mergel Funsky first
imagined it.

(2) Other Hamman-type Switches. You can find several other excellent
handlings for such a sandwich switch in the magical literature. Gordon Bean has a
graceful, delicate handling in his effect "King George" (Bean, "The Locked Room"
column, Genii, Vol. 58, #5 (March 1995), p. 43). Ed Marlo's variation of the Hamman
handling is favored by John Bannon and can be found in John's "Heart of the City"
(Bannon, Smoke and Mirrors (1991), p. 16).
T()tal§
TOUIL5

The following series of four effects are all versions of the same underlying premise, so I
wouldn't expect that you'd use more than one of them in a single performance. They all
utilize an overhand shuffle with the Milk Load (see the Techniques section) to let a
spectator apparently stop at three random cards. Nevertheless, the total of these three
cards can predict or reveal another truly random choice by the spectator.

All four effects utilize a stack of some sort, but the stacks vary in their length, their
flexibility, and their power. All are quite easy to perform yet have the virtue of being
deceptive in a rather non-traditional way; they're not simply "pick-a-card" plots.

"Totally Fooling" is the first one I developed and is the simplest both to set up and to
perform.

"Total Recall" introduces a more sophisticated stack, which allows far greater flexibility
and greater freedom in the spectator's choices. Its description is the most lengthy of the
four, not because the trick is lengthy (it's only one quick phase), but because its
Comments section explores in depth the variations and flexibility afforded by this kind
of stack. This discussion of underlying principles also applies to, and indeed sets the
stage for, the next two versions.

"Total Surrender" takes the preceding effect a step further. Sometimes a trick can be
deceptively strong, but if it's over too quickly, its impact can get lost. This version adds
a second phase to the first, with a novel twist.

The final version, "The Total Package," is a three-phase routine that starts off strong yet
nevertheless builds from there. It requires a larger stack but can be a signature piece in
an act or routine. It's the version I've been performing regularly, and its script or theme
about mathematics (don't worry, it's not "heavy") plays humorously while it ties
everything together. I had considerable success performing "The Total Package" at the
recent G4G convention, a gathering of fairly sophisticated magicians and
mathematicians (perhaps the perfect audience for this effect).

I urge you to read all four effects, in order, so you'll get a feel for the development
process and for the tradeoffs that were made along the way. Nothing's set in stone, and
once you have a rudimentary understanding of the underlying stack construction,
you'll be able to tailor it to fit your own performing needs.

That's the totality of what's going on in this section.

Totally l=oolin~

he title isn't meant as a dealer's hype; rather it's intended as a pun on the fact that
this effect deals with "totals." And it's quite fooling.

-Ett€CT

A card is freely selected, shown around and remembered, and replaced in the deck.
The performer then starts an overhand shuffle, asking the spectator to stop him at any
time to form a small pile; this is repeated, to form a second small pile. For a final pile,
the spectator freely cuts off a portion from the balance of the deck, leaving the
remainder on the table, to constitute a third small pile.

The top card of each of the three piles is turned face up, and their values are added
together, to arrive at a total, say seventeen. The spectator then counts the packet of
cards which she freely cut off and is still holding- and discovers she has cut off exactly
seventeen cards. When the face card of her cut-off pile is revealed, it is the selected
card.

This is "my kind of effect" - I love tricks that combine multiple methods (a stack, some
minor sleights, some subtleties, some math) and that appear "hands off" at the climax.

For purposes of working through this effect, I'm going to suggest using one very
specific arrangement of cards Gust for teaching purposes), but once you understand the
interplay of the various cards, you'll find that there are many options open to you: to
142 ~M DECKO

change the "totals" involved, to vary which cards you use, and even to alter the number
of shuffled piles you want to make. (Those alternatives are discussed in Comment 1.)
But solely for explanatory purposes, arrange a deck as follows:

(from top down) SC, 3D, eight indifferent cards, all thirteen Spades arranged
ascending from Ace to King, and finally the rest of the deck in any order.

For ease of reference in this description, I'm going to refer to that portion of the setup
consisting of the thirteen ordered Spades as the "Value Stack." But let me emphasize at
the outset that, in fact, none of the suits in any part of the setup matter; it's only the values
that are relevant, so it's actually not too difficult to secretly set up the necessary
arrangement on the fly. In real-world practice, I don't use a run of all thirteen Spades; I
intentionally vary the color and suit mix of the Value Stack (because that allows you to
casually spread the faces without fear of any sequence being noticed). So, in
performance please do vary that color and suit mix. But for now, this specific
"teaching" stack will help you more easily visualize what's happening.

1) False shuffle the deck. Since the arrangement comprises only the top twenty-
three cards, you've got an entire lower half to play with. A standard overhand jog
shuffle that actually mixes only the lower portion of the deck works well here.

Approach your spectator Ginny and have her freely select a card. In fact, her selection
has to be made from somewhere below the Value Stack, but since she has a choice of
twenty-nine possible cards, poetic license allows me to call this a free selection. Here's
how I proceed. I raise the deck in my hands, faces toward Ginny, and start spreading
the cards from left to right, so she actually sees the faces of the first few cards (that's
why I don't use a run of all Spades), and as I spread I say, "I'm going to spread the cards
slowly between my hands, like this. As I do I want you to reach out with one finger and touch
the back of just one card, any one you'd like." As I'm saying this, I lower my hands (and the
deck) until the deck is now in standard face-down position, parallel to the floor. I'm
continuing to spread the cards slowly and casually as I speak, so by the time I finish my
sentence, I've already spread through the top half of the deck. Ginny extends her finger and
touches any card, which I very cleanly outjog halfway from the front of the deck.

2) At this point you could, if you want, have Ginny actually physically remove
her card, show it around, and then give it back to you, but in the interest of expediency
(and to justify and set up for a Tilt replacement), it's more efficient for you to handle her
card yourself. Simply square up the deck in your left hand, and with your right fingers,
grasp Ginny's selected card at its outer left corner. Swivel the card out of the deck and
raise it up high, face toward your spectators, to display it to everyone; I first show it to
spectators on my left and then on my right. While everyone's eyes focus on Ginny's
card, you've got plenty of time and misdirection to secretly obtain a left pinky break
 TOTAL toounc; 14)

under the second card from the top of the deck (in our example, below the 3D). Then
maneuver the top two cards into standard Tilt position.

Lower Ginny's card face down and apparently replace it into the center of the deck
from the rear; actually, using Tilt, insert the selection below the top two cards. Square
up the deck. I like to casually dribble the deck onto the table at this point, just to
implicitly dispel any sense that I might be holding a break.

3) Hold the deck in preparation for a face-up overhand shuffle (i.e., faces toward
the audience). Commence a slow overhand shuffle, secretly milking the top card (the
SC, in our example) on the first take, and say, "As I shuffle like this, call 'stop' wherever you
like." Since I don't want to exhaust too many cards on any single packet (there will
ultimately be a total of four separate packets), I pretty much thumb cards singly off the
face as I shuffle (but don't worry if you occasionally pull off more than one; it won't
matter). When Ginny calls 'stop,' turn the packet of shuffled-off cards face down and
drop them on the table, to the left.

Say, "Call 'stop' once more, wherever you want," as you repeat another face-up overhand
shuffle, again beginning with a secret milk of the top card (the 3D), and when Ginny
calls 'stop,' drop the shuffled-off cards in a face-down pile, to the right of the first pile.

While you have a fair amount of freedom in creating these first two piles, your goal is to
use up approximately half the deck, so you should time your shuffling and your
requests to your spectator accordingly. Don't worry about being too precise, because
the position of the Value Stack will afford you much leeway.

4) Place the balance of the deck on the table to the right of the second pile
(forming a row of three packets), as you explain, "You've called out 'stop' twice as I
shuffled, stopping me here and here" - on each word "here," point at the top of the leftmost
pile, then the top of the middle pile - "but for the final pile, instead of shuffling, you'll cut to
a card. So, go ahead, cut off some cards." Point to the tabled balance of the deck, gesturing
for Ginny to cut off a packet. When she does, ask her to keep holding on to the cards
she's just cut off. (This is important at the climax, because the upcoming impossibility
depends on Ginny knowing for certain both that her cut was absolutely free, and that
you never touched the cards she cuts off.)

5) Although the climax will occur with respect to the cutoff cards she's holding,
we don't want her to realize that fact yet. We want her to focus now on the three piles
still on the table. So, once Ginny cuts off her packet, immediately point to the top card
of the pile she left on the table, emphasizing, "You just freely cut to this card - and you
could have cut anywhere you wanted." Hopefully Ginny will nod her acquiescence,
because in fact that's pretty close to the truth. Turn over the card Ginny cut to and
144 AM DECl)O

leave it face up on top of its pile. (In our example it will be one of the Spade cards.)
Say, "You freely cut to an Eight" (or whatever value shows).

Actually, there's a thirteen-card leeway within which Ginny can cut. All we need for
this trick to work is that the card you point to, as the one Ginny freely cut to, must be
any one of the thirteen cards in the Value Stack. Bottom line, Ginny can cut off
anywhere from eight to twenty cards, and you'll be fine. (If you're at all worried, or if
your shuffles were off the mark, you could always use patter to "narrow" Ginny's
permitted cutting range, but I've never had to do this. If you see that Ginny's cut is
widely off the mark, you could instruct her to replace her cutoff cards and try again,
saying something like, "No, cut off a few more cards, to make it harder." But in practice,
you shouldn't need such an out.)

6) Immediately after you show that Ginny has cut to an Eight, turn over the top
card of the center pile (in our example, the 3D) saying, "And here you shuffled to- ... a
Three, so eight plus three makes eleven." And continue on, turning over the top card of the
last pile (in our example, the SC), commenting, "And here you got a Five, so eleven plus five
makes a total of sixteen." Give Ginny a moment to check your math. So, between your
/1

shuffles and your cut, you've reached a random total of sixteen. There's no way anyone could
have known what total you might arrive at." (Ironically, this is actually true.)

7) Point to the packet Ginny is still holding (i.e., the cards she cut off), reminding
her, "You freely cut off those cards anywhere you wanted, and no one has touched them except
you. Why don't you count those cards, one at a time, here," as you gesture to a point on the
table, indicating that she is to count her cards into a face-down pile (thus reversing their
order). Have her count aloud, and the suspense will grow as she nears the final card.
When she finds that she's cut off exactly sixteen cards, you've got a climax that's hard to
beat.

8) As that first climax sinks in, casually square up her just-counted sixteen cards,
pick them up from the ends, and hold them about an inch or two above the third pile
(the one with Ginny's Eight on top, Figure 1). You should intentionally hover in that
 TOTAL fOOLil1<; 145

position, to let that specific mental image or

picture of these two piles, one above the
other, sink in. Recap, "When you cut, you cut
to this Eight ... "-with your free hand, point
at the Eight (Figure 2). Now, shift your
pointing finger, so it reaches beneath the
upper pile and points at its "underside" card
(which can't yet be seen; Figure 3) saying, "...
but you also cut here. Remember, at the very
beginning you picked a card, which we buried
somewhere in the deck. For the first time, tell everyone what card you picked."

When Ginny announces the name of her card, slowly turn your hand palm up so that
the face card of your held packet is revealed. Ginny should be shocked to discover that
she's "cut" to her own selected card.

commEms
(1) Variations. Once you understand the underlying arithmetic, it's easy to
create your own setups, either to see what combinations work best for you or simply to
vary the final total if you want to ever repeat the effect for the same spectator. I prefer
and regularly use the particular arrangement in the text.

Here's a summary of what you need to know. The setup, stated generally, consists of
any two value cards (let's call them A and B), followed by X indifferent cards (where X
is the sum of A and B), followed by the thirteen-card Value Stack (which ascends from
Ace to King in order, in mixed colors and suits). In my example in the text, A and Bare
a 5 and a 3, which together total eight, so they are followed by eight X cards. If you
want to "adjust" the position of the Value Stack, just remember that the larger the total
of A+ B, the further down you're moving the Value Stack.

Another variation: when I first worked on this effect, I tried it with three overhand
shuffle piles (instead of two), so when I included Ginny's cut pile, I had four "random"
cards to be totaled. Here's one such arrangement that I played with (from the top
down): 6, A, 3, ten X cards, Value Stack, rest of the deck. Have a card selected (from
below the Value Stack), and replace it below the third card from the top (i.e., below the
3) using Tilt. Now form three overhand piles, again milking the top card on each, and
then put the balance on the table for Ginny to cut. The rest follows the text. While
totaling four cards seems even more random, the fourth pile imposes a more severe
limitation on your shuffling, because you don't want to exhaust too many cards. I
ultimately opted for greater leeway and freedom in the shuffles, so I'm satisfied with a
146 AM DECl)O

total of only three piles, but I did want you to appreciate the flexibility underlying this
effect.

(2) Revelations. The revelation of the selected card at step 8 uses an old idea-
the "reverse count" of the cutoff packet secretly moves the selection to the face of the
cut-off packet. This is, of course, discrepant, but such a discrepancy only matters if it's
noticed and thought about. Typically such a discrepancy gets covered by misdirection
or a time delay or a distraction while other things happen. While I imagine seasoned
magicians may realize the selection must have started out on the top of that packet, I
doubt that laymen will notice it.

One could theoretically create a longer time delay by moving Ginny's counting of her
cut-off packet to an earlier stage, i.e., before showing the three "random" cards.
Unfortunately this would "invert the climax," making the magic happen when you
subsequently add up the three cards. This would be theatrically wrong, and would lose
that moment of increasing suspense as Ginny counts her cut-off cards, with the
anticipation of "No, it can't be!" So, I'm content to leave the revelation as it is in the
text.

I do think that physically holding the counted pile "hovering over" the card Ginny cut
to and pointing to the underside face card helps in creating a visual mis-recollection
and in thus defeating any reconstruction.

If you're truly bothered by the discrepancy (I'm not), there certainly are alternative
ways of revealing and producing the selected card. At the beginning of step 4, after
you've finished the second overhand shuffle, you could palm the selected card off the
top of the deck just before you table the deck for Ginny's cut. You could then reproduce
it from your pocket or elsewhere. (You'd have to adjust your setup to compensate for
this one missing card, so the count will come out correctly.) But seriously, it's not worth
changing the effect.

(3) No Table Version. One of my editors, Josh Jay, performs a lot, but usually
standing or walkaround. Josh loved this trick, but wanted a version he could do just in
the spectator's hands, without a table. Josh accomplishes this by substituting a different
move, John Bannon's Bullet Catcher procedure, in the place of overhand shuffles.

The setup, plot, and script are exactly the same. Have your spectator Anna select her
card, and then replace it via Tilt, exactly as described in steps 1 and 2. At step 3 we'll
vary the procedure to force the SC and 3D, as follows. Hold the deck face up in your
right hand in Biddle (or end) grip position and with your left thumb start peeling off
cards one at a time face up into your left hand, requesting that Anna call 'stop.' When
she does, turn your right hand palm upward and with your left thumb peel off the now
topmost face-down card, onto your left-hand cards-but peel it so it is outjogged about
 TOTAL tOOLll'lG 147

half its length. Immediately turn your right hand palm downward, and continue to
peel off more face-up cards onto the left-hand pile, again asking Anna to call 'stop' once
more. When she does, repeat the right-hand turnover and peel a second card face down
and outjogged (these two outjogged cards will be our forced SC and 3D). Turn your
right hand back palm down and peel off a few more cards face up, commenting, "You
could have gone further and stopped here, or here ... " These additional cards hold the second
outjogged card in place (and can be used to adjust the number of cards remaining in
your right hand, to centralize the Value Stack). Your goal throughout is to maintain a
continuous flow and rhythm to your peeling process; while it's discrepant, it creates the
feel that you stopped at whatever two cards your spectator has designated.

Turn the right-hand packet face down and extend those cards toward Anna, asking her
to cut off a packet (guiding her to within your Value Stack). Have her hold her cut-off
packet while you point to the face-down card on top of your remaining right-hand
packet, emphasizing that this is her "third choice." With your left thumb, peel this card
(it will be one of our Value Stack cards) outjogged and face down onto the left hand
pile, and then flip the rest of your right-hand cards face up onto the left-hand cards.

You're now in position to reveal the double climax. Fan your cards so Anna can see the
values of the three outjogged cards she "stopped" on, and then have her count her
cutoff cards into your empty hand, to discover that the totals match. For the second
climax, reveal that the "card she cut to" is her selected card, exactly per my text.

(4) Four-of-a-Kind Climax. Josh also created a surprise climax to "Totally

Fooling" that makes efficient use of the three "indicators." The tradeoff is that you'll
require an additional setup of the four Kings, and you'll need to force the spectator's
selection. Josh's climax works equally well with my overhand shuffle procedure, but
I'll give you the bare bones using Josh's "peeling cards" version above. Here's a brief
description.

There's a setup both at the top and at the face of the deck. From top down: SC, 3D,
seven indifferent cards, a thirteen-card Value Stack (of mixed suits) arranged first with a
King, but then the remaining twelve values ascending from Ace to Queen. Take the
remaining three Kings and place one at the face of the deck, one sixth from the face, and
the final King ninth from the face. (Note that the King on the face is the one we'll force
as the spectator's selection; feel free to relocate this King to any alternative position that
works for your preferred forcing method.) That's the setup.

Begin by forcing the bottom King as the spectator's selection; Josh suggests using an
under-the-spread cull force. From there on, proceed through the entire trick exactly as
written. (When you initially peel off cards singly, the two Kings remaining near the
bottom will be included among the face-up cards you peel; that's intended and won't be
noticed. At the end, strip out the three outjogged indicators to display them.) After the
146 l'.IM DECKO

spectator's selection has been discovered, comment, "You picked a King, but you stopped
at a 5, a 3, and a 9"(or whatever Value happens to be revealed). Anna is still holding her
cut-off packet. Turn all your cards face down, point at the 5, and then dramatically deal
off four cards face down, counting them one at a time, but on the count of" five" deal
the fifth card, a King, face up. Proceed to the next indicator, the 3, and repeat the same
process; the card turned face up on the count of "three" will again be a King. Look at
the third indicator, saying, "A Nine. You try it with the cards you cut off," as you point to
the packet Anna is still holding. She counts off nine cards and turns over her ninth
card, to reveal the fourth King. The Value Stack automatically delivers the final King to
the correct position.

(5) Credits; Sources. My description of "The Milk Load" (see the Techniques
section) gives more technical detail on this ubiquitous move.

When I first presented "Totally Fooling" to our session group, John Bannon mentioned
Roy Walton's effect "Palmist's Prophecy" (The Complete Walton, Vol. 2, p. 80), which
utilizes a similar combination (i.e., several pre-set value cards that together with a card
from a Value Stack generate an open-ended but controlled total). Walton's effect is a
prediction effect which requires a 3-as-4 Elmsley Count and a palming action. I
developed "Totally Fooling" as a coincidence effect from a quite different perspective-
! was exploring what other kinds of effects (besides productions of four-of-a-kind)
might be accomplished with the overhand shuffle milking procedure, and at the time I
was unaware of Walton's effect. While my "Totally Fooling" is quite different in effect,
procedure, and methodology from Walton's, I'm certainly eager to acknowledge any
similarity to Walton's thinking.

John's Bullet Catcher procedure originally appeared (without the name) in John's effect
"Strangers' Gallery" (Bannon, Smoke And Mirrors (1992)). It was named and used as an
Ace production in John's DVD Bullet Party (2011) and included in John's book High
Caliber (2013).
 otal ~ecall

he "Recall" in this title is because the method brings back something I came up with
many years ago.

I'm in a bit of a quandary on how to introduce this trick. On the one hand, I can
candidly say ifs one of the cleanest and most deceptive (both to laymen and magicians)
effects in the book, and yet it is extremely easy to do.

On the other hand, I fear that few will actually perform it often, for two reasons. First, it
requires a substantial stack, and second, it takes only a brief time to perform and so may
be ,, over" too quickly for the tastes of some. These are valid practical limitations, but I
hope it won't prevent you from going to the trouble of actually setting up the
arrangement as you read through this. I promise that, if you try it a few times on your
more sophisticated favorite spectators, you'll be amazed at their reactions.

But frankly, it's too good to simply leave as a one-shot neat trick that's only a good
"book effect," so after you've finished trying it, you should definitely look at my
comments and at the following two effects. There I've tried to show how it can be
repeated, extended, and developed into more substantial routines. The final effect in
the series, "The Total Package," ties it all up with a nice bow.

€ttECT

A spectator freely cuts off a packet of cards and holds on to them. The magician takes
the remaining cards and commences to shuffle them, stopping wherever the spectator
calls' stop,' to form a pile of cards. The performer again shuffles the remaining cards,
and those cards are divided into two piles at the point where the spectator freely calls
'stop' again. Three piles have thus been formed. The top cards of each of the three piles
are turned face up, and are revealed to be, say, a 10, an 8, and a 5, which together total
150 AM DECKO

twenty-three. The spectator then counts the cards she freely cut off and has been
holding from the outset, and finds that, indeed, she has cut off exactly 23 cards.

A.P€h50f)AL f)EflECTIOl'l
A bit of history about the relation between this effect and the preceding effect, "Totally
Fooling." It's rare for one to actually be glad that he hit a "blind spot" and couldn't see
through it, but in retrospect, that's actually what happened to me. When I first started
to work on the idea of causing several "random" piles to total the number of cards in a
freely cutoff packet (i.e., in "Totally Fooling"), I had a vague idea of what I wanted my
procedure to look like. My goal was to use only overhand shuffles to form the three piles,
using a secret Value Stack which would somehow deliver the needed "third" card to
form the total. But, try as I might, I couldn't make it work. So finally I compromised,
and gave up on the requirement that all three piles had to be formed by overhand
shuffles. Instead, I allowed the third pile to be formed by a spectator's "free" cut, and
thus was born "Totally Fooling." It was a good compromise, and I was (and am) very
satisfied.

But soon after "Totally Fooling" was created, tested, and honed in our session group, I
had an epiphany. I kept wondering why I couldn't accomplish my original goal, and it
suddenly dawned on me: I had been fixated on using a Value Stack, but that was the
wrong kind of stack. The right kind of stack, one that could easily accomplish exactly
what I wanted, was something that I should have instantly seized upon and was
already at my beck and call- because I had myself invented it over twenty years ago!
And as soon as I recognized that, all the pieces came together to produce this present
effect, "Total Recall."

If I had realized this efficiency from the outset, I never would have produced "Totally
Fooling" and possibly never would have envisaged combining a "total" effect with a
Value Stack. But since I didn't envision this present approach until after working
through those other avenues, I not only have two different ways of approaching the
"total" plot, but also there are some variations and alternative routines that might never
have come to mind (see Comment 3).

Bottom line: I'm glad that I had the initial mental block.

I realize this tangent on my (initial lack of) creativity may be somewhat opaque (until
you discover what I'm talking about), so I'll stop my rambling and get on with it.
Fortunately, the trick itself can be described succinctly.
 TOTAL hECALL 151

SETUP

You'll need to prearrange a total of twenty-two cards. Only card values are relevant,
not suits; indeed, try to make your arrangement a good mixture of colors and suits. As
is common, Jacks = 11, Queens = 12, and Kings = 13. Here's the value sequence I use
(from the top down):

A 7 5 2 8 6 3 9 7 4 10 8 5 J9 6 Q 10 7 K J8
For convenience, I'll refer to this specific sequence simply as the "MCS Stack" (that's
shorthand for "Multiple Card Sum Stack"). Comment 2 explains how a Multiple Card
Sum Stack works, and how you can create alternative versions, but you certainly don't
need to know any of that theoretical background to make this trick work.

The MCS Stack looks random, but there's a definite mathematical pattern: the sum of
each successive set of three adjacent cards increases by one. So, for example, the first three
cards (A-7-5) added together total thirteen; if we move our grouping of three adjacent
cards down in the MCS Stack by just one card (i.e., dropping out the Ace, and adding in
the next card, the 2), you'll see that the sum of those three cards (7-5-2) totals fourteen;
the next successive three-card group (5-2-8) totals fifteen and so on all the way through
the entire stack. The very last group of three (K-J-8) totals thirty-two.

After you've arranged the MCS Stack, thirty cards remain. Put any thirteen of them on
top of the MCS Stack, and the remaining seventeen below the MCS Stack, to assemble
the full deck. The MCS Stack thus occupies positions 14-35 inclusive.

If you reflect on what this does, you'll see that because there are thirteen indifferent
cards above the stack and the first three cards in the MCS Stack total thirteen, if you cut
off anywhere from thirteen to thirty-two cards, the next three cards remaining on top of
the balance of the deck will be three adjacent cards from the MCS Stack, and they will
total the exact number of cards that have been cut off. The MCS Stack thus makes this
trick virtually automatic.

1) While you could false shuffle the deck if you want, I don't think it's necessary
in this effect; you'll be shuffling a fair amount as you proceed, which looks pretty
randomizing. Table the deck in front of your spectator Ginny and request, "Please cut
off a good chunk of cards, maybe about a third to a half, just so I'll have something left to work
with." Your sole limitation is that Ginny must cut anywhere from thirteen to thirty-two
cards inclusive, and with that kind of leeway, you can't miss. Naturally, you'll want to
152 ~M DECKO

make your request seem as unrestrictive as possible, so that upon recollection Ginny
will feel she had a free cut (which she does).

Once Ginny has cut off her packet, ask her to hold on to it.

2) Since the total of the top three cards on the balance of the tabled deck will now
exactly equal the number of cards Ginny has cut off, all we have to do is maneuver
those three cards to the top of three apparently freely-formed piles.

Pick up the tabled balance in preparation for a face-up overhand shuffle (i.e., with the
faces toward Ginny) as you explain, "I'm going to shuffle the rest of these cards. As I'm
shuffling, you'll call out 'stop' wherever you want. We're going to form a few piles, so you'll
have to call 'stop' several times. I'll start now, and you call 'stop.'" Commence an overhand
shuffle by first "milking" just the top and bottom cards of the packet together, and then
continue shuffling off the face of the deck. Don't chop off large clumps from the face;
your goal (in this trick and in the following two variants) is not to run out of cards
before Ginny has called out 'stop' twice. Even running cards singly off the face works
fine in this kind of trick, since Ginny sees the faces constantly changing (which looks
very mixed).

When Ginny calls 'stop' the first time, very cleanly separate your hands as you confirm,
"Here?" Then turn your hand that holds the shuffled-off cards palm down and deposit
those cards in a face-down pile on the table. (We'll refer to this packet as pile 1.)

3) Commence a second face-up overhand shuffle, again initially milking the top
and bottom cards together, and then continue shuffling from the face. Ask Ginny to say
'stop' once more "wherever she wants" and, when she does, cleanly stop shuffling at
that point. You're holding some cards in both hands. Turn both hands palm down
simultaneously, and place both packets face down on the table next to pile 1. (Let's call
the packet that you just shuffled off pile 2, and the remaining cards (which haven't yet
been shuffled) pile 3. The top few cards of pile 3 will constitute the balance of the MCS
Stack, still in order.)

4) Recap so that Ginny realizes she has freely chosen virtually everything: how
many cards she cut at the beginning and where to stop to form each pile. Then turn
over the top card of pile 3, placing it face up in front of its respective pile, as you
announce its value-for example, "You stopped here, on an Eight." Move to the next pile
and turn its card face up, likewise placing it in front of pile 2, as you explain, "And here
you stopped on a Five. So, eight plus five equals thirteen." Finally do the same with pile 1,
displaying its top card, "And here you stopped the shuffle on a Jack. Jacks are eleven - because
they're one card higher than a Ten - so thirteen plus eleven totals twenty-four. Eight, plus five,
plus eleven equals twenty-four." (Let's calf the three cards you turn up the "indicators.")
 TOTAL f->ECALL 15)

I'm simply offering one example of what values might appear, and you obviously can
say whatever you want as you reveal these indicator cards. But let me highlight three
points. First, I emphasize that these cards are "where Ginny chose to stop" your
shuffles; they're the "result of her choices." Second, if there's a picture card among
them, you want Ginny to understand why it has a value of eleven, twelve, or thirteen; I
sometimes mention early on in the routine how each card has a "value" and thus
explain ahead of time the values of the court cards. Third, make sure Ginny follows
(and agrees with) your simple arithmetic; some spectators (definitely not Ginny) can be
slow in adding up numbers, and you don't want your spectator to feel confused or
bamboozled. (That's why I repeat my verbal addition.)

5) You' re ready for the climax. "You stopped at a total of twenty-four. That must
mean something. Remember at the beginning you cut off a packet of cards, which you're still
holding." As I point to Ginny's cut-off packet and mention the totat it will usually dawn
on your spectator what is about to happen (or it will soon, once you ask her to count her
cards). I like this kind of foreshadowing, where it suddenly becomes clear what the
impending climax will be- but of course, by then it's already too late to reconstruct,
since all the dirty work has already happened. Ginny will realize there's "no way/' but
yet, it's going to happen nonetheless.

Now it's just a matter of building up the suspense a bit more. Ask Ginny to count her
cards face-down one at a time onto the table (thus reversing their order- this will be
important for some of the subsequent things you may want to do). She should be
amazed when her count reveals that indeed she has cut off exactly twenty-four cards.

6) The trick (at least this one, "Total Recall") is now over. But to give you a hint
of some forthcoming possibilities, while Ginny reacts, casually pick up the three face-up
indicator cards and drop them face down on top of her just-counted cutoff packet. Then
pick up and reassemble the other three piles together, making sure that pile 3 goes on
top.

If you think about it Ginny's cutoff pile now has subtly been adjusted from having
twenty-four cards to having twenty-seven cards-and the top three cards on the
balance of the deck (which are the next cards in the MCS Stack) together total twenty-
seven. See Comment 3 for possible ways to utilize this.

commEms
(1) Presentations. An interesting presentation can help build "Total Recall" into
a more substantial piece. Here are a few possible themes (each in bare-bones form).
154 AM DECfiO

Special Talents. "Kids are losing the ability to do basic math; they don't learn it
anymore, because calculators and computers do it for them. But some people seem to have a
natural affinity for numbers. Ginny, you look like you've got an innate mathematical talent, and
I'll bet magic can bring it out ... " [Then, at the climax] "It's clear proof of your mathematical
skill, when both totals are equal!"

A Game. "Many people fear or hate math. So to combat this, and try to make
math more comfortable, educators have created many new games that try to make math fun.
Magic should be educational as well as entertaining, so let me show you a new magical game
aimed at making arithmetic cool ... " [Then, at the climax] " ... And that's how you win the
game!"

For a Couple. Use "Total Recall" as a way to "test" if a dating couple is

11
in sync," i.e., whether one of them is "in tune with" the other's actions. If girl Angelina
cuts freely, and then boy Brad calls 'stop' during the shuffles, the serendipitous
coincidence evinced by the climax indicates an uncanny harmony between them.

The final effect in this series, "The Total Package," has a script that I've been using. It
may prove helpful.

(2) Multiple Card Sum Stacks. If you want to see what can be done with
Multiple Card Sum Stacks, I'd recommend you check out my "The Trained Deck,"
Simply Simon (1995), p. 123, where a full-deck stack produces a three-phase routine
that's progressively more deceptive. Indeed, the "Trained Deck" is the source for some
of my variations noted in Comment 3 below. While I came up with the idea of a MCS
Stack on my own in the early '90s, the concept in some rudimentary form precedes me.
As mentioned in Simply Simon, Steve Beam refers to a simple version used by Bernard
Bilis; Magic Christian, in his recent work on Hofzinser, Non Plus Ultra (2013), reports
that Roberto Giobbi presented a version in a lecture at Escorial in 1993. Both of these
reported versions are two-card sum stacks.

Not all Multiple Card Sum Stacks are created equal, and one of my major goals was to
make sure that every possible "set" of indicator cards, no matter where it's chosen from
within the stack, truly looks random. To this end I decided early on that summing up
three cards feels far more random than summing only two cards (with three variables,
there are over two thousand possible combinations)! I also wanted to avoid anyone
thinking that the three indicators were in any manner "related" to one another or were
part of a sequence, so I intentionally made sure that none of the three indicators would ever
be consecutive numbers (e.g., as soon as someone sees both a Six and a Seven together, the
idea of a "sequence" can get planted in his mind)! Finally, to ensure that every possible
set of three indicators always includes a mix of colors, I apply one more optional rule of
thumb: never use the same color for three cards in a row (that's my "Color Rule"). So, I
 TOTAL f'IECALL 155

constructed MCS Stacks that meet all those criteria; such stacks can be spread face up
with impunity and appear totally haphazard.

If you want to know more about how to create your own Multiple Card Sum Stack,
here's a brief discussion of its underpinnings, taken in large part from Simply Simon.

Let's start with the twenty-two-card stack used in "Total Recall." No particular pattern
is present, until you look at every third card in the sequence. As soon as you do, you'll
instantly see that every third card increases by one over the card three before it in the
sequence. This is true whether you start counting "three" from the first card (the Ace)
or from the second card (the 7) or from any card in the sequence. In fact, another way
of looking at this twenty-two -card stack is to view it as three separate "interlaced"
consecutive sequences: the first sequence is A-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 and consists of every third card
in the MCS Stack, starting with the Ace. The second sequence starts on the second card
of the stack (the 7) and runs 7-8-9-10-J-Q-K at every third card. And the third sequence
is 5-6-7-8-9-10-J, again running on every third card, beginning on the first 5. Basically
that's all there is to understanding how to construct a Multiple Card Sum Stack.

Once you understand this basic structure, the next step is to realize that there are
different variables that could be altered in devising Multiple Card Sum Stacks. First,
you don't have to use three cards in each group that you sum; you could instead make a
stack where each" group" that gets totaled contains, say, four cards, or only two cards.
The MCS Stack in "Total Recall" sums three cards, because it's made up of three
interlaced sequences. If you change the number of interlaced sequences, you'll
correspondingly change the number of cards that make up the group you "sum." Here's
one simple Two Card Sum Stack: 3-6-4-7-5-8-6-9-7-10-8-J-9-Q-10-K-J, where each
consecutive pair of two cards (not three) totals one more than the previous pair. A Four
Card Sum Stack would consist of four separate sequences interlaced, with the values
following a pattern of: A, B, C, D, A+l, B+l, C+l, D+l, A+2, B+2, etc.

A Multiple Card Sum Stack can be arranged in either direction: with the sums
increasing, or in reverse order, with the sums of each successive group decreasing; this
latter point would allow you to create something like a "Perfect Stop" stack, but using
the total of a group of cards instead of the value of a single card. (In "The Trained
Deck" I use two separate MCS Stacks, one increasing and one decreasing.)

The above specific example of a Two-Card Sum Stack illustrates another flexible point:
you don't need to start on an Ace or on any particular value. In fact, you can start each
of the interlaced sequences on whatever card (value) you desire. This can be useful, if
you want to produce "high" totals or "low" totals, or if you want the stack to start on a
specific total. This flexibility in where you begin each separate sequence allows you to
make the stack look more random. The practical limitation on your sequences will soon
156 ~M DECKO

become apparent: once you reach a King (as it increases), or an Ace (if the totals are
decreasing), you can't go further.

Yet another variable is that the "increases" don't have to be in units of one. If you vary
the increments, and increase each card in each separate interlaced sequence by two over
the previous card in its particular sequence, then each consecutive group's total will
also increase by two. (As mentioned in Simply Simon, this is a theoretical observation
only; I haven't yet devised any practical magic based on this insight.)

(3) Variations. When I first developed "Total Recall," I was quite torn. I liked
its directness and simplicity, so one part of me wanted to present it as a quick,
standalone miracle and immediately move on to my next trick. But I also felt both a
need and an opportunity to build it into something "more." So, for the next week I
went bananas trying out all sorts of ideas and combinations. I'll mention briefly some
of my more promising explorations.

I had just recently created "Totally Fooling," so the idea of incorporating a selection,
and/ or including a Value Stack (as I call it in "Totally Fooling") was fresh in my mind.
It's not by accident that in "Total Recall" there are exactly thirteen indifferent cards
above the MCS Stack. That's so I could incorporate a Value Stack, either for a
subsequent phase, or to secretly be preset for my next trick. Here's a simple but
effective way to use this. Instead of the thirteen indifferent cards on top, arrange a
Value Stack (mixed suits and colors are preferable) from Ace (on top) down to King.
Perform "Total Recall" exactly as described. Because the spectator reverse counts her
cut-off packet, at the end of the trick you'll be left with that secret Value Stack (now
descending from King to Ace) at the face of the spectator's pile. If you gather the cards
with this pile on the bottom, you can go right into any trick that uses such a stack (e.g.,
the "Perfect Stop" trick, the "Lazy Man's Card Trick," my "Stop Perfecting Triumph!"
(from Jon Racherbaumer' s Arch Triumphs (1978), p. 27) or a host of other classic effects
using a descending value stack). Indeed, it's not too difficult to move from here into
"Totally Fooling" which gives you a quasi-repeat, with a selection climax. John Bannon
toyed with using a Value Stack expressly of all the same suit, so he could then segue from
"Total Recall" into his now-classic "Bannon Triumph."

But this retention idea for the top thirteen cards certainly isn't limited to a Value Stack;
indeed, it could be used to preserve any arrangement or setup or grouping (either in a
particular order or simply together) of up to thirteen cards for a subsequent trick. If
you secretly want to have a Ten Card Poker grouping, or a spelling sequence, or specific
cards for an Oil and Water, or two poker hands, or part of a memorized stack available
for later, you could set it up on top beforehand, and it will be delivered to you at the
end of "Total Recall" - and yet, your spectators will remember your continued
shuffling.
 TOTAL f\ECALL 157

As indicated above in step 6, since some of the MCS Stack can easily be salvaged, it's
11
possible to add a repeat phase. Here's one simple way. Perform Total Recall" as
11
written, but in your initial instruction, guide Ginny to cut off about a third of the deck"
(this helps make sure there will be enough cards still stacked for the next phase). At the
end, gather the cards per step 6 and finally drop Ginny's cut-off pile back on top of the
rest of the deck. To repeat, I now ask a different spectator, Merget to cut off a packet
from the top, this time using verbal instructions to guide him to cut at least three cards
deeper than Ginny had cut (to compensate for the three cards I added onto Ginnts pile).
For instance, if in phase 1 Ginny had cut off twenty cards, we'd want to subtly influence
Mergel to cut off at least twenty-three cards but still not more than thirty-two. That's a ten-
card leeway, which is still comfortable. (Depending on how many cards your first
spectator has cut, Mergel' s leeway might be a bit more or less. I've intentionally chosen
a tough example; if Ginny actually does cut at a third, your leeway will be greater.) You
can now pick up the balance of the deck and again overhand shuffle it into three piles,
exactly as in steps 2 and 3. Then, you're set to again reveal how the three indicators
total to the exact number Mergel has freely cut off.

(4) Alternatives to the Milk Load Procedure. If you do a second (or even a third)
11
phase, you might want to have the three indicator cards chosen" not by the overhand
shuffle process, but by some other means that appears random, and yet still secretly
forces the top three cards from the balance of the deck. I've tried each of the following:

(i) have another spectator cut off a portion from the balance of the deck, and then have
him deal the cards he's cut off into a face-down row of three, 11
and then keep on dealing
•••

1 11
them, to make three piles." When he s exhausted his cut-off cards, say, Last time we used
the top cards, so this time for variation let's use the bottom cards," as you turn over each of
1

the three piles to discover the three indicators (on the face of each pile). (Or, if you
prefer to have the three indicators appear as the top cards of each pile, just utilize the
1
displacement demonstration described in 'Two-fer.")

(ii) you could use Bannon' s Bullet Catcher procedure, as discussed in Comment 3 of
11
Totally Fooling."

(iii) for yet another way of subtly forcing the top three cards off the balance of the deck,
you could have the spectator just stab a card anywhere into the pack, and use the
11
knife" card and the two cards on either side; this methodology utilizes the
11
demonstration displacement used in Double Vision" together with the Bill Simon
11
Prophecy Move. It's fully explained in phase 1 of The Trained Deck."
11 11
(iv) my favorite alternative, which works for any final phase of an MCS Total
routine, is to use the Funsky Four-for-Four Switch (described in the Techniques
section)- but here we'll use it to switch just three (not four) cards. Briefly, assume, after
some prior phase, your spectator freely cuts off a packet (cutting into the remaining
15~ f1M DECKO

MCS). Pick up the balance and start overhand shuffling, making sure that you initially
shuffle the top three cards singly to the bottom; then finish shuffling the packet.
(Alternatively, simply undercut the top three cards to the bottom). Now explain to your
spectator that this time he can simply touch three random cards. Spread your packet,
secretly obtaining a break above the three bottom cards (your necessary MCS
indicators), and perform the mechanics of the Funsky Four-for-Four Switch. You'll strip
out the supposedly freely touched cards and drop them on the table. When they're
turned face up and totaled, you'll have a climax -with three apparently freely touched
cards.

(5) Adding Suits to Learn the Card Cut To. Many card tricks begin by having a
spectator freely cut off a packet and look at the card she cut to (i.e., the face card of that
cut-off packet). So I figured that it might be beneficial in "Total Recall" for the
performer to secretly know the identity of that cut-off card. And I found an easy way to
do this, if you're willing to add specific suits to the MCS Stack.

Here's one example: AC, 7H, 5S, 2D, SC, 6H, 3S, 9D, 7C, 4H, lOS, SD, 5C, JH, 9S, 6D, QC,
lOH, 7S, KD, JC, SH. You'll note that the values are identical to the MCS Stack we've
already used, but each value now has a specific suit. Just a cursory look will reveal that
the suits run in the standard CHaSeD rotational suit order. That's all we need. If you
run through "Total Recall," at step 4, as soon as you turn the indicator on pile 3 face up,
that particular indicator will secretly key the identity of the card that Ginny cut to. In
the particular example in the text (where Ginny freely cut off twenty-four cards), your
indicators on piles 1, 2, and 3 would be, respectively, the SD, the 5C, and the JH. You
would then know that Ginny's cut-to card is the Ten of Spades. How? Because the cut-
to card's value will always be one less than the value of the pile 3 indicator, and its suit
will always be the next one after the suit of the pile 3 indicator (in CHaSeD rotational suit
order). So, as soon as I see the JH on pile 3, I can mentally subtract one from its value (J-
1=10) and move forward one suit (Hearts~ Spades) to secretly learn the card Ginny
cut to. (Because of the way the suits are laid out, another way of discerning the suit of
the cut-off card is simply to note which suit is not represented among the three visible
indicators.) If you' re a perfectionist, you could even preset the 4S as the thirteenth
"indifferent" card above the beginning of the MCS Stack, just in case your spectator cuts
exactly thirteen cards, but this really is gilding a non-existent lily.

I like the suit sequence above, but there are other suit sequences that work well. Here's
another alternative: AS, 7C, 5H, 2S, SC, 6H, 3S, 9C, 7H, 4S, lOC, SH, 5S, JC, 9H, 6S, QC,
lOH, 7S, KC, JH, SS. You'll note that this sequence only uses three of the four suits (no
Diamonds) and thus can be useful if you want to save one suit to set up a full Value
Stack of all the same suit (Diamonds) for the thirteen X cards above the MCS Stack. In
this particular suit sequence, the value of Ginny's cut-to card will still be one less than the
value of the pile 3 indicator, but its suit will always be the same suit as the pile 3 indicator.
 TOTAL f)ECALL 159

The important question is, of course, whether there is any good use for this feature. To
date, I've tried to develop it into something worthwhile but haven't been particularly
satisfied. It may be that it's best to leave well enough alone. But for those interested in
exploring such avenues, I'll briefly summarize a few of my attempts (but, please
understand, they're simply "experiments").

Perform "Total Recall/' but when Ginny cuts off her packet at step l, have her look at
and remember the card she cut to (the face card of her packet); then have her shuffle her
packet, thus (really) losing her selected card. Proceed with the effect, but when you
produce the three indicators, use their values (whatever they happen to be) to make up
some semi-plausible way by which they "reveal" Ginny's card to you. For example,
let's suppose Ginny cuts off seventeen cards; your pile 3 indicator is the 35, which
secretly informs you that Ginny's card is the 2D. You now look at the three face-up
indicators (SC 6H, 35) and say something like, "The only suit that's not showing is a
Diamond, so chances are you cut to a Diamond. The rest of the cards are spot cards, and there
are more even ones than odds, so that indicates an even spot card; I'd guess a Two, the Two of
Diamonds." Once Ginny agrees you're correct, go on with the real climax, to reveat
"But these cards you stopped me at tell me even more. Look, eight plus six plus three total
seventeen. Why don't you count your cards to see how many you cut?" While this card
revelation adds an additional magical moment, I confess it doesn't "send" me; revealing
Ginny's chosen card by "telling'' her what it is just isn't in keeping with the nature of
the effect. The basic effect is about "counting" and revealing things by the counting;
thus, in my opinion, it would be preferable to keep the counting theme paramount.

Here's a more complicated, but to me more satisfying, way of using your secret
knowledge of Ginny's card. Once the pile 3 indicator secretly tells you Ginny's card,
just proceed with "Total Recall" exactly as written, except that at step 5 ask Ginny to
count her cards face up into a pile on the table. Since you secretly know her card you
can watch as she counts aloud, and you'll secretly learn at what position it now lies (from
the top) in her just-counted packet. The first climax is thus the "total/' which is very
strong- but in its aftermath, you can gather up Ginny's pile, and turn it face down (and
if needed, make a casual adjustment to it). You'll now use one or more of the still face-
up indicators to determine a "number" -and then have Ginny count to that number in
her pile, where she'll discover her card!

Again, I can't give you a formula to do this, because you're going to be thinking on your
feet to "make up" some way to use the indicators in a plausible way to derive the
numbered position you're aiming at. Each situation will be different; it's a moment of
"jazzing/' a bit like "The Trick that Can't Be Explained." You've got a lot of variables to
work with: use any of three indicators, or two added together (or subtracted, or even
multiplied); or you can either count to the position "exactly" or count off that number
and then use the "next" card. You can also "adjust" Ginny's pile a bit as you gather it
up; it's not difficult to pick up her pile "in clumps," while secretly moving a few cards
160 ~M DECISO

from top to bottom, or vice versa. Or, as you pick up her pile, you could give it a casual
overhand shuffle, to move a few cards. If you' re more daring you could even combine
this with an equivoque, as you ask Ginny to "choose" one of the three indicators.
Remember, Ginny has no idea that you know her card (and, a fortiori, its position), so
she shouldn't be paying much attention as you gather up her just-counted pile. The
important point is to decide what you'll say or do early (ideally while Ginny is finishing
her "total" count), so that you can instruct her confidently and without hesitation.

Let's use the example immediately above to illustrate some possibilities. Your three
indicators (SC, 6H, 35) have secretly told you that Ginny's card is the 2D; you add the
indicators to total seventeen, and Ginny counts her cards face up, while you secretly
watch to see at what position the 2D falls. Obviously if the 2D falls at positions 3, 6, or
8, (or any of the "next" card positions 4, 7, or 9), you're home free. Position 12? Add 8
+ 3, count off 11 and you land at the "next" card. Position 2? As you gather up the pile,
adjust one card from bottom to top, thus moving Ginny's card to 3rd position. Position
16? Lose two cards from top to bottom, either in gathering up the pile, or by a casual
overhand shuffle, or just a double undercut; this moves Ginny's card from 16th to 14th,
and then you can simply add 8 + 6. Again, I can't cover every possibility, but it's
usually quite doable. The more outs you know, the easier it is. If you don't mind some
sleight of hand, just use a second deal, as you count to one of the indicators, to place
Ginny's card a few deeper. (And, as a final fallback, you can always resort to reading
Ginny's mind and just announce her card.)

(6) Final Comment. For what may be the quickest effect in the book, I've spent a
lot of pages, and yet I'm cognizant that many of you may be quite content to perform
"Total Recall" just one time, exactly as in steps 1 - 5, without using any of the ensuing
information. Hopefully you'll get a sense of the potentialities and tradeoffs involved,
and how you can vary an effect to make it more your own. But this exploration of
alternatives is one of the passions (and addictions) of creating and sometimes can be
extremely productive. The next two effects present alternatives to illustrate this.
 otal Surrender

ssuming you've read "Total Recall," we can cut to the chase on this one. It's a two-
phase routine that combines some of the best ideas from the previous discussions.

EttECT

A card is freely selected, noted, and replaced into the pack. The spectator then freely
cuts off a packet, and the magician starts shuffling the balance of the deck, stopping
wherever the spectator requests, to form three piles. The top three cards of those piles
are totaled and match exactly the number of cards the spectator freely cut.

The spectator's pile is replaced onto one of the other piles. The performer again shuffles
his remaining cards, to again form three piles wherever the spectator stops. The top
three cards are once again totaled; this time, when the spectator counts down to this
new total, she discovers her selection at that exact position.

SETUP

You'll use the same twenty-two-card stack used in "Total Recall," namely (from top
down): A 7 5 2 8 6 3 9 7 4 10 8 5 J 9 6 Q 10 7 K J 8, where only the values count. Mix their
colors and suits randomly. Again, for shorthand convenience let's refer to this sequence
as the MCS Stack.

Put the remaining thirty cards on top of the MCS Stack. Finally, put a pencil dot,
scratch mark, or any other secret marking on the 18th card from the top of the assembled
deck (some might prefer to use a crimp or tactile key). You'll just need some quick, easy
way to obtain a break (either above or below this card). Let's refer to this dotted card as
the "Key."
162 l'.JM DECKO

An aside: I've recently started putting the

pencil dot on the inner left corner of the card
(instead of the outer left corner, where I used
to put it). An advantage of placing the dot
here is this: when you spread the cards
between the hands for the spectator to choose
one, your left thumb will be between the
spectator and the pencil dot, and thus will
shield the dot somewhat from the spectator's
view. As long as you don't place your thumb
at the very inner edge of the cards, the pencil dot will still be quite visible to you as you
spread (Figure 1, dot exaggerated).

W0MSll1G

The basic working of this routine is straightforward, but at a couple of points it's
susceptible to different handlings. I'll mention these options as we work through the
routine, and then cover some alternatives in the Comments.

1) Spread the cards for your spectator Ginny to touch one. In fact, Ginny has a
choice of any of the top thirty cards, so you can be very free about this selection. When
she touches one, outjog it about halfway from the spread. Your job is to note whether
her card comes from above or below the Key (or occasionally, it happens to be the Key
itself).

The cards are still spread between your hands, enough so that you can visually spot the
Key. You're now going to obtain a break and then close the spread, maintaining the
break. Here's your simple rule:

If the selection is anywhere above the Key, take your break immediately below the
Key.
If the selection is anywhere below the Key, take your break immediately above the
Key.

I find it easier to just remember this as one rule: your break (either immediately above or
below the Key) is taken opposite to where the selection comes from (above or below the
Key).

2) Okay, you've squared up the spread, you're holding a break, and Ginny's
touched card is still outjogged. With your right fingers, grasp Ginny's selected card at
its outer left corner, swivel the card out of the deck, and raise it up to display it to
everyone. Ask everyone to remember it. Then lower the card face down and insert it
halfway into the deck from the rear, actually inserting it into the break. Release your
break-you won't need it anymore-but don't push the card in flush yet.

I comment, "We'll put your card back

somewhere into the deck," as I casually turn
my wrist to give the deck a quarter turn so
that the audience gets a side view of the
deck, with Ginny's card clearly seen
inserted about a third from the top
(Figure. 2, performer's view). If there are
any magicians in your audience who had
suspected Tilt, they will be frustrated.
Normal people will act normally.

Turn your left wrist back to normal (so that Ginny's card is again protruding from the
rear), and with your right thumb push down on Ginny's card and push it flush into the
deck; this enables you to obtain a left pinky break immediately above Ginny's card.

You now need to cut at the break, to bring Ginny's card to the top of the pack. You
could just give the deck a cut or a double undercut-but I'm not a fan of doing such
cuts immediately after supposedly losing a selection in the deck. I use a small finesse
instead.

Drop your hands and relax your wrists to create a pause. Then say, "Ginny, in a moment
I'm going to ask you to cut off about a third of the deck, more or less, like this." Here I extend
my left hand (still with its pinky break) as I openly lift off all the cards above the break
/1
with my right hand and turn that packet so Ginny can eyeball its side" edge, to give
/1
her an idea of what a third" of the deck looks like. Then I drop this packet on the table
and finally dribble the remainder of the deck on top of it, as I finish by commenting,
"But don't worry if it's not exact, just something less than half the deck." By this
demonstration I have actually cut Ginny's card to the top and have simultaneously
moved the trick along by showing Ginny what she is supposed to do.

Let's step back a moment to summarize what has happened. The entire deck is now set
up exactly as is required for "Total Recall": from the top down, there are thirteen
indifferent cards, then the twenty-two cards that make up the MCS Stack, and finally
the remaining seventeen indifferent cards. The only difference is that Ginny has made a
free selection, which has secretly been controlled and is now the top card of the deck.
(This is one of the two places I mentioned that are susceptible to alternative handlings;
see Comment 2 for other ways to arrive at this condition.)
164 ~M DECf)O

3) You're now ready to perform "Total Recall," exactly as written. Perform each
of steps 1-5 of that effect, to bring it to a successful conclusion. At the end of this first
phase, Ginny will be amazed that the number of cards she has freely cut off exactly
coincides with the total of the three face-up indicators. But she's completely unaware
that1 by virtue of her reverse count1 her selection is now secretly at the face of her
counted packet (a feature we've taken from "Totally Fooling").

In this first phase, it's better if Ginny doesn't cut too deeply- solely so that you'll have
more cards left to work with on the upcoming phase 2. Technically she can cut
anywhere from thirteen to twenty-nine cards inclusive, but with my "demonstration
1

cut" I try to guide her toward a third of the deck. As an example: assume that Ginny
freely cut off twenty cards. At the end of phase 1 the face-up indicators would be a 9 a
1 1

7, and a 4, each sitting in front of their small packets respectively piles 1 2 and 3.
1 1 1 1

4) Without saying anything, casually pick up the three indicator cards drop 1

them face down on top of Ginny's just-counted cutoff packet, and then pick up that pile
and drop it on top of pile 1 (the first pile you shuffled off). Push that entire pile aside 1

so it's out of play for the moment. (You've thus created a new pile of indeterminate
size; let's call it the Selection pile (because it contains Ginny's selection)).

Pile 3 contains the remnants of the MCS Stack. Pick up this pile 3 drop it on top of the
1

remaining pile 2 and hold this combined pile in readiness for another series of
1

overhand shuffles. (This assemblage of the various piles is the other step in the routine
that can be accomplished in more than one way. In Comment 3 I mention some
1

alternative ways of picking up and reassembling these piles to create both the Selection
pile and your resulting balance.)

You can easily see what's coming. As discussed in Comment 3 of "Total Recall,"
Ginny's selection will now be at position twenty-three in the Selection pile (three more
than the twenty cards she originally cut off) and by virtue of the MCS Stack the top
1 1

three cards of the packet you're holding will total exactly twenty-three.

5) You'll now repeat steps 2 and 3 of "Total Recall," to form three piles wherever
Ginny calls 'stop.'

Then turn over the top card of each of these three piles to reveal three new indicators. I
emphasize the randomness of the numbers that happen to appear: "Ginny, this time you
happened to stop our shuffles on a 10, ... an 8, ... and a 5. Here, help me with the math. Ten
plus eight is ... eighteen, plus five is ... twenty-three." Pause to make sure she agrees with
you (or better yet have her do the math herself and announce the totals).
1

6) Comment "Well, twenty-three must mean something, but this time you didn't cut
1

off any cards ... but you did pick a card a while ago, and then we buried it somewhere in the deck.
 TOTAL 5Uhh€11D€h 165

Since we've been shuffling the deck quite a bit, your card could be anywhere ... " Here, glance
at or point to the Selection pile that you pushed aside earlier. Ideally Ginny has almost
forgotten about those cards, because her attention has been focused on the cards you've
been shuffling and the piles she's been forming. I comment, "That pile clearly has more
than twenty-three cards, but since you stopped at a total of twenty-three, why don't you count
down to the 23rd card?"

Have Ginny pick up the Selection pile and count face-down to her new totat twenty-
three. When she stops on the 23rd card, have her announce her selection and then
dramatically turn that card over, to reveal that her random total has found her selected
card.

commEms
(1) Credits and Sessions. John Bannon, Dave Solomon, David Finklestein and I
are quite different in our tastes, our areas of expertise, and our approaches to problem
solving in our weekly sessions. The four of us can find something to say about virtually
any trick, and our discussions, opinions, critiques, and variations are often animated,
sometimes heated, and virtually always productive.

Practically everything in "Total Surrender" comes from the previous tricks "Total
Recall" and "Totally Fooling" -except for the addition of one simple step, but that step
is what makes the second phase work so well. And I owe that small addition to our
session group, and particularly to John Bannon. It's an example of why I continually
enjoy and benefit from our session group and why group think" (at least, our group) is
/1

often better than solitary thinking.

I often go a bit nuts with stacks and numbers and math, so "Totally Fooling" and "Total
Recall" are right up my alley. When I presented these effects to our group, I was fully
armed with a slew of variations, combinations, and follow-ups (most of which I've
mentioned in the Comments to those two tricks). I certainly felt "Total Recall" was very
strong, and the fact that I could repeat it (with the next three cards in the MCS Stack)
was too tempting to give up. It deserved and needed a follow-up, but to merely repeat
the exact same effect again isn't quite enough.

But I faced a problem. After the first phase, the spectator had a packet ot say, twenty-
three cards in front of her, and my stack was already set with its top three indicator
cards to "total" twenty-three- but I didn't know how to use this, since the spectator's
packet was already in front of her, already separated from the rest of the deck. There's no
"magic" in simply having her re-count her packet. So, I figured that what was needed
was first, to apparently "bury" or "lose" that packet, and then, somehow, to "force" it
back on the spectator again-while trying to create the illusion that she had apparently
166 AM DECKO

"freely" cut or chosen that "random" number of cards. This is not an easy problem. So
I posed to our session group a basic question: how can one secretly "force" a packet
containing a specific number of cards on a spectator?

The group actually came up with a few answers (none particularly satisfactory), and it
seemed that progress was stymied, until John had a breakthrough. When all else fails,
re-focus the original question. Instead of trying to get the spectator to "cut" off a
specific number of cards, John simply decided to add a few additional indifferent cards
below that packet. That small change had a large consequence: now, counting to twenty-
three would appear to be simply reaching some random position within a larger packet.
That small observation, that different way of looking at my problem, immediately
allowed us to re-focus our quest. Now, all we needed was for a "magical event" to
occur at that apparent random position- and I already knew my answer. "Totally
Fooling" had already furnished the idea and methodology of secretly controlling a
selection to the face of the packet first counted; John's addition of a few cards below it
allowed that selected card to be" discovered" at a seemingly random number
somewhere within a packet. And since I still had my "Total Recall" stack and
methodology ready, the procedure for deriving the second "random" number fits
perfectly with the first phase.

I've described this particular instance of our" session at work" to put some historical
gloss on the fact that my tricks aren't created in a vacuum. If our Chicago session can
serve as any kind of example, it's proven time and time again that several minds are
better than one-particularly when they each think differently. So this is one more
opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude to my three session buddies, who over the
years have continually helped me improve my creations. And John gets a particular
nod of appreciation for helping round out "Total Surrender."

(2) Controlling the Selection. When a trick's instructions direct you to "have a
card selected, replaced, and secretly controlled to the top," it's important to make sure
that the particular methods you choose (and your own particular skill level in executing
them) are appropriate to the manner in which the rest of the trick is perceived by the
spectator.

You'll note that I spent a fair amount of time in steps 1 and 2 (the selection and control
of the spectator's card) just to arrive at the situation where you're ready to perform the
first phase. That's because I have my own particular tastes about the "look and feel" of
this trick, and I wanted to give you my preferred procedure.

Keep in mind that the starting setup from "Total Recall" is thirteen indifferent cards,
then the MCS Stack, and then the remaining seventeen indifferent cards. In "Total
Surrender" our goal is to begin with this exact same setup, except that the very top card
of the deck (the top one of the thirteen) needs to be a card which the spectator has
 TOTAL )UM~EnDEh 167

selected and replaced (and which has secretly been controlled to that position, while
maintaining the rest of the setup). Keeping the twenty-two-card MCS Stack intact presents
limitations. The selection can't be one of the stack cards, and the remaining indifferent
cards are separated into two blocks, at the top and on the bottom.

In my opinion, one of the strengths that "Total Recall" and "Total Surrender" share is
the complete freedom that the spectator feels (both in cutting off a packet and in
stopping your shuffles), which renders the ultimate coincidences that much more
impossible. I didn't want the selection process to be perceived as any less free. So I
decided to allow the spectator to have a completely free choice from a continuous, open
spread of thirty cards. The tradeoft which I'm willing to pay, is the pencil dot, which
allows me to split the block of thirty cards and cut exactly seventeen cards back to the
bottom. (If you happen to be adept at quickly and subtly sight-counting exactly
seventeen cards-I'm not-then you probably could dispense with the pencil dot.)

There are clearly other ways to accomplish the selection and control within the
necessary limitations, but in my opinion they don't all have the same free "feel." For
instance, here's one extremely efficient selection and control procedure. Start with the
deck in the exact condition you want for "Total Recall/' swing cut about two-thirds of
the deck into the left hand, and put the remaining third on top, retaining a break
between the portions. Now simply riffle force to the break, display the top (forced) card
and show it around as the "selected" card; then slap the right-hand portion back on top
(again, retaining the break). Now you can cut the deck per my step 2 to bring the
selection back to the top; then, you're ready to proceed.

There's nothing wrong with the foregoing procedure, and it certainly does get the job
done without any card being displaced. However, a riffle force can feel confined, or at
least restricted, partly just because the deck stays "closed." It's a question of the optics,
as sensed by a layman. The more you spread, or dribble, or otherwise loosely open up
cards, the less controlled they seem.

Note that I'm not advising against ever using a riffle force; I use it myself frequently-
but only when there's an actual need to force a specific card (in "Total Surrender"
there's not).

An aside: actually, I can imagine one situation in which a riffle force would work
perfectly: one could combine "Total Surrender" with the very first idea in Comment 3 to
"Total Recall/' namely having a secret Value Stack comprising the thirteen indifferent
cards. Your goal would be to preserve that Value Stack throughout the entire routine so
that it's secretly "ready to go" for your subsequent trick. If you riffle force the top card
of the Value Stack as the spectator's selection, then at the climax of "Total Surrender/'
when she counts down to discover her selection at the end of phase 2, her count will re-
deliver the entire Value Stack, in perfect order, to the top of the just-counted pile!
168 AM D€Cts0

Another efficient selection procedure might be to start with the deck in the exact
condition you want, but to spread only the top thirteen cards between your hands for
any one of them to be selected. The replacement would then follow the standard
swing-cut procedure described above. This at least offers a spread and a selection from
among some (albeit, only thirteen) cards. If you opt for this, you could make it feel
more a bit more open and unrestricted by using the swing- cut-and-tap entry described
in steps 4 and 5 of "About Face."

Take your pick. As mentioned, my aim is to create a feeling of maximum freedom, and
I haven't found a way that's better than offering an open spread of thirty cards to pick
from. If you agree, you may want to experiment with an alternative, namely, starting
with the block of thirty at the bottom of the deck (instead of the top) and offering a full
deck spread as mentioned in step 1 of "Totally Fooling." Just be sure you adjust the
position of the pencil dot, because in this alternative you'll need to cut thirteen cards
from the bottom to the top.

(3) Forming the Packets for Phase 2. In step 4 I mention how I form the
Selection pile and the remaining packet in order to begin phase 2. This is my preferred
procedure, so long as pile 1 isn't very large (and, if you start your first overhand shuffle
slowly, you can influence the size of this pile). But there are alternative ways to stack
up the packets that may be helpful.

John Bannon suggested the following alternative procedure. After placing the three
indicators on top of the spectator's pile, he simply leaves that pile in front of her. He
then picks up the three shuffled piles, putting pile 3 onto pile 2 and then both onto pile
1, and commences the overhand-milk shuffle procedure. But he does it three times
(instead of two), each time placing the shuffled-off cards on the table. At the end of his
third overhand shuffle, he's formed the three desired piles, but he's still left holding a
few unshuffled cards (the "balance") which he tables next to the spectator's pile. He
then casually picks up the spectator's pile and drops it on top of this balance. From
here, phase 2 proceeds as written. This procedure is efficient, but it has tradeoffs:
you've now varied the number of shuffled-off piles between the two phases, and you
don't "form" the final Selection pile until after the three shuffles. (I would prefer to
form the Selection pile earlier, so that there's more chance for the spectator to forget
exactly where it came from or how it was formed.)

Here's one more alternative I've tried and like. After placing the three indicators on top
of the spectator's pile, I leave that pile in front of her while I re-stack the three shuffled
piles, putting pile 3 onto pile 2 and then both onto pile 1. Then, pointing to this
combined 3/2/1 pile, I say, "Let's do it again. Here, cut off a big chunk, and hand it to me."
She complies, cutting deep into this combined pile, which leaves a small balance (the
"balance") of cards remaining on the table. As I receive with one hand the cards she's
 TOTAL )UhhEl)()Eh 169

just cut, my other hand picks up her pile and casually drops it onto that small balance
(thus forming the Selection pile) and pushes it aside, ostensibly to make room on the
table for my next three piles. I explain, "This time, I'll shuffle just the cards you freely cut
off, and again, please call 'stop' wherever you want." I like this procedure because I'm
hopeful that if the spectator tries to reconstruct, she'll later recall that she "freely cut
off" a pile in both phases.

(4) Prediction Instead of a Selection. "Total Surrender" is a strong two-phase

routine because the second phase (finding a selected card) adds both substance and
variation to the one-phase "Total Recall." Until recently, the only part that I was still a
bit torn about was the very beginning. I really like the opening steps of "Total Recall/'
where the very first action the spectator takes is to freely cut off her packet. "Total
Surrender" begins with a more typical "pick-a-card" opening, which is something I try
to avoid. So I came up with yet another option: replacing the selection with a
prediction. You can find the details in "The Total Package/' which follows next.
The Total Packa~e

his is the latest (to date) of my "total" explorations. It's a three-phase routine, with

T a script that ties it all together. I'll assume you're already familiar with the
procedures and principles used in the previous three effects (particularly "Total
Surrender"), so let's get right into it.

SETUP

For maximum flexibility, and because we want to preserve portions of the stack for
three phases, we'll use a twenty-seven-card MCS Stack, made up of the following
sequence of values, from top down:

5 3 A 6 4 2 7 5 3 8 6 4 9 7 5 10 8 6 J9 7 Q 10 8 K J 9
As before, suits and colors are irrelevant and should be well-mixed. After arranging
the above setup, you'll have twenty-five indifferent cards remaining; put nine on top of
the MCS Stack, and the remaining sixteen cards below it. Have a piece of paper and a
pencil handy. We're ready to go.

W0MSll1G

1) I like to give the deck a false shuffle. Since the order of the bottom sixteen
cards doesn't matter, and since we'll be doing face-up overhand shuffles throughout the
routine, it's quite natural to overhand shuffle some cards off the face (but not more than
sixteen) and then toss them back onto the face as you table the deck face down. Ask
your spectator Ginny, "Do you know one of the things that people fear most? ... Mathematics!
 THE TOTAL PACKAGE 171

To avoid facing math, people resort to calculators, or computers, or they ask their kids. They
don't realize that they should be relying on card tricks. Let me show you.ff

Here, ribbon spread the deck face up across the table; as you do, secretly note the top
card of the deck. Let's assume it's the Jack of Diamonds. Continue your explanation,
"With math, all that matters are the values of the cards, not the suits. So Ace is one, Two is,
well, two, and so on. Jacks are 11, Queens are 12, and Kings are 13. As I speak I point to a
ff

few picture cards in the spread as examples; this face-up display acts as an unstated
convincer that the cards are mixed. "Now, before we even begin, I'm going to stick my neck
out ... We'll look at this later. Here I write "Jack of Diamonds" on the paper (not letting
ff

Ginny see), fold it in half, and write a big X on the outside. I leave this folded paper in
an obvious spot; it will later function as a prediction, though I don't refer to it as such.

Phase 1

2) Close up the spread and table the deck face down in front of Ginny. The first
phase will be identical to steps 1-5 of "Total Recall," so I'll describe them in summary
fashion. The only new part is the script. "We start with basic arithmetic. I'd like you to cut
off a pile, somewhere about a third of the deck, ... and put it here. I don't want to touch it.
ff

Gesture to indicate that Ginny is to put her cut-off packet onto the table in front of her.

3) "Now I'll take the rest of these cards, the ones you left me, and I'm going to shuffle
them. As I'm shuffling, you'll call out 'stop' wherever you want. We're going to form a few
piles, so you'll have to call 'stop' several times. I'll start now, you call 'stop."' Pick up the
tabled balance and commence a face-up overhand shuffle by first "milking" just the top
and bottom cards of the packet together, and then continue slowly shuffling off the face
of the deck. When Ginny calls 'stop' the first time, turn your hand that holds the
shuffled-off cards palm down and deposit those cards in a face-down pile on the table
(our pile 1). (I suggest shuffling slowly so that pile 1 winds up with fewer cards in it;
that will give us more flexibility in Phase 2).

4) Commence a second face-up overhand shuffle, again initially milking the top
and bottom cards together, and then continue shuffling from the face. When Ginny
calls' stop' a second time, turn both hands palm down simultaneously, and place both
packets face down on the table next to pile 1. (The packet that you just shuffled off is
pile 2, and the remaining cards (which haven't yet been shuffled) pile 3. The top cards
of pile 3 will constitute the balance of the MCS Stack, still in order.)

5) Once you've got your three face-down piles, turn the top card of each (the
"indicators") face up. To facilitate keeping these three indicators in order, first turn pile
3' stop card face up in front of pile 3; then turn pile 2' s indicator face up, overlapping
the pile 3 indicator, and finally turn pile 1' s indicator face up, overlapping the pile 2
172 ~M DECKO

indicator (see Figure 1). Your commentary, as you reveal these cards, should run
something like, "Now, here comes basic arithmetic: are you ready? You stopped the shuffles on
a 5 (saying whatever values are shown on
the indicators) and a 7. So 5 + 7 is what?
(Let Ginny announce the total 12.) And
here you stopped on a 9, so 12 + 9 equals?
(Again, let Ginny do the addition.) Great.
Your 'stops' totaled twenty-one. Now this is
Applied Math- and it applies to YOU. Please
pick up your cards - here, point to the pile
Ginny cut off-and in a loud, clear voice
count them one at a time to the table."

6) Make sure Ginny counts the cards correctly (i.e., face-down, reversing their
order). She should be stunned when she realizes that she has cut exactly twenty-one
cards. "Perfect! See how magic helps with arithmetic."

As this first climax sinks in, casually gather up the cards, reassembling them in the
same manner in which we prepared for the second phase of "Total Surrender." Briefly,
pick up the three overlapping indicators and flip them face down as a group on top of
Ginny's just-counted packet. Then pick up this packet drop it on top of pile 1, and
push that combined pile aside. We'll call this the Prediction Packet (in "Total
Surrender" we called it the Selection pile).

Then drop pile 3 onto pile 2, and pick up this combined packet.

Phase 2

7) "Ginny, let's try something harder: Algebra! In Algebra, Xis the unknown, and the
question is: Can you solve for X? Here's X ... - here, tap the folded paper, and point to the
"X" written on the outside-and I'll show you how to solve for X. I'll shuffle these again, and
just like you did before, you'll call out 'stop' as I shuffle. And again, we'll stop a few times."

You'll now repeat the overhand shuffle/milk sequence (steps 3 and 4 above) to form
three piles wherever Ginny calls 'stop.' Again, try to make piles 1and2 fairly small.

8) Once the three piles have been formed, we'll again turn over the top card of
each to reveal three new indicators. On this go around, I turn over the indicators first
from pile 1, then from pile 2, and finally from pile 3, again each overlapping the
previous one. (Note that the pile order here is the reverse from what it was in Phase 1;
that's simply to keep these three indicators in order for gathering up, when we move
into Phase 3.) Say, "OK let's add them up again. You got a 10, and here an 8, and a 6. So,
this time your 'stops' totaled twenty-four- here pause, glance at the Prediction Packet that
 THE TOTAL PACKAGE 17)

was pushed aside previously, and gesture at it- Now there are probably more than twenty-
four cards here, but count down to the 24th card. That should be the value of X./1

9) Ginny won't yet understand what you mean by 'X,' but since she's previously
counted her cards in Phase l, she's trained to follow that example. Have her pick up
the Prediction Packet and count its cards face down to the table (reversing their order)
until she reaches the 24th card. Watch her, to make sure she stops on that card. (Note
that Ginny will always have a few uncounted cards remaining. Let's call these
uncounted cards the "overage." They can be left on the table; just don't let them get
mixed up with the twenty-four cards she's just counted.) When she reaches the 24th
card, have her turn it face up. Say, "The Jack of Diamonds? Let's see if you managed to solve
11
for X. Check out the answer sheet. Have Ginny unfold the X-marked paper and read the
"answer" sheet; she should be impressed. Instead of you taking the credit, give it to
11
your spectator: "Congratulations, you solved for X! (That's why I don't call it a
prediction; we're praising Ginny's math skills here.) At this point, casually turn the
Jack of Diamonds face down on top of the cards Ginny just counted.

As Ginny reacts to this second climax, you'll gather up the packets to prepare for Phase
3. We're going to reassemble all the cards into two separate packets, a larger one and a
smaller one. While we need to collect the cards in a certain order, the goal is to make
this gathering up appear haphazard, almost sloppy. (By having the indicators
overlapped, we can now handle them easily without worrying about their relative
order.) First, pick up the three overlapping indicators and flip them face down as a
group on top of pile 3; then pick up Ginny's just-counted packet and drop it on top of
the indicators/pile 3. This should result in a fairly large packet-which is exactly what
we want-and it will get a bit larger at step 11. Believe it or not, despite all the
shuffling and dealing involved in the first two phases, this packet still contains a large
chunk of the MCS stack, fully ready to work for us in Phase 3.

There are three separate small piles still left on the table: piles 1 and 2 and the
"overage." Gather them up in any order. (I actually slap them together is a messy way
and then square them up.) Push this combined pile in front of Ginny.

Phase 3

10) "Finally, we get to the most advanced area of mathematics that card tricks work
with: Probability Theory ... calculating the odds of some chance event happening, in a random
11
world. So first, let's randomize the world a bit ... here shuffle these. Point to the smaller pile
that you put in front of Ginny, and have her shuffle it. Phase 3 advances beyond the
prior two phases by allowing the spectator to shuffle. Up to now, the performer has
done all the shuffling; now Ginny gets to thoroughly "randomize" the cards, and she'll
do further shuffling in a moment. Allowing the spectator to shuffle also helps dispel
any feeling of a "stack" being involved. Have Ginny table her shuffled cards.
174 ~M DECKO

11) "But for probability we not only want randomness; we also want chance. So cut
them about in half. Keep either pile for yourself-whichever one you like- and we'll put the
other half back." Have Ginny cut her shuffled cards into two piles and choose one- she
can keep either. Take whichever one she doesn't want and combine it into the large
packet, putting her small rejected pile to the bottom of the large pile. Have Ginny table
her remaining small pile, reminding her, "No one knows how many cards are in your little
pile." You can make the most of Ginny's shuffling and freedom of choice since it's real.

12) We'll now build further randomness into the procedure. Point to the large
/1
packet, and tell Ginny, Ok; cut off about half these cards ... " Again, watch to see that she
complies. She's got a fair amount of leeway; as long as she cuts anywhere around the
middle you'll be fine. (That's why in step 11 we subtly added that extra small group to
the bottom of this pile; it helps centralize the stack.) Once she cuts off her half,
continue, "... and shuffle them." All attention will be on Ginny and her shuffling.

13) Ginny will now freely select a card from among her shuffled cards in a very
fair manner. "Now cut off a bunch and look at the card you cut to and remember that card.
Burn it into your memory. Have you got it?" (You can pick up your remaining tabled pile
(those left after Ginny's cut) to demonstrate how you want Ginny to proceed. Illustrate
with your packet that she is to hold her shuffled cards in one hand, and with her other
hand she is to cut off a packet from the top of her shuffled cards and to look at the card
at the face of her cutoff packet.) Once she does that, and you can see that she's staring at
her card, continue, "And now drop those cards on top of your little shuffled pile." Here,
gesture toward her small pile on the table (the one she kept for herself at step 11).
When she complies, point to the rest of the cards that she's still holding. "You can give
the rest another shuffle and then drop them on top so your thought-of card is buried somewhere
in the middle." Have her do so.

There's a lot of fairness and freedom in this selection procedure, so emphasize it as

much as you'd like. Ginny has formed a combined pile of indeterminate number, all
parts of which have been shuffled. She freely selected one and is now thinking of it,
and no one knows that card's identity or where it lies. I recap with something like,
"Earlier, in Algebra, I wrote down X- so I knew something. But here, you cut and shuffled the
bottom third, then you shuffled and cut and remembered one card in the middle, and finally you
cut and shuffled some more and put them on top. No one, including me, knows how many cards
are above or below the card you're thinking of" (I can't think of any other trick I've ever
performed where all of this actually is true!)

14) So far you've been performing your routine for Ginny. Assuming there is at least
one other spectator also watching (say, Mergel), bring him into play, saying, "Remember,
we're now doing probability theory. So here is your probability problem: What are the odds that
 THE TOTAL PACKAGE 175

Mergel here can find Ginny's card, amidst all this randomness? The technically correct answer
is zilch, which is a very low number. But with magic, we can tilt the odds in Mergel' s favor."

You're still holding your packet (which conveniently has the three needed stack cards
on top). Turn and address Mergel: "Mergel, I'll shuffle my cards once more, and this time
you'll call out 'stop,' several times. You've seen Ginny do it, so you know the drill. I'll start
now; you call 'stop."' You'll now repeat the overhand shuffle/milk sequence (steps 3 and
4 above) to form three piles wherever Mergel calls 'stop.' Since this is the final phase,
the relative sizes of the piles won't matter.

15) Once Mergel' s three piles have been formed, turn over the top card of each to
reveal three new indicators. I simply turn each one face up on its respective pile, as I
give my running commentary and add them together. "Mergel stopped at a total of (say,
nineteen or whatever it happens to be), so Ginny, countdown to the 19th card in your pile- but
pause there for a moment; don't look at it yet." When Ginny counts, take the 19th card from
her and hold it face down, as you ask her, "In this world of randomness, what is the card
you were thinking of?" When she answers, dramatically turn it over to reveal it. I
comment, "Magic - and math - don't leave anything to chance."

commEm5
(1) Generating the Stack. One problem that often arises with tricks requiring
lengthy stacks is that it's too daunting to "remember" the stack. Magicians often resort
to writing down a stack on a small slip of paper, or on the box flap, but then it becomes
a question of whether you happen to have the slip of paper, or the right card box, with
you. Fortunately, the twenty-seven card value sequence used in "The Total Package"
doesn't need either memory or writing. It can be re-constructed afresh from scratch
whenever you want with a minimal amount of effort.

The only thing you need to remember is: 5-3-A. Repeat this three-value sequence a
few times to fix it in your mind. You can now generate the full MCS Stack for "The
Total Package" just from those three remembered values. Here's how. Take a deck,
ribbon spread it in front of you face up, and remove first a 5, then a 3, and then an A
(those are your three memorized values, in the order you memorized them). Leave
them overlapping and face up so you can see their indices. That's your first group: 5, 3,
A. Now remove a second group of three cards, where each value in this second group is
determined by adding "one" to the corresponding card of the previous group; thus the second
group you remove will consist of a 6, a 4, and a 2 (in that order). Set that group face up,
overlapping the first group. Now simply remove more such three-card groups
repeatedly (each formed by your "plus one" rule with respect to the previous group)
until you have a total of nine such three-card groups (a total of twenty-seven cards). In
fact, you don't even need to count how many groups you have because once you reach
176 ~M DECf)O

the ninth group, you'll find you can't proceed any further (the ninth group contains a
King, and you can't add +l to it). So, as long as you can add "1," you can generate the
entire stack needed. Since only Values matter, you can pick any color or suit you want,
so forming each group of three proceeds fairly rapidly. (Caveat: I also apply my Color
Rule. I'm fastidious about wanting visual randomization in each phase of the trick. To
insure that every possible set of three indicators includes a mix of colors, I personally
apply an additional simple rule of thumb: when I form my 27-card sequence, I never
use the same color for three cards in a row. This rule is easy to apply, but completely
optional.) Once you've thus set up the MCS Stack, just put any nine cards above it and
the rest below it, and you're ready to go.

I'd recommend that you re-read Comment 2 of "Total Recall" which explains the
theoretical underpinnings of why the above procedure works; theory actually does help
in practice. But don't feel obligated; you can" do" the tricks without the theory.

(2) X Marks the Spot. In phase 2, which deals with "Algebra" and solving for
"X," I played with an alternative that eliminates any written paper prediction. All that's
needed is to mark a bold "X" with a marker across the face of any one card. Then, start
with this card at the top of the deck. It's quite easy, in step 1 when you ribbon spread
the cards face up, to avoid exposing the face of this X card. Phase 2 proceeds exactly as
in the text. When Ginny counts down to her total, you'd say, "Let's see if you managed to
solve for X. Turn over that 24th card." When she does, she'll find a big X staring at her;
you can then casually spread the rest of her cards, to show there isn't anything written
on any of them (but don't let them get out of order).

There are trade-offs here. On the plus side, eliminating any extra piece of paper makes
the prediction more of a surprise; it's unanticipated until the very moment the X is
revealed. On the minus side, it's my belief that having a boldly-marked unique card
signals a "force"; when an indelible mark is on the card itself, it suggests that specific
card must somehow have been controlled. A second negative tradeoff is that at the end,
you' re left with an unusual card in your deck. There may be a middle ground: some
might prefer a peel-off sticker on the card, with the X on the sticker. I opt for the
written prediction as in the text, but I wanted to mention the alternatives.

(3) When to Stop. When I presented "The Total Package" to our session, we had
considerable discussion about whether it should simply end after Phase 2. While Phase
3 is stronger and different from what precedes it, the debate centered more on whether
the third phase was "necessary." Some felt that just doing the first two phases alone
(which is basically "Total Surrender" but with the prediction instead of the selection)
packs a solid "One, Two" punch, and it's best to leave well enough alone. Others
preferred three phases as the "right" number for a routine, but were a bit concerned
about using the same basic methodology for all three phases. Your choice.
II •
f>lhTffDAY5 Al'lD DATEf>OOK5

Those familiar with my prior writings or my DVDs know that the "birthday datebook"
is one of my favorite plot premises. Using a spectator's own birthday personalizes an
effect in a way that intimately involves your spectator. When you add a datebook,
you've got something that "builds" the effect into something more than "just" a card
trick; now a unique prop provides a hook that is instantly memorable. And a birthday
datebook can add a layer of deception to many "name-a-card" effects by allowing the
magician to get far ahead of the spectator.

But wait-even if you're not eager to pursue the birthday plot, or if you're already
married to your own "pet" datebook routine, there's still a lot in this section that has
direct application to non-datebook card magic as well. The underlying principles of
delayed awareness, and the specific techniques and subtleties, described in "Fate
Accompli" have broad application to a wide variety of card effects. The detailed study
in Birthday Backer, while aimed at one specific kind of a double backer, nevertheless
can be used with virtually any double-backed card.

"No-Stack Datebook" allows anyone to use and perform a datebook effect without
needing to first learn a memorized stack or a complicated system.

"Fate Accompli" is a simple coincidence plot in which a spectator picks a card that later
is revealed to be the unique one listed at her birthday. Its challenge conditions make it
exceptionally strong (she selects her card before she ever announces her birthday) and
very practical (it requires no gaffs, no index, and uses only an ordinary deck). Think
"Mystery Card" meets the datebook.

"Birthday Backer" introduces a new gaffed card specially designed for the birthday
datebook, with a host of ways of making it appear to be any card you wish. The odd-
backed card effectively converts coincidence plots into predictions.

Birthdays give us something to celebrate ...

l\Jo-Stack Datebook

his is a crutch- one that I have never used.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a useful and helpful aid for those who require one.
John Bannon has repeatedly told me so.

Although many magicians appreciate the personalization, the individuality, and the
mystery that a birthday datebook effect can provide, relatively few cardmen actually
use one, because it's reputed to require one's memorizing a stack or learning some
complex equivalent.

This section offers a solution: a simple formula that can substitute for all memorization.

What I call my "Speed Dating" formula allows you to quickly know the specific playing
card listed at any date in a datebook even though the cards in the datebook appear to be
totally randomized.

About fifteen minutes of practice will teach you all you need, and the world of
datebook effects will be open to you. The following two effects in this book, "Fate
Accompli" and the "Birthday Backer," can be done with the Speed Dating formula (or
with any other datebook methodology), and even though they're just the tip of the
iceberg, they illustrate how much you can accomplish with a datebook.

And as a tease and incentive, I'll mention that one tidbit coming up later (my
Countdown Cull in the Birthday Backer section) will enable you to present a deceptive
datebook effect that doesn't even require you to know my Speed Dating formula! But
don't skip ahead, because there's a lot of information you'll want to know first.
180 AM DECtSO

DAT€f>OOK5

A little background. I've been enamored

with the datebook concept since I first saw
Alex Elmsley perform his version in his
Chicago "Dazzle" lecture in 1975. Indeed,
I was so inspired that I immediately
searched the local department stores here
in Chicago and actually located the exact
datebook that Alex used in his lectures
(Figure 1). I still use my original one and
treasure it. A few years later I tried to
obtain more but discovered they had gone
out of print.

There are several different types of datebook (or, as they're sometimes called, "diary")
plots, so let's narrow the field immediately. I'm about to discuss a datebook in which
each date in the year has a random playing card written in. The secret is that although
the playing cards appear to be randomly scattered throughout the calendar year, in fact
there is a secret system or structure that underlies the apparent randomness, which
allows the performer to immediately know which playing card belongs to each date.
This instant, secret knowledge forms the groundwork for many quite deceptive
coincidence or prediction tricks (see the Comments to "Fate Accompli" for some of my
favorites).

Obviously the two central parameters underlying any such datebook are (1) the ease of
determining the card for any given date, and (2) the randomness displayed in the
datebook. Success in either of these areas is susceptible to degrees; how "easy" and
how "random" are each measured along a spectrum. The practical problem is that
there often is a trade-off between the two.

Hypothetically one could display complete randomness by distributing all fifty-two

playing cards randomly among the 366 possible dates and then "memorizing" the
result. No one would want or need to go to such trouble; that clearly tips the balance
too far in favor of randomness, at the expense of ease of use. Elmsley tried to balance
both factors. He memorized a sequence of eleven random cards and then repeated this
set of eleven cards in a very regular way. In Elmsley's datebook, there is complete
randomness within the group of eleven but an arguably easily recognizable pattern in
the successive repeats of each identical set of eleven cards. Immediately on seeing
Elmsley's lecture, I came up with my own practical, easy, and random-looking way of
laying out a datebook (my Month + Day formula; see Comment 1 for a fuller
discussion)- but it was useful only to those who had already learned a full-deck
memorized stack. (Back in the 70s, this meant very few.)
 [)()-5TACK DATEf>OOK 101

Try as I might, I have never been able to persuade my session mates John Bannon or
David Solomon to memorize a full-deck stack; it might have been a real boon in our
sessions, but that's the way things are. Candidly, our different tastes are probably part
of the reason we get along.

John has many creative ideas about datebook and birthday tricks (as well as other
things), but they've always been discussed at a theoretical level because he didn't have
a good way to fill a datebook. John wasn't about to memorize any full-deck stack, and
he found the available "formula" stacks to be too cumbersome. So back in the late 90s,
knowing my addiction to all things datebook-related, he asked me to devise a system
that would both generate a fairly random-looking distribution of cards for every date in
the calendar and would be easy enough that he might actually use it. (For those who
know John, this latter requirement creates a high bar.) John isn't much for" going the
extra mile" when it comes to memory work or advance preparation (which is one of the
reasons he's so good at making things simple and practical). So in my typical helpful,
friendly way, I ignored John's request. Since I already had my own Month+ Day
method, I didn't want to rack my brains and spend time trying to develop a tool I
would never use. But John persisted and sort of put it to me as a challenge. My typical
reaction to a challenge is to run away, so I still didn't do anything about it. But the
problem nagged at me, and I don't handle "naggings" very well. So I worked at a
solution and finally came up with something not bad. John and I tweaked it a bit, and
John tried it-and proclaimed it usable, by him! Voila, success! And so John stopped
bugging me (at least on this problem), and I never again thought about it. Hence, my
opening sentence.

I've reluctantly come to grips with the hard reality that mem-decks aren't for everyone.
My Speed Dating formula is usable by everyone. John is enthusiastic about its
practicality, so I take him at his word. Still, I reiterate: for anyone who already knows a
memorized stack, my Month + Day formula is a faster, easier, and more random way to
go. It's what I still use for virtually all datebook effects. But if you haven't memorized
a stack and don't plan to learn one, and you still want to perform a datebook-type
effect, then this Speed Dating approach may be just what you're looking for. Bannon
can't be wrong all the time.

Before I explain the Speed Dating formula (it's pretty simple), let's take a quick look at
what a spectator might see if she opened the date book. Here's a list of the complete
sequence of cards used:
2H, 7S, 4D, 9C, 6H, JS, SD, KC, lOC, SH, 2S, 7D, 4C, 9H, 6S, JD, SC, KH, lOH, SS, 2D,
7C, 4H, 9S, 6D, JC, SH, KS, lOS, SD, 2C, 7H, 4S, 9D, 6C, JH, SS, KD, lOD, SC

In your datebook each card's name would be fully written out; the spectator will be looking
at words, not symbols. Words help disguise patterns (though that's not a problem int.he
Speed Dating arrangement). The list should seem quite random: the values are
haphazard, and the suits are varied, with an occasional "doublet" (two of the same suit
together). When this sequence is correctly entered into a datebook, every day within a
month will have a different playing card; moreover, each month will begin on a
different card, which means that the same-numbered day in each month (e.g., say,
January 14th and the 14th of each successive month) will have different cards.

Despite this random appearance, there is an underlying regular pattern, but it's not the
sort that would be noticed without careful inspection. The sequence actually uses only
40 of the 52 cards of the deck; none of the Aces, Threes, or Queens are used. The
remaining ten values are repeated in the same order, four times, each time with a
different suit. (I point this out only so you'll get an overview of the arrangement; you
don't have to learn this.)

Of course, the ultimate test of randomness is how such an arrangement will look when
written into a date book. And that depends on how many days can be seen at once
when your particular book is opened up; most diaries show a week at a glance on two
adjacent visible pages. This means one would need to turn about six pages before one
finds a specific card repeated. And this, of course, is as it should be; one would expect
to find repeats, since you're filling 366 days with only 52 different playing cards.

So finally, here's the Speed Dating formula. It takes three steps to calculate a playing
card from a given date.

Step 1: Calculate the uDate Number" (=Month + Day)

The months January to December are commonly known and easily remembered by
their numeric order in the calendar year, from 1 to 12. April is the 4th month, December
is the 12th month, and so on. The possible days in a month range from 1to31. The first
step in the system is to add the month number to the day number; I call the resulting total
the "Date Number." For example, the Date Number for July 17 would be 24 (7 + 17);
the Date Number for April 1 would be 5 (4 + 1); the Date Number for October 31
(Halloween) is 41(10+31). The range of possible Date Numbers thus runs from a low
of 2(January1=1+1) to a high of 43 (December 31=12 + 31).

If you knew a memorized deck, you'd already be home free, because the Date Number
would instantly tell you the playing card. But for the moment we're assuming you're
like Bannon (who isn't a bad model to emulate).
 lb-STACK DATEf>OOfi 10)

Step 2: Value of the Playing Card

Once you've generated the Date Number, use its rightmost digit (the one in the "units"
column) to determine the playing card's value, as follows:

If the rightmost digit is an even number (2, 4, 6, 8, or 0), that digit will be the card's
value (and here we're using zero ( "O") to be a card value of 10).

If the rightmost digit is an odd number (1, 3, 5, 7, 9), add 4 to that digit- and the
resulting sum will be the card's value. Note that 7 + 4 = 11, and as a card value, 11 is
a Jack; likewise 9 + 4 = 13, and 13 indicates a King.

A few examples:

(i) February 18 gives a Date Number of 20 (2 + 18 = 20). The rightmost digit of

that Date Number is 0, so the value of the card for February 18 is a 10.

(ii) May 22 gives a Date Number of 27 (5 + 22 = 27) . The rightmost digit of that
Date Number is 7, which is odd, so we add 4 (7 + 4 = 11), making the value of the
card for May 22 a Jack.

(iii) December 19 gives a Date Number of 31(12+19 = 31). The rightmost digit
of that Date Number is l, which is odd, so we add 4 (1 + 4 = 5). Thus, the value
of the card for December 19 is a 5.

If this seems time-consuming, that's because you just worked through three examples
and it's your first time. In performance you'll need to calculate only one date, and you'll
have the benefit of practice. Half the time (i.e., for all the even Date Numbers), you just
look at the rightmost digit and do nothing more. On the other half (the odd Date
Numbers), it's pretty easy to add 4, and you never need to "go around the horn" (that
is, the total never exceeds 13, which is a King).

Step 3: Suit of the Playing Card

To determine the suit of the playing card, we're going to rely on the ancient CHaSeD
order of suits, where each suit has a value from 1 to 4, as follows:

Clubs =1
Hearts =2
Spades =3
Diamonds =4

Most magicians are already familiar with this order.

164 ~M DECKO

To determine the suit of any playing card, we'll quickly generate a number (from 1to4)
and this number will tell us the suit according to the above suit chart. How do we
generate such a suit number? Start with the Date Number, and add its two digits together
to get a sum. Let's call this the "Suit Sum." If the Date Number is already a single-digit
number, just use that single digit as the Suit Sum. The Suit Sum can range from a low
of 1 to a high of 12 (e.g., July 3 has a Date Number of 10 and thus a Suit Sum of 1 (1 + O);
October 29 has a Date Number of 39 and thus a Suit Sum of 12 (3 + 9)).

Once you have your Suit Sum, you'll convert or reduce it to either a 1, 2, 3, or 4 by
"casting out" the highest multiple of 4 that you can that still leaves a positive
remainder. (To some people, the instruction" cast out" brings shudders and fears
because it sounds like higher mathematics; if it troubles or confuses you, forget it and
look at the next sentence.)

Another way to describe what we're doing is to subtract either 4 or 8 from your Suit Sum,
so that you're left with a positive remainder. There are only three options:

If the Suit Sum is 1, 2, 3, or 4, don't do anything more, you're already there; that
number tells you the suit. You don't subtract 4 (you couldn't, and still be left
with a positive remainder).

If the Suit Sum is 5, 6, 7, or 8, subtract 4, and use the remainder.

If the Suit Sum is 9, 10, 11, or 12, subtract 8, and use the remainder.

Once you do this simple operation, you'll be left with either a 1, 2, 3, or 4. Use the suit
chart above to determine the suit for that number. Here are a few examples of
determining the Suit:

Date Number Suit Sum Cast Out Fours Suit

27 9 9 minus 8 c
22 4 None D
34 7 7minus4 s
20 2 None H
41 5 5 minus 4 c
Now I appreciate that this step 3 is the most complicated of the three steps, but once
you practice it for a few minutes, it becomes intuitive. Given that there are only four
suit possibilities, they soon become automatic. For example, if the Suit Sum is itself a
multiple of four (4, 8, or 12), then the suit will always be Diamonds. If the Suit Sum is
any of the other even numbers, the suit will be Hearts.
 flO-SUICt'i DATEf>OOt'i 1<55

You now have everything you need to construct a date book that will look random and
withstand scrutiny but nevertheless will be easy to use.

Finally, here are a few examples that test determining both the value and suit:

Date Number
Date Value Suit Sum Suit Card
(Month + Day)
Jan 1 2 2 2 H 2H
Sep30 39 K 12 D KD
Jul 7 14 4 5 c 4C
Nov27 38 8 11 s SS
Mar28 31 5 4 D 4D

Bannon says, "Five minutes practice and you will have this system forever." (Of course,
he's younger than I am. I'm slower, so I'd put it at fifteen minutes. And, being older,
I'm getting wary about anything lastingforever.) But, if Bannon can do it, it can't be that
hard.

USES
This isn't the place to describe or list the many tricks that utilize a date book laid out
with apparently randomized playing cards. I've put out my share, both in Simply Simon
and on Volume 2 of my DVD set. The following two effects "Fate Accompli" and
"Birthday Backer" should whet your appetite. While there are more efficient systems
available to calculate the necessary information, now everyone has a utility that (I'm
told) is practical and workable. So if you don't use a memorized stack, you should give
a nod of thanks to Bannon, both for pushing me and for testing this under fire. The
world of datebook effects is now open to you. Happy Birthday.

(Offiffi€nTS

(1) Sources and Credits. Apparently the idea of having dates in a calendar
correlated with playing cards goes back at least as far as 1935, when Tom Sellers
published his effect" A Memory Feat" in the June 1935 issue of The Magic Wand. The
Sellers effect was structured as a pseudo memory feat and involved more than one card
being associated with each date. Fast forward eighteen years to Arthur F. G. Carter's
"Diary of a Yogi" (The Magic Wand, June 1953) for what may be the first time that each
date specified a particular playing card. Elmsley' s version, "Fate's Datebook," was
presented and taught in his 1975 lecture and was published in Stephen Minch's The
Collected Works of Alex Elmsley (1994), Volume 2, p. 433. John Bannon's Gregorian
166 ~M DECl)O

Chance - Magic with Cards and Calendars (2013) explains my Speed Dating formula (he
calls it the "Gregorian Chance System") and sets forth several tricks using it. John has
also put together a separate "fortune telling" date book (incorporating the Speed Dating
arrangement) which combines both Tarot cards and playing cards with a full year's
calendar, so if you want to save yourself the trouble of writing 366 cards into a
datebook, you might be able to find a copy of John's arcane book.

(2) History: Month + Day. During the 70s I was knee-deep in memorized deck
material and thought about it constantly. On my drive home from Elmsley's Dazzle
lecture, the application of a memorized deck to the datebook plot came to me in an
instant.

I was fascinated by the datebook idea, but being a "worry wart" (Ed Marlo called me a
"what if" magician), I was concerned that in Elmsley's datebook, as soon as one turned
a page in either direction, the same sequence of ten (or eleven, for the 31st day of any
month) cards was repeated. Since I typically "look for patterns," I was fearful that a
curious spectator might notice the repetitions. I already had a random-looking
sequence of 52 cards memorized, so it took only two short steps to produce my Month +
Day method.

I initially considered using just the first 31 cards in my memorized stack, applying
Elmsley' s notion of beginning the sequence anew on the first day of every month. That
in itself was a step forward, since one would now need to page through thirty dates
before one encountered a repeated card. But, still worrying, I wondered, "What
happens if the spectator grows curious about her own specific day of the month?" For
example, if Mary's birthday is on August 18, after she learns that her lucky card is the
Queen of Hearts, she might check out the 18th day of a few other months, and I certainly
wouldn't want her to find the QH written on each such day. So, since I had used up
only the first 31 cards of my memorized stack, it occurred to me to start each month of
the calendar at a different point in my stack. The most obvious route is the one I took:
move my stack "up one step" for each successive month. I simply added the "month
number" to the "day number" and used that total as the stack number in my
memorized deck. This made the computation fast and easy. A datebook set up this
way uses the cards from stack-numbers 2 to 43 in a stack, thus leaving ten cards unused
(stack numbers 1and44-52).

Over the years I've discovered several significant uses for these "unused" ten cards.
For instance, if you're ever going to have a card signed and given away as a souvenir-
or destroyed, or gaffed, or otherwise made "special" -it's nice to have a known bevy of
ten cards that you know won't interfere with a subsequent datebook effect. I suggest a
possible use for one or two of these "non-eligible" cards in my discussion of the
"Birthday Backer."
 r'IO-)TACK DATE~OOK 107

I immediately started using my Month + Day method and taught it to several

magicians. I ultimately published it in "Happy Birthday" (in my Simply Simon Lecture
Notes #2 (1992)). In those notes I also advanced the idea, for non-memorized deck
users, that since the datebook wasn't a "memorized deck" trick, you could create a
workable datebook with any formula that generates a random-looking sequence of
cards (and I specifically noted the possibility of using a Harding, Osterlind, or
Cornelius system). "Happy Birthday" was republished in my book Simply Simon (1995),
and my Month + Day idea has been widely used ever since.

(3) Full Year at a Glance; Month+ Day on Steroids. In the 90's I developed an
alternative visual way of presenting the dates and cards. Instead of using a datebook
(which typically portrays a week at a time), I came up with a single chart that depicts a
full year at a glance! It's simply a ruled grid with twelve columns and 31 rows. The
twelve months are written across the top, and the days from 1to31 are written down
one side. In each box (created by the intersection of the month axis and day axis) is
written a card symbol (e.g., in the box for March 20 is printed the symbol 8~). It's thus a
"Year at a Glance" chart.

But while my Month + Day calculation is certainly sufficient for datebook presentations,
it doesn't work perfectly for th~ "full year" chart. Why? Well, I learned a practical
lesson. At first I carefully laid out my chart using my Month + Day method, eager to
see the outcome. Unfortunately the result was like viewing highly repetitive wallpaper!
Since each fully visual month looked exactly the same as the month next to it Gust offset
down by one row), the identical playing card symbol was visible in every adjacent
column, just one step down - so each specific card's symbol formed a "diagonal stripe"
with its repetitions, running diagonally down the chart. I had not realized that the
more visual I made everything, the more "nearby repetitions" would be apparent.

Once I realized my error, it was a simple and easy fix to tweak my Month + Day
formula by "offsetting" the columns and thus destroying the visual repetitive patterns.
If you want to learn more details about this, check out "The Calendar Card" in Simply
Simon, p. 103; a pdf of my chart (configured with the Aronson stack) is currently
downloadable on my website, under "The Calendar Card." I mention this here simply
because the year-at-a-glance chart depiction idea and the small tweak to the formula are
equally applicable to my Speed Dating formula. So if you like the idea of a year-at-a-
glance chart, but aren't willing to memorize a deck, there's still hope for you. (I'm
trying to be polite ... )

The full year-at-a-glance chart has several advantages over a datebook. Everything is
completely visible at once, so there's no wasted time while a spectator examines or leafs
through a book. The chart seems more innocent because of its complete transparency.
The chart can be made in any size: a large one, for visibility by more than one spectator
(I have a giant wall poster 24" x 36" chart for stage) or a pocket-sized version (I
regularly carry one on a folded piece of paper in my wallet, so I'm always able to
perform a birthday trick" on demand"). Indeed, the year-at-a-glance chart can be
incorporated into a multitude of different kinds of props. I have birthday greeting
cards printed with the chart inside and even had a tee-shirt specially made with the
grid on the back, for a surprise revelation.

As I mentioned, I'm a bit addicted to this ...

 ate tlccompli

he most deceptive birthday effect I've ever created is, without a doubt, "Fate" (in
Simply Simon and on Vol. 2 of my DVD set). It's a straightforward coincidence
birthday card plot: the spectator freely selects an unknown card from a deck and
then consults a calendar chart (i.e., a datebook in chart format) to determine her "lucky"
playing card. For the climax, she looks at the card she picked and discovers that it is
her lucky card. What makes "Fate" particularly fooling are its stringent conditions: the
spectator chooses her card quite freely before she has announced her birth date; the full
deck of cards is shown front and back; the chart contains a random-looking display of
many different cards scattered throughout all the dates of the year; and the card she
initially selects is never switched.

I still perform "Fate," and the reactions are quite strong. However, the price you pay to
produce this result is high: "Fate" requires a bank deck with duplicates, a wallet index
of twelve special charts (which involves considerable effort to print up), and a bit of
real-time mental agility to quickly calculate which chart to introduce. Those magicians
who have invested the time and effort swear by it, but it's admittedly not for everyone.

I've always wondered how closely I could duplicate "Fate" without the necessity of any
gaffs, duplicates, or an index. My goal was to use only a normal deck and one
"regular" datebook. The following is my best attempt yet. While it doesn't meet every
rigorous condition outlined above, I think you'll find it a practical solution.

EttECT

The bare-bones procedure follows the above "Fate" effect fairly closely, so there's not
much point in repeating it. I've completely changed the patter from the original "Fate"
plot, and you'll quickly understand why.
190 AM DECKO

PhEPAhAT1on

You'll need any form of birthday diary or date book, as described in Simply Simon and
elsewhere herein, that has a playing card correlated with each date of the year. It can be
in either book or chart form and can incorporate any method you want for laying out
the cards so long as (1) the card distribution looks random, and (2) you have a secret
way of quickly knowing the playing card at any named date. As mentioned, if you use
a memorized stack, my Month + Day method is probably best, but the Speed Dating
formula will certainly work as well.

Let me repeat my strong recommendation from Simply Simon that it's really worth
searching for the "ideal" blank diary before you commit yourself to writing in the
playing cards 366 times. There are specially printed "perpetual" datebooks that aren't
keyed to any particular calendar year (and thus don't have a specific" day of the week"
named at any date). Such perpetual diaries are intended to be filled with annually
reoccurring events (birthday, anniversaries) and thus never go out of date. Some look
quite elegant, with embossed leather bindings, while others are playful and
multicolored. Pick one that fits your own presentation style. Also, size matters: a
pocket size is handy (mine, pictured in "No-Stack Datebook," is 3" x 5"), but small print
may be hard to read.

You'll also need a regular deck of cards with

two Jokers. With a bold marker, write the
word "Happy" across the top half of the
regular Joker and the word "Birthday" across
the top half of the Guarantee Joker (Figure 1).
For ease of description, I'll refer to these two
Jokers as the Happy Joker and the Birthday
Joker, respectively. These are the only props
you'll need.

OUEhUIEW

It will be helpful if I give you a bare-bones overview of what's going to happen; then we
can run through the steps in detail to put some finesse and presentation into it. Briefly,
you'll start by asking Ginny to pick a card. Her choice must appear fair and free, but in
fact you'll force one of the Jokers on her, which will be tabled face down, unseen. Only
after her "selection" has been tabled does Ginny then, for the first time, announce her
birth date.
 tATE ACCOffiPLI 191

As soon as you learn her birth date, you'll convert it to the particular playing card
associated with that date (Ginny's "Date Card"). You'll now run through the deck,
ostensibly to remove and display the two Jokers; in fact, you'll remove the remaining
Joker and her Date Card, holding them face down. You'll then apparently turn these
two cards face up, revealing the two Jokers with their birthday message, as you place
them face up on the table surrounding Ginny's still face-down selection. During this
turnover action, you will actually switch Ginny's selected card (the forced Joker) for her
Date Card. But the resulting picture will look as if nothing has yet happened.

At this point the methodology of the trick has been accomplished; all that's left is
presentation. Only now will you introduce your datebook and explain how each date
has a playing card associated with it. Ginny can look up her birth date to learn her
birthday card, and when she ultimately turns over the card between the two Jokers,
she'll discover that she picked her own birthday card.

The method thus reduces to having a good force and a good switch.

Start with both Jokers in the deck. Precisely where you put the Jokers will depend on
what particular force you choose to use (see Comment 3). I prefer an under-the-spread
cull force so I put the Happy Joker at 6th position from the top and the Birthday Joker
just a few cards from the face of the deck. (You'll see why shortly.) Leave the datebook
out on your table off to the left side; if its cover is particularly attention-grabbing, leave
it face down.

1) Tell your spectator Ginny, "When I performed at birthday parties, I always brought
a special birthday card, one that was tailor-made for the birthday child. If you'll play the role of
the birthday girl, I'll show you. We're going to create a do-it-yourself birthday card, one that's
customized just for you!" Whatever Ginny's response, continue, "We're going to build your
unique birthday card piece by piece. First, and most importantly, don't tell us yet when your
birthday is. You've never told me that date, or invited me to your birthday party, so for the
moment, that's your secret. Just mentally keep that date in your thoughts. But don't say it yet,
just 'think' it."

Once you've thus set the stage, begin by having Ginny select a card from the deck. In
fact you'll force the Happy Joker (with the caveat that the card must remain face down,
unseen by Ginny). I use an under-the-spread cull force (but see Comment 3 for
alternatives). I've already described a basic handling for an under-the-spread force in
"Twice Removed, Once Again/' but there the force card was immediately raised up and
shown to the spectator. In this routine, it's important to keep the force card face down
192 ~M DEC~O

after it's been selected, unseen by the spectator, so the technique is a bit different. Here,
in detail, is how I proceed.

(i) Begin spreading the deck between your hands, until you've spread slightly
more than six cards. Your left thumbtip now lightly contacts the back of the fifth
card, while your left middle and ring fingertips underneath contact the exposed
face of the sixth card (the Happy Joker).

(ii) Pause your spreading action as you look at your spectator; during this
moment the right hand moves the top five already-spread cards to the left as
though partially re-squaring them. The left thumb also moves to the left slightly,
to help slide the fifth card leftward, but the left fingers underneath prevent the
Joker from being moved. The result is that the left edge of the fifth card will now
completely cover the Joker. Underneath, the right edge of the Joker contacts, and
is gripped by, the base of the right index finger. This momentary re-squaring is
accompanied by your comment, "As I spread the cards like this ... please extend one
finger ... and while you' re still thinking of your birth date, touch the back of just one
card, anyone you like."

(iii) Commence again to spread the cards, drawing the top group of five cards to
the right as a block; the right index finger below holds the right edge of the Joker
lightly against the underside of these right-hand cards, so that the Joker is culled
under the spread. The left thumb continues spreading the deck, feeding its cards
into the slight gap between the hidden Joker and the spread. The right index
finger maintains its pressure on the right outer corner of the Joker to hold it in
place. During the spreading action, proffer the cards toward the spectator's
finger, so she can easily touch one.

(iv) Once she touches a card, separate the spread below the touched card. The
touched card becomes (apparently) the bottom card of the right-hand spread;
actually, the right edge of the touched card has entered the gap between the
Joker and the rest of the spread. The right fingers below press the Joker upward
against the spread cards; this holds the touched card in place. About 1/2" of the
left side of the touched card should still remain visible.

(v) Your left thumb contacts the left

edge of the touched card and flicks it
slightly, which draws the spectator's
eyes to the touched card and to your
left hand (Figure 2). Under the
misdirection of extending your left
hand forward in order to demonstrate
how the spectator is to hold her hand,
 fATE ~CCOffiPU 19)

you're now going to secretly exchange the hidden Joker for the touched card.
More precisely, as you complete the flicking action, your left thumb rests lightly
on the left edge of the touched card. Say, "Now hold your hand palm up, like this,"
and immediately extend your left
hand forward toward the spectator,
palm up with all five fingers
outstretched, still holding its cards
(Figure 3). As your left hand starts to
move forward, your left thumb
nudges the touched card to the right
(squaring it with the right-hand
cards), while your right fingers
below, on the face of the hidden
Joker, simultaneously extend,
pushing the Joker to the left. The touched card and the Joker slide across each
other, so that the left edge of the Joker comes into view as the (now visible)
bottom card of the right-hand portion.
1
This "switch has occurred in an instant and is misdirected by the broad forward
'

motion of the left hand. All attention will be drawn to the outstretched left palm,
and when the spectator's eyes return back to the right-hand cards, the single
edge of the (apparently) touched card (actually the Joker) will still be in view.
This switch is not a fast or sudden motion; ifs actually somewhat soft. The left
hand "accidently nudges" the right-hand packet for a moment, so the right
fingers simply "un-nudge" the right-hand spread and wind up holding the cards
just as they were to start with. The adjustment, while visible, is quite small and
is well-misdirected.

(vi) As soon as the spectator extends her palm, move your right hand with its
cards over her hand. During this action, you can stretch your right fingers even
further, thus exposing even more of the left side of the Joker. The right fingertips
release their grip, allowing the Joker to drop face down onto the spectator's
palm. I say, "And put your finger on it, so that no one can see it, not even you," as I
gesture with my right finger to demonstrate. (I'm the worrying type, and I don't
want an over-curious spectator to look at the card.)

At this point, as an option, you can simultaneously turn both hands palm down
by rotating the wrists inward. The cards in both hands will now be face up, and
the fingers of both hands can spread their respective cards slightly to display
their variety, as you say, "You might have touched any of these cards ... " Both hands
turn back palm up, turning the cards face down, and the right-hand cards are
placed onto the left-hand cards.
194 i'.IM DECKO

While my description above is lengthy, the actual move doesn't take much time.
What's most important, in my opinion, is the patter theme of "building a customized
birthday card," so I re-iterate it once the selected card is dropped onto Ginny's hand.
"Great, you just chose your own personalized message. That card is the message inside of your
birthday card; we'll look at it later. But everyone here should remember, you picked it on your
own. But now that you've committed yourself to that message, for the first time, tell everyone
your birthday. Month and day is fine; you don't have to say the year."

2) Let's say that Ginny responds, "May 25." (If you know the basic astrology
signs, it's a nice optional touch to mention, "Oh, you're a Gemini. You should be really good
at this.") Continue, "We still have to build the outside of your greeting card. So we need the
generic message cards." This should pique Ginny's curiosity.

You're now going to spread through the deck, faces toward you, to search for and upjog
two cards. As soon as Ginny mentions her birthday, translate it into the appropriate
playing card for that date (the "Date Card"); if you're using an Aronson-stack-based
datebook, the Date Card for May 25 is the King of Hearts (so we'll use the KH in our
example).

Tilt the deck up to a somewhat vertical position (so that Ginny can't see the faces), and
begin spreading the cards from left to right. The first card you upjog will be the
Birthday Joker (which should still be near the face of the deck, so you'll be able to upjog
it almost as soon as you start spreading).
Continue spreading, scanning the faces until
you see the KH; when you do, upjog it
(Figure 4). From the backs, Ginny sees two
upjogged cards. She doesn't yet know what
these two cards are, but she's heard you refer
to them as the "generic message cards."
Next, you're going to complete your
explanation by showing them to her.

3) Square up the deck in the left hand, faces toward you, and with your right
hand grasp the two outjogged cards and strip them from the deck, as your left hand
places the rest of the deck aside. It won't be needed any longer. Turn the two cards
face down end-for-end, placing them into the left hand for a moment.

I should pause here to mention the placement and orientation of the cards. Your goal is
to have the Date Card uppermost, with the Birthday Joker underneath (nearest the left
palm). By pre-setting the Birthday Joker just a few cards from the deck's face, it will
usually be the first card to be upjogged, so you'll be in the correct position. (If you're
totally fastidious, you can ensure that this will always be the case by also pre-setting, as
the few cards which are below the Birthday Joker, only those which are not eligible Date
 fATE ~ccomPLI 195

Cards, i.e., selected from among stack numbers 1and44-52.) Don't worry if
occasionally the Date Card happens to be below the Joker; just upjog both of them, and
you'll have an opportunity in a moment to re-adjust their order.

There's also the issue of orienting the writing

on the two Jokers, so that when they are
turned face up (at step 4), the writing on
both will be facing the spectator for instant
readability. Your initial orientation of the
writing will vary, depending on what
particular force and switch you use, but it's
certainly important to plan for this ahead of
time. In my case, the Birthday message is
toward the top as I spread the deck. (Once
you've worked through the handling of the
following switch a few times, you can then
backtrack to make sure your Jokers start so
that their messages end up in the final
orientation shown in Figure 13 later on.)

4) You're now going to use your two

/1 /1
card as tweezers" or pinchers" to
delicately pick up Ginny's selected card
between them, with Ginny's card in an
outjogged position. Here's the detail. Grasp
the upper card (the KH) at its inner right
corner with your right thumb and fingers,
and separate your hands a few inches apart.
Your left thumb and fingers hold on to the
lower card (the Birthday Joker) at its inner
left corner (Figure 5). In a continuing motion,
slide your left-hand card under the card on
Ginny's palm, so that it goes under
(approximately) the inner left quarter of
Ginny's card. Your right hand assists by simultaneously placing its card above Ginny's
card, covering approximately the inner right quarter of her card. The fingers of both
hands can extend underneath the cards, as the thumbs above apply a light pressure, just
enough to hold everything steady (Figure 6), as you lift the three-card sandwich, with
Ginny's card still outjogged, from Ginny's hand.

Immediately adjust your right fingers so that the right hand alone holds the sandwich,
as the left hand withdraws (Figure 7). Underneath, your right index fingertip rests on
the face of the outjogged Happy Joker (near its inner right corner) to hold it in place, so
196 AM D€<KO

that the bottom card of the sandwich (the Birthday Joker) no longer supports it. The
right middle and ring fingertips extend to touch the right long edge of the Birthday Joker,
just enough to support it.

5) You' re now about to show Ginny your two "generic message cards." It will
appear as if you're simply turning over these two outside cards and revealing that one
says "Birthday" and the other says "Happy." In fact, in turning them face up you will
actually switch the Happy Joker for the KH. This will be accomplished by using a
Hamman-type sandwich switch.

You could certainly use Hamman' s original handling or the Funsky Flipover Switch
(both of which are described in "Twice Removed, Once Again"). But for this particular
effect I'm partial to a less well-known switch, David Oestreicher's Optical Sandwich.
Here's my description of David's move:

(i) Extend your left hand palm up, with its

fingers together and pointing toward the right,
as your right hand places its sandwich so that
only the left long edge of the bottom card (the
Birthday Joker) rests on the left fingertips
(Figure 8).

(ii) Lift your right hand upward and to the

left, which causes your right middle and ring
fingertips to lever up the right side of the
bottom card (Figure 9) and to flip it over
bookwise, where it lands face up on the left
palm, revealing its "Birthday" message.

(iii) As this bottom card flips over, the right

hand, with its two remaining face-down cards,
moves diagonally forward and to the left,
which places the inner left corner of the upper
card (the KH) onto the outer right corner of
the now-face-up Birthday Joker (Figure 10).
 fATE ACCOffiPLI 197

(iv) Immediately pinch down on the inner left corner of the face-down KH with
your left thumb, pinning the KH lightly to the outer right corner of the Birthday
Joker. The right hand no longer needs to hold on to the KH, so you can lift your
right thumb slightly, releasing any pressure on the KH. Meanwhile from below,
the right fingertips apply a light pressure upward on the face of the outjogged
middle card (the Happy Joker). At this point two small actions happen
simultaneously: the left hand moves both its cards (the face-down KH pinched
onto the face-up Birthday Joker in a stepped condition) to the left and forward,
while at the same time, the right hand carries its single card, the Happy Joker, in
the opposite direction, i.e., to the right and inward.

Note that the distances the hands move here

are extremely small; basically the hands
separate only enough for the right
hand's Happy Joker to "clear" the other
two cards (Figure 11). If done
smoothly, there's an illusion of
retention of motion/ vision: the
movement of an outjogged card
diagonally forward initiated in step (iii)
seems to continue into step (iv).
Meanwhile, the spectator's eye should
be following the card that's flipping
face up (the Birthday Joker), because
that's the one that's being revealed.

(v) As soon as the right hand's Happy

Joker is no longer below the now
outjogged KH, rotate your right wrist
inward, turning the Happy Joker face
up end-for-end, to reveal its "Happy"
message (Figure 12). It is then slid or
jammed under the left thumb, so that
the full sandwich, with its two face-up
message cards, is held just by the left
hand (Figure 13).

Although I've analytically separated

steps (i-v) for descriptive purposes, they
all flow together in one continuous
action. In fact, they overlap somewhat,
e.g., the diagonal movement of the right-hand cards in step (iii) actually starts as
the Birthday Joker is falling face up in step (ii).
196 AM DECKO

A strength of Oestreicher's switch is that the "unknown" card appears to remain

outjogged throughout. I've spent a lot of words and pictures detailing David's move
because I think it's worth it; the move isn't well-known, and it deserves to be. Do keep
in mind that although the description may be lengthy, the move itself isn't. It's all one
continuous action: you strip out two upjogged cards, pick up Ginny's card between
them, and turn the two outer cards face up.

I also humbly suggest that the handwritten messages on the Jokers help strengthen the
visual misdirection at the critical moment of the switch: your introductory patter (about
"generic message cards") raises a curiosity to see them. As the first Joker is revealed,
attention is on it (it's not merely a Joker, it's part of a birthday greeting), thus distracting
the eyes from what the right hand is doing. Then, when the Happy Joker turns face up,
attention automatically focuses on the two face-up cards as a pair, to read the complete
message. The one outjogged, face-down card seems to remain in situ throughout.

Once you've completed the Oestreicher Optical Switch, simply place the three-card
sandwich onto the table, in its outjogged condition.

6) From a methodological perspective, the trick is done. It appears as if you've

done just what you announced: you removed two "generic message cards" from the
deck and turned them face up surrounding Ginny's still-face-down touched card. I
summarize, "We've built a birthday card. The outside message, Happy Birthday, is generic; it
might apply to anyone." I point to the two Jokers as I say this. Then I point at Ginny's
face-down card, continuing, "But this inside message is personalized. It was hand-picked by
you - and not at random, but while you concentrated on your birthday."

The rest is presentation and is open to your own interpretation and tone (funny, eerie,
mysterious, etc.). I often vary my script, and I have several jokes that I'll occasionally
toss in (or not), once I see Ginny's reactions. My main advice is simply: don't let the
spectator get "lost" in your patter. You don't want her to forget the key deceptive
point: she picked her "inside" message card before she announced her birth date.

It's now time to introduce your datebook. The front pages of my diary have little
charts, so I use them to point out facts about birthdays. "This book reveals what makes
each birthday unique. Every day in the year has particular associations, and this book lays them
all out. For instance, most people know their own Zodiac sign. And when is your birthday? ...
May 26 1h? ... Oops, sorry, the 25 1'1? Well, that's a Gemini .... and for May your birthstone is an ...
[Emerald] and May's birth flower is a ... [Lily of the Valley]. I didn't know that; see, this is
educational." Clearly you needn't say all (or any) of this, but it gives you a feel for how I
bring the datebook into play. (I do typically ask Ginny for her birthday (again), and I do
typically fake a mis-hearing of the date, both of which may help create a mis-
remembered memory later.)
 fATE /'.k:comPLI 199

I then open up the book to display a full week, now revealing for the first time the
written playing cards. "But what makes each day unique is the lucky playing card. Next to
every single date of the year is printed a different random playing card. The entire deck is
scattered randomly throughout the year. Check it out." The book is enough of a curiosity
for Ginny to want to leaf through a few pages. Don't be surprised if she quickly flips to
her own birth date. "Go ahead, what's your lucky playing card, the one listed at May
whatever?" Once Ginny looks it up and announces the King of Hearts, bring all the
attention back to the sandwich that is still lying on the table.

The Jokers are already face up, but the center card is still face down-an unknown,
staring Ginny in the face. Now is the moment when most spectators anticipate the
magic that's about to happen. To bring home the impossibility, I remind her, "The
outside parts of this do-it-yourself card may have a generic message, but you actually selected
your own personalized inside message before you told anyone your birthday. You only thought
of your birthday when you selected this card. You can 'open' your card now. Take a look ... "

Everything is clean, and once you put away the Jokers, you're left with a regular deck.

CommEm5; Tfl€01'v

(1) Timing and Delayed Awareness. Whether or not a particular overt action
raises a spectator's suspicion often depends on when it is performed vis a vis what the
spectator then knows or is thinking about. The exact same action that raises eyebrows may
pass completely unnoticed, depending on what the spectator is considering or
anticipating when it occurs. (My essay "Pondering Predictions" offers other examples
of this concept.)

Datebook effects offer a prime opportunity to make maximum use of this concept. One
of the essential strengths of the datebook prop is "time shifting" - the datebook effectively delays
the moment when the spectator knows or starts thinking about a specific playing card. This
delayed awareness afforded by the datebook is particularly powerful, because it gives
the performer knowledge in advance- even before the spectator herself realizes that the
choice of a card has occurred.

To illustrate, let's compare a generic opening with a specific effect. First, consider the
many tricks that begin with the performer asking a spectator to freely name a playing
card, whereupon he then runs through the faces of a deck for some ostensible reason.
Stop right there, and forget about whatever else might subsequently occur in the trick.
Assuming that your spectator is paying attention- and, of course, we hope she is-
those initial steps are both in her mind, and she may easily view them together. The
sequencing itself is enough to connect your running through a deck with what preceded
it-namely that she chose (verbally) a card. It's not a big leap for her to wonder
200 AM DECKO

whether you might be looking for the particular card she just named. (It's precisely
because we recognize this issue that we offer patter justifications to help mitigate such
suspicions, e.g., removing the Jokers, or showing that the deck is well-shuffled.)

Now let's examine a specific datebook effect, my "Happy Birthday" (from Simply
Simon). In that trick, I say that I got my start performing at birthday parties and that I
always did a special trick for the birthday child. I ask my spectator to play the role of
the birthday child and casually ask, "When's your birthday?" Whatever date she replies,
I immediately react, "What? It's not today? That's too bad, because this trick only works on
your birthday." I then say that, "I keep one special birthday card in this deck-you can't tell it
from the faces, but it stands out from the backs." As I say this, I spread through a face-up
deck of cards and then show the backs-where just one card is seen to have a
completely different back, with a "Happy Birthday" message written boldly on its back.
I remove that special card from the deck, not yet showing its face, and leave it propped
up in a stand, back out, until the climax of the trick. (While I've described these steps in
detail, the spectator perceives this as merely my "opening" lines; nothing magical has
yet happened.)

If you compare the opening steps of this trick with the hypothetical generic name-a-card
plot we just examined, you'll realize that it's essentially the same set of physical
actions-except that in "Happy Birthday," the spectator won't be wondering at all
about my "searching" for her chosen card because as far as she's concerned, she hasn't yet
chosen any card. She is unaware that by casually announcing her birth date, she has in
fact designated a particular playing card.

Now, in "Happy Birthday," I'm secretly culling the correct Date Card from the face-up
spread to the rear (top) of the deck, casually cutting the cards, and then applying
pressure to adhere a sticky odd-back to her card. I doubt if these actions would pass
muster if our spectator had just named a specific playing card. But they're quite
innocent in the context of my birthday patter, because no link between specific dates
and specific playing cards has yet been established.

This "time awareness" advantage of the date book situation is, in turn, dependent on a
particular point of presentation: namely, when in your routine you introduce the
datebook. You can and should introduce a birthday theme early in your patter, but you
should wait to introduce your datebook-or at least wait to explain how it functions-
until after the dirty work has been accomplished. Once your spectator understands the
inside of your datebook, she'll know that a particular card will be "in play."

"Delayed awareness" is a powerful weapon because when it can be incorporated, it

gives the performer a significant time advantage. As I'm using the term here, the
performer knows the result of a "choice" that the spectator isn't yet aware she's actually made.
Delayed awareness, in fact, underlies some powerful memorized-deck miracles, e.g.,
 tATE AccomPLI 201

where early in a routine, a spectator casually mentions a "number" (and now the
performer immediately knows what playing card he must subsequently find and force);
or vice versa, where a spectator announces her favorite card, which secretly informs the
performer of a numbered position which he must ultimately arrive at. A memorized
stack isn't quite like a date book because with a mem-deck the linkage between playing
cards and numbered positions must be kept secret, but the delayed awareness can still
furnish a significant advantage. David Finklestein has played around with an effect
where the 50 different United States (plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico) are each
"randomly" written on the backs of 52 playing cards; if there's a secret mnemonic
linkage, one might create a powerful effect incorporating delayed awareness.

(2) Prediction vs. Coincidence. In general, datebook plots follow either of two
related premises: prediction or coincidence. Under a prediction approach, it's usually
the performer who initially isolates a unique card, which later is shown to match what's
listed at a spectator's designated date. In the coincidence scenario, the spectator herself
"freely" chooses a card, which then matches the unique entry at her named date. I offer
thoughts about predictions in detail in the "Predictions" section, but it's worth
mentioning a few unique features of the birthday scenario.

First, in the date book context, it's not always clear how the spectator will interpret the
effect, and this ambiguity can be advantageous. With my "Happy Birthday" above
(where the odd card turns out to match the card listed at the spectator's birth date), over
the years I've had spectators come away thinking either that I "magically" changed the
card or that it's an incredible coincidence or that somehow I "predicted" her birthday.
With appropriate patter, you can steer this as you wish.

Second, unlike many predictions, a birthday book prediction doesn't automatically raise
the specter of a "force." Birthdays are instantly felt to be random and varied, so when a
spectator names a birthday, it's counter-intuitive to feel that an outcome might be
forced or controlled. That's one reason why Bob Cassidy's version of "Chronologue" is
so strong. In my original "Fate" (Simply Simon, p. 268, Comment 3), I offer an
alternative "prediction" handling using the same "cross-index index," which allows
you to table a unique playing card as a prediction (face down, or in an envelope) out in
the open before a birthday is ever announced; yet later, when the birthday chart is
consulted, the prediction card will match the card listed at her own birthday (and the
card is never switched!). Since everyone "knows" that (1) a spectator's birthday isn't
something you have control over, and (2) an indelibly printed entry on a calendar can't
be changed at will, it would take an extra step, an indirect, outside-the-box thought, to
hypothesize that the (apparently) random linkage between playing cards and dates
might somehow actually be under the performer's control.

Third, birthdays are susceptible to secret, advance knowledge in ways that "name-a-
card" choices are not (you might personally know your spectator, or research her
202 AM DE<riO

Facebook profile, or glimpse her driver's license). If you can learn a spectator's
birthday beforehand, you can escalate an already great card trick into a miracle-
because then you won't have to "ask" until it clearly is "too late." I'm not particularly
in favor of tricks that depend on preshow knowledge, but when a chance opportunity
does arise, this is the kind of effect that clearly can be brought to another level.

(3) Forcing the Happy Joker. In step 1, I recommend an under-the-spread cull

force (my preferred force for many tricks), which keeps the card face down (since you
can't let the face of the Happy Joker be seen). Other forces are available, but they ought
to be ones that appear casual, simple, and not procedure-laden.

Trevor Lewis' Swing Cut force is a viable choice. Briefly, with the force card secretly on
top of the deck, hold the deck face down in your left hand, and slowly riffle down the
outer left corner with your thumb, asking the spectator to call out 'stop.' When she
does, with your right forefinger, swing cut the cards above the break into your waiting
left hand, as your right hand retains the lower portion. Rotate your left wrist hand a
quarter turn (so the bottom card of the left-hand packet faces left). With your right
hand, tap the right packet against the left packet to square it. (Figures 4, 5, and 6 at step
4 of "About Face" illustrate this action. There, I used the move to "force" the upper half
of the deck.) Here, we'll force the top card of that half by continuing as follows. Turn
your left hand palm up as your right hand places its packet onto the left portion,
injogged for about half its length; the back of the top card of the lower half (the force
card) thus remains visible, as you comment that the spectator stopped "here." Your
right middle finger, at the front, now applies a light pressure on the visible back of the
force card, as your right hand slides its packet forward to square it flush with the left-
hand cards. As the packets square, in a sort of "alignment" type action, the right
forefinger's pressure causes the force card to outjog for about half its length from the
front of the now-squared deck. You can now swivel the outjogged card out from the
deck and drop it onto the table or onto Ginny's palm.

Alternatively, a cross-cut force could also work here; the patter about "building a
birthday card" can be used to establish a time delay. Or the overhand shuffle Funsky
Force (see the Techniques section) is a simple alternative.

(4) Alternative Misdirection for the Face-Down Spread Cull Force. My handling
for the under-the-spread cull force of a face-down card was first published in Simply
Simon. It's quite standard (see Simply Simon, p. 238, Comment 4, for previous sources
and credits), except for my "finger flick" and "nudge" action (described at step l(v)
above) and the misdirection that follows. While it's a rather minor detail in the overall
context of an under-the-spread force, it's important to recognize that keeping the force
card "unseen" (i.e., face down) does require more "cover" than the more typical under-
the-spread force in which the right hand is immediately raised up to display the face of
the "chosen" (forced) card.
 fATE '1<COffiPU 20)

At step 4 of "Fate Accompli" I sandwich Ginny's card directly from her palm; this feels
open and fair and serves as a visual reminder that she was holding her card- but this
isn't absolutely necessary. Many Hamman-type sandwich switch handlings start by
scooping the unknown card off the table. If you feel more comfortable using the table,
by all means do so, but recognize that in that case, alternative misdirection in the
forcing action may be needed- because there's no reason to initially put it on her palm,
just to have her then drop it onto the table.

So if you want to scoop up the unknown card from the table (instead of off her palm),
then it's preferable at step l(vi) to just drop the force card directly onto the table (and
not onto Ginny's palm). But this in turn requires alternative misdirection at the
moment of the cull force switch, because at step l(v) there's no reason to extend your
palm. Fortunately, such alternative misdirection is fairly simple. Just start out by leaving
your birthday book right in the middle of the table-exactly where you plan to drop the
forced Happy Joker. Then, during the spread force as you flick the touched card at step
l(v), notice that the datebook is "in the way" and reach down with your left hand to
pick up the book and move it aside. As you reach, do the "nudge" with your left thumb
to secretly effect the switch; all eyes should momentarily follow your left hand and the
date book.

I use an under-the-spread force of a face-down card often, and since it's not always
desirable to put the face-down card into the spectator's hand, I've found that the
alternative action of using the left hand to move something out of the way or to pick up
something will usually suffice. Reaching with the left hand for a pen or a rubber band or
an empty card case to drop on top of the face-down card provides both a misdirecting
action and a movement to initiate the left-hand nudge.

(5) Credits, Sources, and Development. The datebook' s pedigree has already
been noted in Comment 2 to "No-Stack Datebook."

Credits for the sandwich switch and its predecessors are outlined in "Twice Removed,
Once Again." The Oestreicher handling at step 5 has been a particular favorite of mine
ever since David performed it for me at FFFF many years ago; it was originally
published in Steve Beam's The Trapdoor# 58 (1995), p. 1111.

I've always felt that using two sandwich cards merely to" guard" the unknown card is
somewhat lame and not a sufficient reason for them to surround the unknown card.
My introduction of the messages on the two Jokers was the final polish to "Fate
Accompli"; the notion of "building a greeting card," with the Jokers comprising the
"outside" message, ties them organically to the unknown card and provides both
important misdirection at the vital moment and a justification for the cards to come
together.
l1irt~day l1acker

here is a generic plot that runs throughout our magic literature of initially

T introducing an "odd-backed" card, which is later revealed to be a prediction of a

card that is freely chosen from a different-backed deck. The underlying magical
effect is clear and strong, but such a plot frequently suffers from the absence of a "hook"
(or, more bluntly, from a lack of imagination) by failing to make the odd-backed card
"special." This is often because the plot itself isn't wrapped in any "special"
presentation; the patter or script may simply be the "adventures of the props." If your
audience has previously seen you perform a bunch of card tricks using, say, a red-
backed deck, and then you introduce a single blue-backed card, that odd-color back
may be sufficient to convey the magical effect, but a blue card is in itself not particularly
eye-opening, fascinating, or unforgettable. It's simply "another card."

One way magicians can build their effects into something "more than just card tricks" is
to incorporate other props or items that the audience will perceive as unusuat
intriguing, and relevant to the plot at hand. (This last requirement is important. If an
outside prop is added, but it has no integral relation to your premise, it can easily be
perceived as a lame intervention; witness, e.g., the addition of a "magic amulet or
talisman" that supposedly causes the magic to happen.) But when an unusual prop
specifically ties into your presentation and is felt by your spectators to be a further
portrayal or development of your theme or premise, its presence can synergistically
render your entire effect more memorable.

THE GAtt

What I call the "Birthday Backer" is a special gaffed card that can enhance the classic
birthday datebook plot. It's a specially-designed double-backed card. On one side is
the standard red Bicycle Rider back. On the other side is a picture of a cartoon magician
performing at a birthday celebration. This picture is colorfut festive, innocent-looking,
 f>IMHDAY f>ACtsEti 205

and friendly; it captures all the elements I wanted

for the theme of "my special birthday card trick."
The black-and-white photo doesn't do it justice, but
you can see it in full color depicted on the front
inside flap of the dust jacket. I'm quite enamored
with its possibilities, so I've had the necessary card
printed by U.S. Playing Card Company, and I will
make it available on my website while the supply
lasts.

A datebook itself adds personalization, novelty, and

curiosity to a card effect and builds the trick into
something bigger. I'm suggesting that this Birthday
Backer card can add yet another quantum of
interest.

f>A51< 0P€hATIOr1

I'll assume that you already have a birthday datebook and know how to use it (see "No-
Stack Datebook" if you're new to this). For convenience, I'll refer to the two sides of the
special gaff as the "Birthday" side and the "Normal" side. You'll also need a regular
deck of cards whose backs match the Normal side of the Birthday Backer.

If you don't already have my special Birthday Backer, you can actually make a
functional substitute fairly easily. Just take a standard blank-faced card (with a red
back) and, using colorful bold marking pens, draw any simple birthday picture on the
blank face (a cake or party hats or balloons, etc.); or, if you're not artistic, just write
"Happy Birthday" on it. Alternatively, you can often find birthday-themed decals or
stickers at a party or greeting card store. Your goal is to make the blank side resemble
the back of a playing card, even if it looks hand-made. In a pinch, you could just grab a
standard red/blue double-backed card and in bold black marker write "Happy
Birthday" across the blue side. (But let me reiterate, the more this card stands out from
the pack, the stronger will be its impact.)

The gaff enables you to initially show a unique, full-colored, "birthday" playing card
and then later to reveal that the face of this special card apparently matches whatever
specific playing card is written at a spectator's birthday in a date book (her "Date
Card"). This will be accomplished in two steps.

First you'll need to secretly locate in your deck the particular red-backed card that is
associated with your spectator's birthday. At some point in your routine you'll casually
206 ~M DECtSO

ask your spectator Ginny for her birthday; let's say she replies August 9. As soon as
you hear Ginny's announced birthday, you'll mentally convert it to her specific Date
Card according to your particular date book's system. For example, if your date book
was arranged using my Speed Dating system (explained in "No-stack Datebook"),
August 9 would be the Jack of Diamonds; if your datebook is arranged according to the
Aronson stack, August 9 would be the Three of Spades. Once you know Ginny's
specific Date Card, you'll secretly search through the deck to find that Date Card and
you'll then position it appropriately. This "searching" step might involve anything
from an under-the-spread cull to simply openly looking through the faces and cutting
the deck at the Date Card.

But no matter how you perform this first step, it will be easy, because at this point there
is no suspicion or heat on you. Why? Because, as far as your audience is concerned, no
one has named, or picked, or thought of a card; no one has any inkling that any specific
card is even in play! Your spectator is as yet unaware of any link between dates and
playing cards (see my discussion of "Timing and Delayed Awareness," Comment l, in
"Fate Accompli.") She won't become aware of such a link until she sees the inside of
the date book- and by that time, your "search" operation will already have been
accomplished.

The second basic step will be to somehow secretly switch the Birthday Backer for the
Date Card in the act of apparently turning your Birthday card over to reveal its face.
Most often this will be accomplished by means of a double turnover, made more
deceptive by the fact that the Normal side of the Birthday Backer will come into view at
the moment of the turnover. As soon as you turn over your Birthday card, you'll be left
holding just a single card, whose face can be freely displayed; the Birthday Backer gaff
will "disappear" because its red back will blend into the rest of the deck.

I've experimented with a number of different procedures and techniques available to

accomplish these two basic operations, and, really, there are so many tradeoffs and
alternatives that I don't have one "favorite" or preferred handling. In what follows I'm
going to adopt a "workshop" approach by outlining several approaches. None of the
alternatives presented are merely theoretical or book pipedreams; all of them are ones I
think have significant merit, so I urge you to weigh each of them as viable options for
how best to use the Birthday Backer. If you're at all interested in the datebook premise,
the Birthday Backer is the kind of gaff that you'll enjoy playing with. I'm confident
you'll come up with many creative uses on your own.

PEhtOf\ffil[)(; ConDITlon5; CttOIC€5

Let's set the stage by first considering some of the variables or different conditions
under which you may be performing and some of the choices that are open to you.
 f>IMHDAY f>ACKEh 207

1) Will you be performing with or without a table? Whether a table is available makes
a difference both in where your props are carried and placed and in justifying certain
actions. For instance, if you're standing with no table available, it's perfectly natural for
you to temporarily place your special Birthday card on top of the deck you're holding
(where else?) while you handle the datebook with your other hand. Conversely, a table
permits a wide ribbon spread, visually displaying and isolating your Birthday card
while you handle other props.

2) At what point in your routine do you want to introduce your special Birthday card?
The moment in the routine when you initially show it makes a difference to the curiosity
level (and perhaps the suspicion level) of your spectators.

3) Do you want or need to start "clean"? There are a number of ways of starting with a
regular shuffled deck already in use and openly introducing your special Birthday card
(by removing it from your pocket, or elsewhere). But there are also advantages to
starting with the Birthday card already hidden in the deck, which can simplify the cull
or search. If you're using this effect as an opener, this problem is solved. If not, I've
included a brief section on ways of loading the gaff into the deck (again, not a difficult
task).

As you run through some of the alternatives below, you can choose what best meets
your performing situation. Let's get started.

WOhKll'lG-A ~A51C f)QUTll'l€

I'll begin by outlining one full routine, which sets forth my typical script. Once you see
how everything hangs together, we can discuss ways of varying each step.

Let's assume for this example that we're starting with the gaff already in the deck. So,
start with the Birthday Backer secretly on the bottom of your deck, Birthday side facing
the same direction as the backs of the other cards. Your date book is out on the table.
With the Birthday card thus hidden, you're ready to begin.

1) I explain to my spectator Ginny, "Like many magicians, I got my start performing

at kids' birthday parties, so I made it a point to have a special birthday card trick for the birthday
boy or girl ... Ginny, will you play the part of the birthday girl today? - When's your
birthday?" When she replies, "August 9" [or whatever], do not repeat it. Just continue
with your patter, almost as if you didn't hear, or pay attention to, what she said. I react
disappointed, saying, "It's not today? That's a shame. But at least I can tell you about my
special birthday card trick."
200 AM DECtsO

In this opening line, you've learned Ginny's birthday, and by this point you will have
mentally converted it to Ginny's individual Date Card, according to your particular
date book's setup. In this example using the Aronson stack, August 9 would be the
Three of Spades. But you don't want to make it seem as if Ginny's announced birth
date has any importance. You're treating these initial lines as mere opening banter.
Your comment, "It's not today?" is said almost as if you're dismissing or bypassing her
reply.

Instead, you'll start spreading through the deck with the faces toward yourself, as you
say, "My birthday card trick uses one special card ... it should be in here, somewhere ... " Next
you're going to quickly scan the faces of the cards, apparently looking for your
"special" Birthday card, but since you "can't" find it from the faces, you'll turn over the
deck and spread the cards face down. There, somewhere in the middle of the spread,
your brightly colored Birthday card will be seen, clearly the only "special" card in an
otherwise red-backed deck. In this quick, innocent action of searching for your special
card, you'll locate and set up Ginny's Date Card for a later double turnover.

Here's the detail. With the backs of the cards toward the spectator, I start spreading the
deck from my left hand to my right hand in a wide spread. By pushing (at least) the
two bottom cards together as a "block," the Birthday card remains hidden; its red side
is, of course, staring at me, but since the backs of the cards are toward the audience, it
cannot be seen. The wide spread enables me to scan the cards for the Three of Spades,
and I keep spreading until I spot it. As soon as I reach the Three of Spades, I take all the
cards above (to the left of) the Three into my left hand, square them, and drop them face
down onto the table (or, if no table is handy, you can ask your spectator to extend her
hand and use it as a temporary table). This first cut leaves the Three of Spades as the
topmost (leftmost) card in the spread still remaining in my hands. I then quickly
respread these remaining cards between my hands, glancing across them cursorily, and
split them approximately in half. My left hand takes the left half, squares them, and
drops these cards face down onto the tabled packet; this positions Ginny's Date Card on
top of the tabled cards. Finally, I quickly scan the remaining cards in my hand (which
still has the hidden Birthday card at its face), shake my head as if I didn't find what I
was looking for, and drop these remaining cards onto the tabled packet.

I have basically performed a quick three-packet cut to the table. Depending on where
Ginny's Date Card happens to be located in the deck, the packets will be of different
sizes, but the procedure is always the same. At the end of this triple cut, the deck will
be face down on the table, and the Birthday Backer will be somewhere in the deck.
Ginny's Date Card will now be located immediately below the Birthday card.

2) My attitude and "inner script" during my search are as if I'm haphazardly

looking for something special- but I don't find it. Why? Because it's the back that's
special. So, timing my actions to my words, I then spread the cards across the table in a
 blMtlDAY bACfiEh 209

face-down, left-to-right ribbon spread,

commenting, "You can see why it's a special
card, because there are no others like it. I make
11

sure that the spread is wide, at least at the

point where the Birthday card is located, so
that the Birthday design visually stands out
in the middle of the otherwise red-backed
deck (Figure 1). (If you prefer, you could
split the ribbon spread at that point to expose
the entire back of the Birthday card.)

3) I now focus everyone's attention on the datebook. You can use any patter you
want to explain what the datebook is and how it functions. My datebook contains a
chart inside the cover that lists the birthstones and "birth flowers" for each month, so I
use that to explain how each birth date has certain unique or special features. I say
something like, "Most people know their own astrology sign, and some even know their own
birthstone, but very few people are aware that each birth date has a particular lucky playing card
associated with it. Look, the book shows which card is lucky for which date." Here, I start
leafing through the pages to show that a different playing card is written at each date.

I then hand the datebook to Ginny and say, "You said your birthday was August 19th? So,
11
find out what your lucky playing card is, at your birth date. Take a look. (I've, of course,
intentionally miscalled her birth date, and she's usually quick to correct me, reminding
me that it's in fact August 9. I find that an off-handed miscall helps sell the notion that I
didn't hear her birthday earlier.) Once Ginny looks up her birth date in the book, have
her tell everyone what her particular lucky playing card is. She'll announce, "The Three
of Spades.11

4) Feign surprise when she announces her Date Card. With your left hand,
gather up the cards from the left end of the spread up to and including the Birthday
card, leaving all the cards that lie above the Birthday card on the table. Say something
like, "Really, no way! I asked you to play the part of the birthday girl, but you really came
through. I brought my one special card for the birthday child ... " Here, I thumb off the
Birthday card from the top of the left-hand packet into my right hand and hold it up
vertically to display its back design, lightly flicking or snapping its corner to
demonstrate that it's "just" a single card. I then casually drop it back onto the left-hand
packet. During this brief display, I take the opportunity to obtain a left pinky break
beneath the top card of my left-hand packet.

5) Remark, "I guess this Birthday card trick really does work. Look! My special
11
birthday card is the Three of Spades. Here, with your right hand perform a double
turnover and immediately thumb off the single, face-up Three of Spades into your right
hand. Instantly turn it vertically to display its face to your spectators, and lightly flick or
210 AM DECKO

snap it Gust as you did moments before) to subtly emphasize its singularity. The
Normal red-backed side of the Birthday Backer will be visible on top of the left-hand
packet, so the deck appears exactly as it should.

The most important thing at this climax is to smile with confidence. I hold up the Three
of Spades in front of my chest and turn to my left and then my right to display it to
everyone. Don't rush or look furtive or guilty. Although the card you're holding has a
red back (which you can't show), there's no reason for the spectators to suspect
anything. The magic has happened, and you've displayed an amazing magical
coincidence (or prediction), so you should act with the assurance of having brought
your trick to a successful conclusion.

6) The trick is over. There's an easy clean-up that gets rid of the gaff in a natural
way. You're still holding the Three of Spades vertically in your right hand, displaying
it, while Ginny is still holding the datebook. Obtain a left pinky break under the top
card of the left-hand packet, as you casually ask Ginny to return your datebook. Start to
extend your right hand to retrieve it, but since the Three is still in that hand, it's natural
to first drop the Three face up onto the left-hand packet and then to extend your now-
empty right hand. I take the datebook and drop it into my shirt breast pocket and then
casually turn the Three of Spades face down onto the left-hand cards, actually
performing a double turnover. This shows the Birthday back one final time, subtly
confirming everything is as it should be. I take the Birthday card in my right hand and
drop it into the same breast pocket. It's quite natural to put the Birthday card "away"
together with the datebook. (Alternatively, I sometimes will open the front cover of my
datebook, nonchalantly thumb the Birthday card inside, and then put the datebook,
with the gaff, away.) Your deck is now full and normal, ready for your next trick.

OPTIOflAL TIP5

First, when you search for the spectator's Date Card it's possible that it occasionally
could be located very close to or even at the face of the deck, or alternatively very close
to the top of the deck. This can render it a bit awkward to cut immediately above the
Date Card (because one packet will be so small). It's pretty easy to overcome such a
situation, by simply altering your cuts-to-the-table sequence slightly; you could just
take a "single" card instead of a packet, or you can move a few cards around within the
deck before you start your cull. Or, check out my alternative "in-the-hands" cull below.

A little bit of advance planning can ensure that this situation will never arise.
Remember, in both my Month + Day formula and in my Speed Dating formula, there
are about ten cards that are not used as Date Cards; by pre-setting, as the few bottom
and top cards of your deck, only those cards which are not eligible Date Cards, such a
"tiny packet" situation can't happen. I typically pre-set just one such non-eligible card
 f>IMflDAY f>ACKEf) 211

as the face card (immediately above my Birthday card), which eliminates the most
awkward possibility.

Second, for purely aesthetic reasons, I like my Birthday card to appear relatively near
the middle of the face-down ribbon spread. Accordingly, when I do the triple cut to the
table, if the Birthday card happens to wind up near the top or bottom of the deck, I will
typically give the deck one simple cut before ribbon spreading it across the table, to
centralize the Birthday card.

One final observation. If you go back over this basic routine from start to finish, you'll
notice one unusual feature. At no time does the spectator ever see the faces of any of the cards
in the deck. The only face" she ever sees is the apparent face of her Birthday card. This
/1

visual isolation helps in a subliminal way to focus all attention on the special card. This
trick isn't about the different cards in the deck, or doing any magic with them; rather,
the entire effect is about one special card, whose identity is a mystery until the climax.
The special back design isolates the Birthday card in the spread, and no face other than
/1
the Date Card is ever shown, so there are no alternative" distractions.

5TA~Tlr'lG CLEAr'l
The simple routine above starts with the Birthday card already hidden at the bottom of
the deck. (You'll see later that we could also start with the gaff hidden on top of the
deck, with the deck held face up.) But it's important to realize that where the gaff starts
out ties into what kind of cull or search for the Date Card is appropriate.
/1
You may prefer to start with your deck clean" and openly introduce the Birthday
Backer. There are a number of ways to do this, but in all such cases you'll probably
want to perform your secret search and cull of the Date Card before you bring the
Birthday card into play. This is even simpler than the three-packet cut described above
because all that's necessary is one cut, which secretly brings the needed Date Card to
the top of the deck. Then, when you introduce the Birthday card, you can simply drop
it on top of the pack, and you'll be set for your eventual double turnover.

Naturally it's best to mask even a simple cut with some presentational reason or excuse
/1
for scanning the faces. You can always adopt the common excuse of removing the
Jokers." However, the basic routine above provides a model, with just a very slight
/1
patter modification. To start clean" I simply carry the Birthday Backer inside the front
cover of my datebook. Whenever I'm ready to perform my datebook effect, I put the
datebook on the table. While holding the deck, I patter about having one special card,
and I start looking through the faces to find it, exactly as in the basic routine. As soon
as I spot the Three of Spades, I take all the cards above it in my left hand, square them,
and drop them face down onto the table. I then respread the remaining cards between
212 ~M DECKO

my hands, glancing across them, but I quickly "realize" that my sought-after special
card is not among them - so I square them up and drop them onto the already-tabled
packet. My accompanying patter and inner script are something like, "I thought it was in
here, somewhere ... " but then I suddenly remember where it is-it's not in the deck, it's in
the datebook! So I put the deck aside, pick up the datebook, smilingly open the front
cover, and remove and display the Birthday card. As I show its back, I give it the little
flick mentioned earlier and then drop it on top of the tabled deck. I now turn all my
attention to the datebook.

Later, while Ginny looks up her lucky card in the datebook, you can pick up the deck so
that it's in your hands at the climax.

An option. Even though this procedure sets the Birthday card and the Date Card on
top, you might still prefer to give the deck a cut and then ribbon spread the cards across
the table, per the basic routine. I justify this ribbon spread display by commenting, as I
spread, "You can see why it's a special card, because there are no others like it."

Such a centering action is completely optional, but I've found some advantages to
creating the visual picture of the special card in the middle of an otherwise red-backed deck.
Centering the Birthday card helps keep it away from the wandering hands of any
curious spectator who might be sitting next to you, and spectators will remember seeing
the special card in the middle of the deck, and may forget that you ever put it on top
and then cut it there. Finally, it's quite natural later to gather all the cards up to the
Birthday card, which provides a reason why the partial deck is in your hand when you
do the double turnover.

If you do decide to introduce the Birthday card by keeping it inside the front of your
datebook, then it makes perfect sense to replace it there at the end of the routine. Your
deck is now normal and sans gaff, and your Birthday Backer is ready for a repeat
performance.

Of course, if you want to start clean, there are many other alternative places to keep
your Birthday Backer: your pocket, a wallet, the card box, etc. All of these function to
keep the Birthday card out of sight until you choose to introduce it.

Sometimes you may "want it both ways." On the one hand, you may want to eliminate
any thought of "multiple outs" by bringing your Birthday card out in the open before
Ginny even announces her birthday. On the other hand, you may not want to show
your special card until later in the routine. There's a "middle ground" that can satisfy
both desires: carry the Birthday Backer inside a pay envelope and leave the pay
envelope out on the table. The envelope acts as a kind of "commitment" (somewhat
like a prediction): your audience hasn't seen your special card, but by showing them the
 1 11 11
envelope, you ve put yourself on the line. You can then open the envelope and
remove the Birthday card whenever you want.

~LTEt>nATIUE (ULL5

As mentioned, the underlying procedure for this effect boils down to two operations:
positioning the Date Card and then switching it for the Birthday card. Lef s look at
some variants for the first step, culling the Date Card. Obviously when the Birthday
card starts outside the deck, you have the easiest situation because one single in-the-
hands cut will bring the Date Card to the top.

When the Birthday card starts off within the deck, the cull is still relatively easy. My
basic routine above describes one procedure incorporating a three-packet cut to the
1
table. I1ve developed an alternative cull that works well when you don t have a table.
1
In-the-Hands Packet Cull. We re going to again do a three-packet cut, but this time it
will be done in the act of spreading the deck in portions between the hands. Start off
with the Birthday card hidden on the bottom of the deck and proceed exactly as in my
1 1
basic routine: you ll determine Ginny s Date Card (the Three of Spades) and then start
spreading the deck between your hands with the faces toward you, commencing by
pushing off at least the bottom two cards together as a block to hide the Birthday card.

Make a wide spread while looking for the Three of Spades. Lef s assume (for the
1 1
moment) that you don t spot it within the bottom third of the deck. Once you ve spread
off about a third of the deck, split the spread at that point between your hands (Figure
2). Immediately continue spreading the left-hand cards directly onto the face of the right-
hand cards (i.e., directly onto the red back of the gaff), while you continue to scan for
Ginny1s Date Card (Figure 3, which shows the 3S coming up in the spread). When you
reach the Date Card, split the spread between your hands at that point, with the left
hand keeping the cards that lie above the Date Card (Figure 4). The Date Card is now
immediately below the Birthday Backer, exactly where we want it. Finish by spreading
214 AM DECKO

all the left hand's remaining cards directly onto the face of the right-hand packet (Figure
5), and then square up the deck. You can do the final spread rapidly, because you're no
longer scanning for anything. Your patter can follow the basic routine.

Sometimes the Three of Spades will be located within the initial bottom third as you
spread. In such a case, simply make your first split earlier (before you reach the Three),
even though this means that only a few cards are placed into the right hand. As long as
you make the first split anywhere below the Three of Spades, you can then proceed
exactly as described. Depending on where the Date Card happens to lie, the packets
will vary in size, but the end result will be the same.

Under-the-Spread Cull. So far we've discussed culls that move the Date Card to a
position immediately below the Birthday card. But we can also create the desired
pairing by doing the opposite: we can move the Birthday card so it is positioned
immediately above the Date Card. A simple under-the-spread cull accomplishes this by
moving just one card. Here's how.

To set up, place the Birthday Backer on top of your deck, Birthday side up and facing
the same direction as the backs of the deck. Hold the entire deck face up; that's your
starting position.

When your spectator announces her birthday, convert it to her particular Date Card.
Start to spread the face-up deck between your hands, quite openly so that the spectator
and you both can see the faces. What the spectator doesn't see is that as you commence
your spread, you'll secretly cull the Birthday Backer off the bottom (of the face-up deck)
so it rides beneath the spread. Briefly, your left second and third fingertips loosen the
Birthday card slightly, while your right fingers extend underneath the spread. Your
right fingers apply a light touch against the Birthday card and pull or slide it to the
right, hidden underneath the spread face-up cards. When you spot the desired Date
Card, just insert the left edge of the Birthday card immediately below the Date Card (i.e.,
so that when the deck is later turned face down, the Birthday card will lie above the
Date Card) and close the spread.
 blMttDAY bACtsEh 215

So far, your spectator has not seen, and is unaware of, any "special" card. You can now
turn the deck over (so it's face down) and spread the cards, and your Birthday card will
be seen for the first time, residing somewhere in the middle of the deck. But at this
point you're way ahead, because the spectator's Date Card is already in position for a
double turnover.

You could adopt a presentation that is virtually identical to the basic routine, making it
seem as if you're searching through the faces for something, but can't find it. However,
since in the under-the-spread cull you're showing the spectator the faces, I take
advantage of this fact by saying, "I have one special card in this deck, but you can't tell which
one from the faces." By this time I've already done the cull, so I turn the deck face down
and run through the backs to reveal my" special" card, concluding, "But from the backs it
stands out like a sore thumb."

This under-the-spread loading method is extremely efficient for when you're

performing in a standup mode, without a table. Once the Birthday card has been
loaded into position (and keep in mind, the spectator isn't yet aware of any specific card
being associated with her birthday), it makes perfect sense for you to spread the cards
between your hands and when you spot the Birthday card, to cut it to the top; the
absence of any table justifies your holding the deck. You can now do your double
turnover to reveal your climax.

Countdown Cull. How would you like to instantly position the necessary Date Card
immediately below the Birthday Backer-without ever looking at the faces of any card? It's
actually quite easy and raises the effect to a new level. The tradeoff is that we'll use a
pre-arranged deck.

But don't worry-you won't need to learn a stack. You won't even need to learn any
formula for determining the Date Card for each date in your datebook (not even my
Speed Dating formula). If this sounds intriguing, read on.

I originally came up with this Countdown Cull because of my fascination with

memorized deck effects-but I promise: you don't need to know a memorized (or any other)
stack to use this. While its underpinnings come from my mem-deck thinking, in actual
use and practice all you have to be able to do is count up to five. Most of my readers
should qualify.

Bear with me. I'm going to explain the simple workings of a face-down cull first in
terms of a memorized deck; this will make it easier to understand. But then I'll show
you that, in fact, a memorized deck isn't necessary at all.

Let's assume, just for illustration, that your deck is arranged in some particular order
which you've memorized; the Aronson stack is a good example, but any other
216 AM DECKO

memorized order works just as well. Assume further that the cards written at each date
in your datebook have been arranged according to my Month+ Day formula (see
Comment 2 to the "No-stack Datebook" for a more detailed explanation). As discussed,
this is perhaps the quickest and easiest way of determining a spectator's Date Card as
soon as she announces her birthday.

To expedite finding a specific card quickly from the backs, and to avoid lengthy sight
counting, put a small pencil dot on the outer corner of just the four cards that are
located at stack numbers 10, 20, 30, and 40. That way, in just a casual, face-down spread
between your hands, you can easily and accurately spot the "ten multiple" that's
nearest any desired target card. Once you spot it, you can then sight count from that
point, either forward or backward- and you'll never have to sight count more than five
cards in either direction.

Mem-deck aficionados are already familiar with such marking aids and counting
procedures; it's used in several sophisticated mem-deck effects. Here's a specific
example, just to talk you through the procedure. Suppose, that you wanted to locate
the Three of Spades in the face-down deck. In the Aronson stack, it's at position 17.
The ten-multiple nearest to 17 happens to be 20, so you can quickly spread
approximately a third of the deck, and just a bit more, where you'll see a pencil dot; that
dotted card will be stack number 20 (and you can't mistake it, because the next nearest
dot is a full ten cards away). From that card (#20) you can then instantly sight count
three cards above it (i.e., toward the top), and that card will be #17. Spreading to the
nearest "ten multiple" involves no estimation, just a very rudimentary sense of these
main division points in the deck. If you practice for, say, ten minutes, you'll have it
down cold.

Now, let's apply that procedure to our gaff. With the deck held face down, put the
Birthday Backer on the bottom of your stacked deck, Birthday side facing the same
direction as the rest of the backs. You're ready to go.

As soon as your spectator announces her birthday, you'll add the Month + Day to
determine her Date Card and its specific stack number in your deck. Casually spread the
deck face down between your hands, and using the pencil dots and sight counting as
described above, you can quickly spread to and locate the exact face-down card that
occupies the desired position in your stack. Now, using a standard under-the-spread
cull technique (see my description in "Fate Accompli" or in "Thinking Inside the Box")
it's a simple matter to cull that one card beneath the spread and then square up the rest of
the deck above it. This moves the Date Card to the bottom, immediately below the
Birthday Backer. If you now give the deck a cut to center the Birthday card, you're in
position to proceed with your birthday miracle-and you've never even looked at any
of the faces, of any cards!
 f>IMllDAV f>ACt)Eh 217

For those who've been patiently waiting to learn why we don't need to know a
memorized stack, here comes the answer. The irony is that we can go through the
procedure just described but without ever determining the spectator's particular Date Card!

Huh? Is Simon crazy? (Possibly, but not because of this.) The Month+ Day formula
that is embedded in your datebook delivers a "number" to you and that number is all you
need! The dotted stack allows you to instantly find (and cull) whatever card is located at
that numbered position- even though you have no idea of what that card happens to
be.

We've got two ordered objects working together: your datebook and your deck. Since
they're both arranged according to the same order, my Month+ Day formula
automatically informs you of the numbered position you'll need to cull. The actual identity of
that particular card" drops out." The "face" of the Date Card becomes irrelevant to the
method, because methodologically all that matters is its numerical position in your
deck. The face of the Date Card, its identity, only becomes relevant at the climax, when
you turn it face up to reveal it.

Here are a couple of examples. The spectator says that her birthday is December 19;
this instantly tells you to spread to the 31st card in the dotted deck and cull it to the
bottom. How did we learn this? December is the 12th month, so Month + Day means 12
+ 19 = 31. If her birthday is July 4th, you'd spread to the 11th card and cull it to the
bottom. January 4? Cull the 5th card to the bottom. In all instances, we did this without
having any idea of what card we were culling. Bottom line, this Counting Cull actually
simplifies matters, because you don't spend any time or mind power converting
numbers to particular playing cards; everything stays at just the "number" level (which
is why you don't need to memorize a stack).

If you've followed the reasoning so far, you'll appreciate that the only thing that matters
for the Countdown Cull is that the datebook and your deck both follow the same
arrangement. And this in turn means that, under this method, you don't even need to
know or learn your own datebook's arrangement. (I'm not recommending that you limit
yourself this way, because there are other effects one can accomplish if one does know
the particular Date Card. But for those who want an instantly available, no-memory
way of accomplishing a very powerful datebook effect, the Countdown Cull approach
meets such qualifications.)

Finally, a corollary of the above is that you could hypothetically use any arrangement of
cards to construct your own unique "birthday deck," and so long as you follow that same
arrangement when filling in your datebook, the Countdown Cull procedure will work.

It would be rather wasteful and unnecessary to create a new or unique arrangement just
for your datebook trick, so as a practical matter it makes sense to choose some stack that
218 AM DE<l)O

you can also use for other effects (so long as it looks random when written in the
datebook). If you don't already know a memorized stack, I'd suggest that you choose a
stack that you might someday want to memorize (e.g., my stack, or Mnemonica, or some
other stack that has some useful benefits embodied within it). That way, you'll start to
get familiar with it as you regularly perform your datebook effect. And, who knows?
Perhaps at some future date you might eventually memorize it- and then you'll be glad
you already have a datebook that works with it.

~LT€f\r'\ATIU€ SWITCfl€5

So far we've assumed that at the climax you're going to perform a double turnover to
display the face of the Date Card. While the double turnover is most often performed
on top of the deck or packet, you can also do a double turnover within the spread. There's
a casual, nonchalant feel to simply spreading the cards, seeing the Birthday card, and
using the right-hand spread of cards to apparently flip the Birthday card over onto the
left-hand spread (actually flipping over two cards). The red back of the Birthday Backer
instantly comes into view, which makes such an in-the-spread double quite easy
because it doesn't matter if the double splits a bit as it falls.

But although a double turnover is the most common switch to choose, it's certainly not
the only possibility. Let me mention two quite convincing alternatives.

Out on the Table/Monte Switch. One very clean way of beginning this effect is to
introduce your special Birthday card at the very outset and leave it in plain sight on the
table. Such isolation, completely away from the deck, creates additional challenges, but
it also enhances the magic if that isolation can be maintained successfully all the way to
the climax.

One challenge is to devise an excuse for running through the deck to cull the needed
Date Card. A simple way is to first table the Birthday card, and then to spread the deck
between your hands with the backs toward your spectator, to show her that "there's no
other card like it anywhere in the deck." As you display the backs you're actually
looking directly at the faces, so it's easy to spot the Date Card and casually cut it to the
top as you table the deck.

At that point you' re already in position to use the standard "monte switch" (instead of a
double turnover) to switch the top card of the deck for the tabled Birthday card in the
act of flipping it over to reveal its face. Basically, at the climax all attention will be
focused on the tabled Birthday card. You casually take a card off the top of the deck
and use it as a shovel, to apparently flip the Birthday card, still on the table, face up.
The monte switch (also sometimes known as a "Wild Card" switch) secretly turns both
cards over, so that the red back of the Birthday Backer comes into view as the Date
 f>IMflDAV f>ACf)Ef'I 219

Card's face is revealed. The continuity of picking a red-backed card off the deck, using
it as a shovel or scoop to flip the Birthday card face up, and winding up with a red-
backed card still in your hand after the revelation, is convincing.

Juan Tamariz adds a nice subtlety to such a ploy. When Juan first places his odd-backed
card onto the table, he says that "he won't ever touch it." To evidence his "hands off"
promise, at the beginning when he wants to adjust the position of the odd card slightly,
he takes an indifferent card off the deck and gingerly uses it to poke at the odd card,
just to slide it across the table a bit. This is exaggerated and comicat but emphasizes in
a visual way that he's not physically touching the odd card. Later, at the climax, he
uses the monte switch described above- but his initial "poke demonstration" has
established and set the stage for picking up and using another card to come in contact
with the odd card. Because you've done this earlier, the monte move at the climax fits
an established pattern and is less suspicious.

Larreverse. There's an alternative move that eliminates the double turnover completely.
Larry Jenning's Larreverse is one of the more subtle ways of secretly reversing a card
within a spread between the hands, and it could be used as a substitute for a double
turnover with the Birthday Backer. (I don't recall whether anyone's ever suggested
using Larreverse in connection with a double-backer before, but it's such an efficient
combination that someone ought to have previously thought of it.)

Assume that you've already culled the Date Card so it's immediately below the
Birthday card in the face-down deck and that both are somewhere centrally located in
the deck. Larreverse comes into play when you're going to spread the deck between
your hands (instead of on the table) to reveal the Birthday Backer. Here's the detail.

Spread the cards between your hands, and when you see the Birthday card, take all the
cards above it into the right hand; the top two cards of the left-hand packet are slightly
sidejogged (Figure 6). Point out the Birthday design. Now place the right-hand spread
partially back onto the left-hand cards, covering about half of the Birthday card (Figure
7). Your right first and fourth fingers, underneath the spread, butt against the right edge
of the Birthday card; as soon as they are in place, stretch your right second and third
220 AM DECKO

fingers so that they come into contact with the face of the Date Card (Figure 8, exposed
view from below the spread, looking up). Now turn your right hand (with its cards,
which now include the Birthday card and the Date Card) inward at the wrist; as you do,
your right finger pulls the Date Card to the right until it butts up against your right first
and fourth fingertips, thus squaring the Date Card with the Birthday card. The face of
the Date Card is now showing (Figure 9). Immediately place this double card onto the
left-hand portion, and with your left thumb push the face-up Date Card to the right a
bit, thus evidencing that it is a single card; a red back will be visible on the card beneath
it (Figure 10).

Turn your right hand palm up, turning its

cards face down. To finish, you can obtain
a break under the Birthday Backer and
reverse the process (or do a double
turnover) to apparently turn the Date Card
face down again; by turning the two cards
together as one, the Birthday card will
show again, and you can thumb it off to
put it away.

LOADlr'lG Tfl€ GAtt

Let's finish up by briefly discussing a few practical ways of secretly loading the
Birthday Backer into your deck. Since it's only a single card, a simple palm may be all
that you need, but there other ways available. Anyone who's ever used a gaff has likely
faced this situation, and our magic literature has come up with many suggestions. I'll
mention three of my preferred ways.

First, you can use the card box as a hideout. You could leave the Birthday Backer
within your case until you need it. At some point put the deck back into the case, as if
you're finished performing. Act as if you'll" do one more," and withdraw the deck
 blMflDAY bACf)Eh 221

from the case, secretly adding the Birthday card to either the top or bottom. Or, you can
use the cellophane sleeve on the card case to hide the Birthday Backer, with the red
back facing outward. If you place your deck onto the case, when you move the deck
away with a sliding action, you can withdraw the Birthday card along with the deck.
For a more elaborate use of the case to load a gaff, you may want to check out Paul
Harris' "Free Ride" (Harris, The Art of Astonishment, Book 3 (1996), p. 31).

Second, you can use the Jokers to hide and then load the gaff. When one removes a
deck from its case, it's natural to put the two Jokers aside, perhaps alongside the box,
and to leave them there. Keep the Birthday Backer hidden under the pair of Jokers,
with the Birthday side facing whichever way you'll ultimately need it. When you're
ready to perform your datebook effect, casually place the two Jokers back onto the deck.
Then, changing your mind, thumb off or slide off the Jokers (leaving the gaff on the
deck), and you're ready to go. A wrist turn can cover the loaded card, if necessary.

Both of the above methods are pretty generic and can be used for hiding and loading
many kinds of gaffs. There's a third way that's customized for this particular effect-
and that's to use the datebook itself as a hideout. I carry my date book in my shirt breast
pocket with the Birthday Backer hidden behind it. Let's say I want to load the gaff onto
the face of my deck. When I'm ready for this effect, I simply hold the deck face up in
my left hand. With my right hand I remove the datebook from my pocket (with the gaff
hidden behind it) and momentarily place it onto the deck. I can then take the datebook
in my right hand to either place it on the table or give it to Ginny to hold as I do a wrist
turn with my left hand to turn the deck (and the now-loaded Birthday Backer) face
down.

There are a host of other ways to load the gaff and to clean up at the end, but I think
we've explored the Birthday Backer enough for now. I'm confident you'll find many
ways of using this gaff to tailor your own, individualized version of the classic
datebook effect.

commtm5
(1) Sources; Credits. My creation of, and ideas for, the Birthday Backer were
inspired by three disparate effects. The first is simply the ancient plot and method,
which dates back at least as far as Hofzinser, of placing a double-backed card onto the
table, culling a named card, and then using sleight-of-hand to switch the culled card for
the double backer, turning it over in the process.

The second is my own "Happy Birthday," which incorporates both the delayed
awareness afforded by the datebook and the idea of using a "special" odd-backed
birthday card, which could "become" any card in the deck (via sticky stuff on its face).
222 AM DECfiO

The third is my "Red See Passover" - and specifically its final climax, in which the
performer shows the single odd-backed card to be the very card a spectator merely
thought of. Red See's climax uses a similar methodology as is used with the Birthday
Backer, and over thirty-five years of performing Red See has convinced me that so long
as you handle the final display of the Date Card's face with ease, confidence, and
nonchalance, there will be little curiosity to view its back.

The Tamariz subtlety mentioned in the Out On the Table Switch is described Juan's
"Prediction" (Mnemonica (2004), p. 91). Larry Jennings Larreverse originally appeared
in Dai Vernon's Ultimate Secrets of Card Magic, p. 49, and was later re-described in Mike
Maxwell's The Classic Secrets of Larry Jennings (1986), p. 244.

Those who already know a memorized stack will realize that there are several other
birthday or datebook effects that integrate a memorized deck (see, for example, my
"Birthday Memories" in Steve Beam's Semi-Automatic Card Tricks, Vol. 4 (2002), p. 59).

(2) Non-Birthday, Non-Datebook Applications. I hope my readers will

appreciate that this entire Birthday Backer discussion might be applied to any
prediction or coincidence effect using an odd-card (secretly a double backer). If your
basic plot is that the odd card turns out to be a "duplicate" of a freely named or chosen
card, then the culling, loading, turnover, and switch procedures described here can all
come into play.

(3) A Personal Choice. In our Saturday sessions, and more recently when I've
shown this effect to fellow magicians, I've been asked how the Birthday Backer
compares with the "waxed card" version that I presented over twenty years ago in
"Happy Birthday." The effects are virtually identical (at the climax you're displaying a
special card that matches the spectator's lucky card in a datebook), and in both methods
you're left with a card that you can show but can't hand out.

I don't favor one method over the other, but I do feel that each is best suited for
particular performing circumstances. When I'm doing an act or a show or a planned
routine for a group of people, I'll choose the waxed card version (see, for example, my
performance on my DVD set (L&L Publishing, Sessions with Simon, Vol. 2 (2006)). It
plays bigger, because at the climax you can handle the waxed-card with abandon and
still flash its back, and since the audience isn't on top of you, the double edge can't be
seen. But the sticky stuff makes it a bit more delicate to carry around.

Conversely, when I'm performing for only one or two people close-up, or in
walkaround, the Birthday Backer is my choice. It's easier to carry, load, and get rid of,
and can be handled with impunity precisely because it's just a single card.
Memu~ized
[)eeks
'11€ffi0t\IZED DECK5

All four of my previous large books included major sections devoted to memorized
deck magic, both stack-independent effects and tricks tied to the Aronson stack. At the
time I wrote those volumes, very few other authors were exploring the topic.

Things have changed radically. Memorized deck magic has come of age. Many card
magicians have memorized a stack (or say they're going to soon). I'm not alone in the
authors' wilderness any more. I was privileged to write the introduction to Juan
Tamariz' s Mnemonica, which is filled with ideas, tools, and routines for mem-deck
workers. Eric Richardson has published three books (It All Depends, Oasis, and Tour),
revealing his further discoveries buried within the Aronson stack. I no longer feel any
pressure to "make the case" for memorized deck magic.

In this section "Shuffle Tracking" has already received some acclaim as an "anytime"
deck switch. It's stack independent, easy, and quite deceptive in its own right. It
enables you to ring in a memorized stack during a card routine at will.

"Gemini Meets the Stack" is also a stack independent study of how easy it is to
maintain stack order while performing another time-honored procedure. I've always
felt that the Gemini procedure is extremely deceptive for lay audiences, so I chose it as
the vehicle to explore stack restoration techniques - but the procedures surveyed in that
piece can have a wider application to other classic tricks as well.

"Christ-Aronson Aces" is, in my immodest opinion, the single best routine I've ever
developed for doing non-memorized magic while simultaneously maintaining the
entire Aronson stack in order. Henry Christ's original classic routine is itself a
masterpiece, and later improvements by Vernon and others only heightened its impact.
The use of the Aronson stack further streamlines its handling, while making it appear
impossible that a full-deck stack could survive.

The final piece, "The Aronson Stack 'Makes Good'," is my way of presenting another
classic magical plot while secretly maintaining the Aronson stack.

My earliest work on memorized deck magic focused on the incredible deceptive quality
of memorized deck effects; that's why my early books include so many impossible
locations. All the effects in this section are deceptive, but have entertainment as a
paramount consideration. That's part of coming of age.
Shuff le Trackin~

D
eek switches are an essential tool for memorized deck work, so it's efficient to
have an effect that's strong and entertaining in its own right but also secretly
rings in a memorized stack for use in further effects. ("Bait and Switch/' from
The Aronson Approach, and "Decipher" from Try the Impossible, are some of my favorite
such effects.)

"Shuffle Tracking" fulfills these requirements admirably. Because you apparently

explain secret "gambling skills/' it has an intriguing, almost plausible hook, and may
earn you credit for being a sophisticated card technician. It also subtly emphasizes that
the deck is well shuffled. "Shuffle Tracking" can be performed at any time during a
card routine.

The only requirement is to have a "cold" deck in memorized order in one of your
pockets, loose (i.e., without the card box), with the bottom card facing your body.
Naturally, its back design must match the deck you're already using. I habitually wear
a sport jacket when I'm performing, but a sweater with side pockets also works. Pants
pockets get a bit tight for this effect; you'll see why below. I find it helpful to put a
pocket divider next to the face card (a piece of cardboard works fine, or in a pinch a
comb will do). During the routine, you're going to put your regular deck into this
pocket, and the divider helps keep the two decks separate.

You'll also need to know some (any) technique that secretly tells you the identity of a
freely selected card. I prefer a good glimpse. I think Steve Draun' s Fan Glimpse
(Kaufman, Secrets Draun from Underground(l993), p. 31) is the ideal move for this effect
(and, indeed, is one of the more useful and deceptive moves in card magic). But any
glimpse that allows you to secretly learn the identity of a freely chosen card can be
226 l'.JM DECKO

adapted to this effect; Marlo's Book Break Glimpse, described in "Double-ment," is a

viable alternative. In fact, if you don't know a good glimpse, there are still other ways
of getting into this effect (see Comment 3).

I'll present my patter script along with the procedure.

1) "The main difference between a gambler and a magician is that a gambler takes
chances. A magician wants his trick to work every time, but a gambler plays the odds. A
gambler's skills don't absolutely guarantee a win, but they better their percentage. Let me show
you. A gambler typically wouldn't know the position of any card, so here, shuffle this deck really
well." Have your spectator, Ginny, shuffle the deck.

2) Retrieve the deck. "Let's use just one card as a target. I'm going to show you the
cards like this. Can you see them as they go by? ... Good, as I go through them, just call 'stop.'
Now remember that card." Have a card freely peeked at, and obtain a secret break below
the selection. Immediately do a pressure fan, with the faces toward the spectator,
performing Draun' s Fan Glimpse in the process to glimpse the selection. All of the
"work" is now behind you; the rest is presentation.

One note. Ordinarily when I have a card "peeked at," I make a point of turning my
head aside so that I "can't see anything." Here, however, I don't turn away. The
ensuing patter explains why.

3) "You might think a card cheat wouldn't know anything about your card, but that's
not quite true. The first skill a gambler develops is estimation. He may not know anything
about the identity of your card, but he can estimate, sometimes very closely, its approximate
position in the deck. And that's enough to give him an edge. I still have a rough idea where your
card is." Table the deck in front of Ginny, so the long edge faces you.

"Let's take it a step further. A second gambling skill is called shuffle-tracking - trying to follow,
or keep track of, a card during a shuffle. I'm only a beginner, but cut off half the deck, and give
those two halves just one riffle shuffle. I need to watch the side of the deck." Have Ginny give
the deck a riffle shuffle, and as she does, focus your eyes on the edge of the deck. "And,
as long as I keep looking, give it one cut." Again, feign concentrating on the deck. "So, now
I've got a narrow range of possibilities. It's not exact, but it's not completely random either."

4) "Those first two skills were visual. The third skill is tactile- the sense of touch. You
don't want to constantly stare at the deck, so you try to develop finger sensitivity, without
looking at the cards." Place the deck into your pocket below the pocket divider.
 )HUttlE ThtKf11f)<; 227

Here's what's going to happen. Apparently you're now going to try to find Ginny's
selection by your sense of touch. In essence, you'll remove cards in bunches from your
pocket, as you attempt to hone in on the spectator's "target" card. Actually you'll
simply remove small groups (about ten cards at a time), starting from the top of your
memorized deck. As you remove each group, hold the cards with the faces fanned or
spread toward Ginny, so she can see each card (and so you can't see the faces). You're
supposedly relying on your shuffle tracking and estimation skills to determine that
these groups don't contain her target. As the spectator confirms that each group doesn't
contain her card, you'll drop that bunch face up, in a casual ribbon spread across the
table. At one point you'll hesitantly remove a single card from your pocket face down,
and place it on the tabled spread. You'll then continue with more bunches, tossing
them face up onto the tabled spread, until the deck is exhausted. Ginny will not have
seen her target card, so the suspense and foreshadowing grows.

Of course, since you already know the spectator's card, you know exactly where it lies
in your memorized deck. You will thus know exactly when to remove a single face-
down card.

5) Let's follow a detailed example. Suppose the card you secretly glimpsed was,
say, the KH (which happens to be stack-number 30 in the Aronson stack). That stack-
number is your "Target" position, and you'll remove cards from the top of your stack,
initially in bunches, until you get near your Target. In this example, you can quickly
grab a bunch of cards off the top of your memorized deck and remove them with their
faces toward the spectator, saying something like, "A gambler plays the odds. If I'm right
about the approximate location of your cards, the first bunch is easy. Look. Don't tell me what
your card is, but confirm that your card's not in this group, is it?" Make sure you fan the
cards so Ginny sees them all, and wait for her to take a serious look. I play this up as if
my attempts at getting close are for real. When she confirms that it's not there, only
then do you turn the cards face up and drop them, still spread, onto the table.

6) The face card of the tabled group tells you exactly where you are in your
stack, so there's no need to count or calculate (yet). Let's say the face card is, say, stack-
number 11. That tells you there are still plenty of cards to go before you reach position
30. Continue to remove another bunch, perhaps a dozen or so cards, from the top of
your pocketed stack, again with the faces toward your spectator, saying, "It shouldn't be
here either. Please check, it's not there, right?" Once she confirms that it's not, toss these
cards face up onto the tabled spread, gradually building a loose spread across the table.
Let's say the face card of this second group happens to be stack-number 23.

7) You now know you're getting close to position 30. Do one simple (the only)
calculation (here, 30 minus 23, then minus 1, = 6) to determine how many cards should
be in the next group. So, reach into your pocket, count off the next six cards with your
226 ?IM DECf)O

thumb, and bring them out as another bunch. Don't rush the counting, because your
patter covers (indeed, suggests) a hesitation. Say something like, "If I followed your
shuffle correctly, I think I'm getting close. But I don't think it's one of these, is it?" Show the
faces of these six cards to Ginny, and when she confirms it's not there, again toss them
onto the growing tabled spread. (You now have a visual check. If you've done things
correctly, stack-number 29 is staring you in the face.)

8) Remove the next card by itself without showing it, and toss it face down onto
the spread, saying, 'Tm not sure about this one." (It is the selected card, but it's more
dramatic to delay the revelation.)

9) Continue on through the rest of the deck, removing further bunches, showing
them to Ginny, and tossing them face up onto the spread. At the conclusion, you'll
have 51 cards face-up in a loose table spread, with just one card face down, ready for
the revelation.

I like to nudge cards in a few places in the spread, glancing as if I'm just checking
something, and then say something like, "If I'm right, I've seen only three Kings so far, so
this last card should be a King." I then remove the face-down card from the spread, so
that only I can see it. "You didn't happen to choose the King of Hearts, did you?" Turn the
card around, for a strong display climax.

Casually replace the selection back into its position in the deck. The deck is now in
memorized order for further miracles.

commEm5
(1) Credits. I first posted "Shuffle Tracking" on my website in 2004 and later
performed and explained it on Volume 3 of my DVD set (2006). It was also included as
a bonus item to the second edition of my ebook Memories are Made of This (2009).

My inspiration for "Shuffle Tracking" was Martin Nash's deck switch, from his Ovation
Act (see his videotapes/DVDs, Al Multimedia). Martin simply forced the top card of a
cold deck. My major contribution was to adapt Martin's effect to the memorized deck,
which liberates it significantly. By using a memorized deck, you can accomplish the
deck switch with any freely selected card. You could even have a card freely named. The
peek allows for a presentation with an apparently unknown card.

There are similarities in procedure, but not presentation, with Laurie Ireland's
"Producing Selected Card at Any Number and at the Same Time Cold Packing" (Ireland
Writes A Book, p. 19) and to Ramblar' s "Cards from Pocket Stop Trick" (Tamariz' s
Mnemonica, p. 147).
 SftUtflE Th~CKll'\G 229

(2) Alternative Positions. Depending on where the selected card happens to fall
in your memorized order, it might get removed from your pocket earlier or later.
Indeed, if it's quite near the top of your stack, it could hypothetically appear among the
first group. Of course, since you know its exact location, you can control for this
eventuality, and could start counting from the start.

For dramatic and aesthetic reasons, I think it's best for the face-down selection to appear
somewhere around the middle of the spread. You can always achieve this result by
"mentally cutting" the memorized deck to re-position the selection approximately
where you want it. You don't need to actually give the deck a physical cut inside your
pocket. Simple experimentation will show you that it's quite easy, for example, to
remove the first bunch of cards from the face of the deck, thus moving everything down
about a dozen cards or so. At the climax, the deck, of course, will still be in cyclical
order.

(3) Alternative Methods. Any method by which the magician secretly learns the
identity of the spectator's selected card can be adapted to the "Shuffle Tracking"
presentation. Thus, you could use Nash's method of forcing a card, but without any
restriction of its being the top card of your stack. A force allows you to use a card that
will arrive at an optimum position in the spread (per Comment 2 above).

Theoretically you could perform any simple location, even using just a key card, that
secretly tells you the identity of the selected card. Just don't reveal that you know it,
and instead go into your shuffle tracking patter.

Or just have a card selected and replaced, but secretly control it to the bottom. Then
secretly glimpse the selection as you start an overhand shuffle, during which you
actually lose the selected card. Comment that it's better if they shuffle, and hand the
deck to them.

Indeed, here's a radical suggestion: you could do "Shuffle Tracking" without a glimpse,
control, or force. Consider this: you patter about shuffle tracking, and have the
spectator remove any card at all and show it around to everyone-including you!
Explain that it will be your Target card, and have the spectator replace it anywhere into
the tabled deck, under your watchful stare. Then proceed exactly as in the text, as you
apparently try to follow the Target card through the shuffles and cuts. You still find it,
just as written, and accomplish the deck switch.

I feel strongly, however, that whatever you do should be as simple as possible, so as not
to clutter the basic plot. A glimpse is my preferred way to go.
2:~0 /'.JM DECfiO

(4) Alternative Revelations. You may want to experiment with different

revelations. For instance, it can be convincing if, during the pocket removal, you
hesitantly remove two or three single face-down cards, located at different places in the
spread, as if you're not sure which one it is. "That cut threw me a bit. It might be this one
... or (after another couple bunches) maybe this one." You then can build up the
revelation at the end, narrowing it down to one card.

Caveat: Don't give into the temptation to, say, take out four cards face down, and then
cavalierly reveal, "Well, I wasn't sure, so I hedged my bet and found all four Kings!" While
such a feat is obviously easy to accomplish (since you know the location of every card),
it's not merely overkill-it gives away the deck switch. Less is more here.

I've also experimented with holding back on removing the selection from my pocket,
until the very end of the deck. When you get to the selection in your pocket, just turn it
perpendicular to the rest of the deck, leave it there, and keep on removing further
bunches. At the very end, remove the last two cards (the selection and the final X card),
backs toward the spectator, and announce, ''I'm not sure, but I'111 guessing it's one of
these." Then, tenderly toss the odd card face up onto the table, as you narrow your
choice to the final one.
Gemini Meett t~e Stack

or laymen, the two card discovery procedure commonly known as the Gemini

i: procedure is hard to beat. It allows two spectators to freely deal through a deck,
stop wherever they want, and mark their "stopped at" places with a face-up Joker
or other odd card. Nevertheless, even though the dealing and stopping are "free," the
two cards immediately adjacent to the two "markers" are, in fact forced (they're the
original top and bottom cards of the deck). Since the spectators perform all the dealing,
the procedure can literally be done "hands off."

One standard variant is quite effective: two cards are freely chosen, replaced in the
deck, and using the Gemini dealing procedure, the spectators magically discover their
own selected cards. While this effect is very deceptive, it's not often performed with a
stacked deck, because the selection and control of two cards and the subsequent dealing
would typically destroy your stack order. "Gemini Meets the Stack" is a way to
maintain the entire order of your stack or otherwise leave your stack in a condition to
perform subsequent stacked-deck miracles.

This procedure is stack-independent and, indeed, does not even require a memorized
stack. Thus, if you're working with any stacked deck (full or partial), you can use the
following effect/procedure at any time, and your deck's order will be maintained.
Moreover, this procedure emphasizes the freedom of the selections and their apparently
random replacement.

WOMSH'lG

I'll assume you're familiar with the basic Gemini dealing discovery procedure, so I'll
present only a bare-bones description. Start with your stacked deck in play and two
Jokers on the table (or any two extra or odd cards). Your stack can be in cyclical order,
so several cuts beforehand are fine. In the description below I'll assume that your stack
2:~2 AM DECfiO

is a "memorized" stack, and I'll discuss what happens in terms of "stack-numbers"

(rather than specific playing cards). This is only because stack-numbers allow us to
quickly see and follow the relative order of the cards as the procedure progresses. But
again, the principles and procedures here will apply to any cyclical stack, whether
memorized or not.

1) As you false shuffle and genuinely cut, explain that you want two spectators
to each select a card. To ensure that the selections are truly free, ribbon spread the deck
face down across the table from left to right. Hand one of the spectators a Joker, and
ask her to insert it face up anywhere into the spread. (Near the middle is preferable but
not essential. You can gesture, to guide her toward the center of the spread.)

Emphasize that the two cards on either side of the Joker are clearly random choices.
Separate the deck to leave the three-card sandwich (the Joker plus the cards above and
below it) on the table, pushing all the remaining cards aside into two separate piles.
(The upper half gets pushed to the right and the lower half to the left.) Do this casually,
with all your attention on the two face-down cards in the center of the table. Pick up
the Joker and casually toss it aside for the moment since it's served its purpose in
helping pick the selections.

At this point the spectators believe they've freely chosen two cards. They have, but this
selection procedure subtly assures that the two selected cards have adjacent stack-numbers in
your stack. For our example, assume they're stack-numbers 29 and 30. (If you're
following along with an Aronson stack in hand, those two cards would be the 4H and
KH, respectively.) Have the spectator on the right, Ginny, take the rightmost of the two
cards (29), and have the spectator on the left, Mergel, take the card on the left (30). Each
remembers their respective selection. You can turn away, so that you don't see the faces
of the selections.

An aside: if you secretly glimpse either the bottom card of the pile on the right or the
top card of the pile on the left, your stack will tell you the identity of the two selections.
That's not relevant to what we're doing here, but it's nice to know.

2) We'll now have those selections replaced and lost, apparently in two separate
parts of the deck, and then the pack will be reassembled. The following replacement
procedure causes the deck to be reassembled in full cyclical stack order, with one
selection secretly controlled to the bottom and the other controlled to the top, in
readiness for the Gemini procedure. Here's the detail.

Pick up the packet on the right side of the table and hold it face down in your left hand.
Take Ginny's card (29), display its face to her as a reminder, and drop it onto the left-
hand cards, holding a break beneath it. You' re now basically going to double undercut
it to the bottom and table the packet, but the following is a more casual and subtle way
 GEm1111 ffiEET5 THE STACI) 2))

of accomplishing this. First, undercut the bottom half of the packet to the top,
maintaining the break. Pause, and then with your right hand, cut all the cards above
the break and casually dribble them in a loose pile onto the table. Then take the
remaining left-hand cards with your right hand and dribble them onto the tabled pile.
It looks as if Ginny's selection has been lost somewhere in this tabled pile. In fact, it's at
the bottom.

You'll now basically repeat a similar replacement procedure with the second selection.
Pick up the remaining packet (from the left side of the table) in your left hand. Take
Mergel' s card (30), display its face again, and as before, drop it on top of the left-hand
cards (no break need be taken yet). Undercut half the left-hand packet to the top, and
apparently square up, but secretly obtain a break between the two halves (i.e., above
Mergel' s 30). With your right hand, cut all the cards above the break and casually
dribble them onto the already-tabled pile. Finally, take the remaining left-hand cards
and dribble them onto the tabled pile to reassemble the full deck. It looks as if both
cards have been lost in different parts of the deck. In fact, the deck is in complete
cyclical order, with 29 on the bottom and 30 on the top.

3) After emphasizing the randomness of the procedure thus far, instruct your
two spectators to perform the standard Gemini dealing procedure, inserting the two
Jokers face up to mark the places where they freely stop. Here's a summary
description. First, hand the deck to Ginny, and ask her to deal the cards one at a time
into a face-down pile on the table. Have her stop wherever she wants. When she stops,
pick up one of the Jokers and drop it face up onto her dealt pile. Then have Ginny bury
it by dropping the balance of the deck on top of it.

Have Ginny give the entire deck to Mergel, and have him repeat the same dealing
procedure, using the remaining Joker. When he's finished, pick up the assembled deck
and make a wide table spread from left to right across the table. The Jokers visually
indicate the two positions where the spectators freely stopped. (The face-down cards
immediately above the Jokers are, in fact, the two selections.) To preserve your stack
order, you'll reveal these selections in a particular way.

4) Let's first focus on the rightmost Joker in the spread. Push that Joker along
with the face-down card immediately to its right (this will be Ginny's selection, 29) out from
the spread toward Ginny, leaving a small gap in the spread where those two cards came
from. Your focus is on the Joker and its "paired" card, as you remind Ginny, "You could
have stopped dealing anywhere, but you stopped right here." As you say this, with your right
hand casually square all the cards that were above (to the right of) this pair of cards,
pushing them off in a pile at the right side of your working surface (call this pile A).

Now repeat a similar action for Mergel. Draw attention to the remaining Joker together
with the face-down card immediately to the right of it, and using both hands, separate
2:~4 ~M DECKO

the spread to isolate this pair. With your left hand slide this pair toward Mergel as you
emphasize the face-down card that Mergel has apparently stopped at. Meanwhile, with
your right hand square up the cards that were above (to the right of) this pair of cards,
forming a second pile (pile B). Finally, square up the few remaining cards (those which
lay below the second Joker), pushing them a bit to the left, to form pile C. Figure 1
depicts the layout at this point, with the piles labeled.

Let's recap the true condition of the stack at

this point. Pile A usually will constitute a
substantial portion of the deck, because most
spectators won't deal many cards. All the
cards in pile A are still in stack order. Piles B
and C are the two portions that were dealt by
the spectators. They generally won't contain
more than ten to twelve cards each and often
will contain fewer. These two piles are each
still in stack order - but reversed (because of the
spectator's dealing).

If you want to put your entire stack back in order, you'll need to "un-reverse" piles B
and C, and we'll do that in just a moment, at step 5 below. (But keep in mind,
depending on how you want to use your stack for a subsequent effect, you might not
need to put your entire stack in order; we'll explore that option at step 7.)

5) To restore the entire deck back into stack order, I use an overhand shuffle,
running cards singly, to "un-reverse" the ones that are currently in reverse stack order.
Here's the simple way of accomplishing this. Pick up pile C and casually overhand
shuffle it, actually running single cards to reverse its order completely. Do this offhandedly,
without paying any attention to the cards you're holding, since they're unimportant to
the climax. (The act of running cards one at a time has the effect of "reversing" the
packet, which thus puts those cards back into your original stack order.) When you
finish, drop this "shuffled" pile C on top of pile A.

Now pick up pile Band do the same thing. Once pile B been shuffled (running cards
singly), drop it onto the combined C/ A pile. The entire deck has now been reassembled
in complete cyclical stack order (except for the two selections which are about to be
revealed at the climax).

Often, running a large number of cards singly in an overhand shuffle can be suspicious
(or, at least, boring), but in this instance it works fine. The important part of the trick
appears to be finished- the spectators had complete freedom in choosing cards and in
dealing and stopping where they wanted, and they've seen you isolate the two cards
where they "stopped." All their attention is focused on those two cards that have been
 GEm1n1 ffiEET5 TflE SMCf) 2:~5

pushed out of the spread. As you recap the impossible conditions, you're idly
gathering up and shuffling the unimportant non-chosen cards. Since piles B and C are
relatively small, these "run shuffles" don't appear prolonged. It should look like a
casual gathering of the piles, mixing them "even further," and then reassembling them
into one pile.

Here's a minor variation of the above. Before you start to overhand shuffle piles C and
B, you could first drop pile C on top of pile B and then overhand shuffle that combined
pile, running all the cards in that combined C/B pile singly. Once you finish, drop that
combined pile on top of pile A. Either way produces the same result; your choice is
either shuffling two smaller piles separately or one larger pile.

The overhand shuffles provide a self-contained way of restoring your full stack. But
you can also restore your full stack in other ways, e.g., in the context of performing a
subsequent trick. Step 8 offers an illustration.

6) For the climax, reveal the face-down cards to be the two selections. You can
then return both selections (in 29, 30 order) to either the top or bottom of the pack, and
your stack will be fully restored (cyclically).

Retained Relative Groupings; Partial Stacks

7) As mentioned, I've used a memorized deck's stack-numbers because they

clarify which cards follow each other within a stack. Stack-numbers instantly tell a
card's position within a stack. Most magicians are familiar with how a cyclical stack
works (i.e., when a stack is cut, the original top card of your stack will be immediately
below the original bottom card of your stack). This means, in stack-numbers, that #1 in
a stack immediately follows #52, because the stack" goes around the horn."

There are many memorized deck tricks that don't require every card to be in full stack
order. Indeed, there are some amazing tricks that don't require a sequential "order"
among the cards at all. For example, take a memorized deck and cut it into two roughly
equal piles (they don't have to be precise halves). Let's say one pile contains cards of
stack-numbers 1-23 (pile X), and the other pile contains 24-52 (pile Y). Now shuffle each
pile separately, thus destroying the stack order within each pile. Even though each pile
has no particular order, you still know a lot of information. You know every single card
in pile X and every single card in pile Y. (In Card Ideas I coined the term 'retained
relative groupings' for this concept.) And therefore, for every card in the deck, you
know instantly which of the two piles it's in. Moreover, if a card is removed from either
pile and replaced into the other pile, you can instantly find it by scanning the cards in
the replaced pile to spot the one that" doesn't belong." In fact, even if the two shuffled
piles are placed together, you can find the top and/ or bottom card of each pile because
the retained relative groupings will help pinpoint the breakpoint between these piles.
2:~6 ~M DECfiO

This is not the place to delve into specific tricks using this "divided deck" idea; the
principle has been used and described in countless effects (see, e.g., my "Four Stop
Intersection" in Card Ideas, or my "High Class Location" in Simply Simon). I'll just
mention, generically, two such kinds of effect: locations and pseudo-memory effects.
For locations, a displacement of one or more cards from one packet into the other allows
discovery. In pseudo-memory feats, since you know the cards within each pile, so long
as you (secretly) maintain the piles' separation, you'd be able to recite all the cards in
each group, as you demonstrate an apparent instant memory ability.

I intentionally used a simple example (i.e., in my description above, the deck started
with stack-number 1 on top, before we divided it near the middle). But the same
concepts apply even when the deck has been cut. Here's an illustration. Start with a
memorized deck in which, say, the top 20 cards have already been cut to the bottom.
This means that the stack-numbers of your deck now run from 21 (the top card)
sequentially through the deck (with 52 immediately followed by 1 somewhere near the
center) and end with stack-number 20 at the face. Now, from that starting position, go
through the same example as before. Cut off approximately half that deck to form two
piles; let's assume that you cut off a total of 28 cards (call them pile X), leaving the
remaining 24 cards as pile Y. Because the stack was in cyclical order, as long as you can
visualize your stack as going "around the horn," you'll still know exactly which cards
are in each pile. Pile X contains cards with stack-numbers 21-48 (which is an" ordered
string" within your stack), and pile Y contains the cards with stack-numbers 49-20
(which is also an ordered string from your stack because the numbers "go around the
horn," i.e., pass from 52 to 1 and continue on from there).

And, as before, shuffling each pile separately will destroy the "ordered string" within
that pile, but you'll still know every card in each pile.

So, how does this apply to our Gemini procedure? The answer is: at the end of the
Gemini procedure, the packets can immediately be gathered into a "divided deck"
condition. Go back to step 4, where we wound up with three piles. Pile A is already in
stack order. If you drop pile C onto pile B, that combined pile will be in "reversed"
stack order. But when you think in terms of stack-numbers, all the cards in pile A
constitute one "divided deck" group, and all the cards that make up the now combined
C+B pile constitute the other "divided deck" group.

And all the concepts discussed above still apply. You could go forward with a
subsequent memorized deck effect and have both piles shuffled (separately). You could
further disguise this by handing out portions of each pile to different spectators to
shuffle; so long as you recombine them back into their respective A and C+B
configurations, you'll still know exactly which cards are in each pile.
A corollary: you can even move cards from one pile to another, and the resulting piles
will still each have "retained relative groupings." For instance, when you combine C+B
to make one pile, you may find that the two resulting piles (A and C+B) are "uneven,"
and perhaps you'd prefer them to be approximately equal. That's easy. Just take a few
cards off the top of pile A and mix them into the C+B pile (or vice versa). As long as
you know (either by counting, or glimpsing a top or bottom card) how many cards
you're moving from A into C+B (or vice versa), you'll be able to mentally adjust each
pile's contents. You'll still know everything you need for any "retained relative
grouping" effect. (You may want to consult Comment 4, where I've included one
specific example of how the stack numbers might be distributed among the three piles
that result from the Gemini procedure.)

Bottom line: the above basic Gemini procedure, as I've outlined it, doesn't require you to
restore your full deck's order. You can still perform other powerful stack effects, with
the piles just as they are at the end of step 4.

There's yet another situation that doesn't require a "full stack" restoration. Many
memorized deck aficionados perform effects that require only a "partial" stack. Juan
Tamariz creates a wonderful sense of randomness by continually shuffling half his deck
while the other half secretly remains in stack order; he can then perform trick after trick
with that partial stack. Since, as we've seen, after the Gemini procedure, pile A is still
in original stack order (and will almost always consist of half the deck or more), you can
instantly reassemble your deck. So long as you maintain a break, jog, or other
separation between pile A and the rest of the cards, you can go forth and perform your
favorite "partial stack" memorized deck effect.

8) Finally, here's one more suggestion for those who want to restore their full
memorized order after the Gemini procedure, yet don't want to do an overhand shuffle
with an extended run of single cards. You can accomplish such a full restoration fairly
easily-by openly reversing the C and B piles in the context of a subsequent trick.

Here's one simple approach. At the end of your Gemini effect, drop pile C on top of
pile B (remember, at this point they'll be in reversed stack order). Approach Ginny and
say, ''I'm going to show you a bunch of cards, and I want you to merely think of any one that
makes a strong visual impression on you. Don't say anything, just think of one of these." Turn
the combined pile face up, hold it in dealing position, and deal the cards one by one into
a face-up pile onto the table. You can deal as slowly or as quickly as you want, while
Ginny merely thinks of one. Your dealing one by one will reverse the order of these
dealt cards, thus putting them back into stack order. When you' re finished, pick up the
tabled pile, turn it face down, and combine it with pile A (either on top or on the
bottom). You can also replace the two selections, if you haven't already done so.
At this point, Ginny is thinking of a truly unknown card, but you are armed with a
fully-stacked (cyclical) memorized deck.

How you reveal the card is up to you. If you're proficient at jazzing, you could have
Ginny name her thought-of card and then improvise a revelation, since you'll know
exactly where it lies in your deck.

Alternatively, if you don't want her to "name" her card, hand her the deck and have her
run through the cards, faces toward her, and cut her thought-of card to the face "to
indelibly imprint its image on her mind." When she does, have her stare at her card for
a few seconds, and then ask her to take her card and stick it into the center of the deck,
so it's lost. Once this has been done, the face card of the deck will now "key" the
identity of Ginny's thought-of card (i.e., Ginny's card is the one immediately following
that key in your stack). My friend David Finkelstein gets a very strong reaction with
this, using what is essentially Richard Osterlind' s "Challenge Mind Reading" (Mind
Mysteries DVD Vol. 2, (2003)). Emphasizing that he won't touch the cards, he asks
Ginny to "put the entire deck away into the box"; he holds the card case while she
inserts the deck. It's a fairly simple matter to subtly glimpse the face card during this
procedure or as the flap is closed.

After you reveal the card that Ginny "has merely thought of," you can remove the deck
from the case, and you're ready for your next memorized deck effect.

Many other effects offer opportunities to subtly reverse a pile of cards, either while
showing them, or counting them or spelling them or testing a spectator's observation or
memory, but I have said enough for this discussion. I'll just reiterate the main idea:
don't forego the Gemini procedure just because you're working with a stacked deck.
The two can fit together nicely.

(OffimEflT5

(1) Credits; Sources. This discussion is an expanded version of my "Stacked

Gemini," which I posted on my website in 2006. I originally created it as an alternative
Phase 3 to Michael Close' s memorized deck routine "The Luckiest Cards in Las Vegas"
(from his ebook Closely Guarded Secrets). In that routine Michael uses two plastic "cut
cards" that, in each of the first two phases, magically locate a card which has been freely
named by a spectator. I wanted to build up the climax in Phase 3, so I came up with the
idea of using both cut cards to discover two selections in a hands-off Gemini procedure.

The underlying Gemini procedure of using top and bottom "keys" with a dealt-down
pile goes back at least as far as Annemann (Theodore Annemann, "Locatrix," The Jinx
#39, (1937) p. 262), but Annemann himself describes the principle as "not new." The
procedure has become a staple in card magic and has many useful variations and
applications either as a force, a control, or a revelation. I may have been the first to
extend its use to locate more than two cards (see my "Quad-Mates," first published in
M-U-M Magazine, May 1970, p. 20, expanded and revised in my book Simply Simon).

I haven't offered any particular presentation here, because my reason for describing it is
not to create a specific effect. Rather, the goal is to illustrate how strong, generic
procedures and effects can be adapted for use with a memorized deck while the stack is
secretly retained.

You can learn more about using divided decks and retained relative groupings in Card
Ideas, reprinted as part of Bound to Please (1994).

(2) Alternative Controls. The replacement and control procedure in step 2 is

clean and straightforward, but it's not the only way to go. For a quicker control, try
this. After the two selections have been removed as in step 1, casually cut the deck at
the point from which they were removed. Then use a spread cull for the replacement of
the two cards. Simply start spreading the deck and have Ginny replace her card
anywhere in the spread. Secretly cull it under the spread and continue spreading. Then
have Mergel replace his card further down, again secretly culling it below Ginny's card.
Square up, and both selections will be on the bottom. Undercut one card from the
bottom to the top, and you're ready for the Gemini dealing.

(3) Counting. Keep in mind that during the Gemini dealing procedure, while
each of your spectators deals cards, you could be secretly counting them. This will give
you precise information as to exactly how many cards there will be in each of piles B
and C. Pile B will always contain one less than the number of cards dealt by the first
spectator, Ginny. Pile C will always have the number of cards dealt by the second
spectator, Mergel. Knowledge of the pile size, combined with a memorized stack, offers
additional advantages that can enhance the Gemini procedure, or a subsequent trick.
I'll leave you to explore these possibilities on your own.

(4) A Specific Illustration of Retained Relative Groupings at the End of the

Gemini Procedure. Here's one specific illustration of how the cards within each of the
three piles might wind up in our original Gemini effect described in the main text. I'll
intentionally start with a stack in "cyclical" condition, i.e., having been cut. Assume, for
this example, that our memorized deck begins having been cut somewhere (it doesn't
matter where). Let's assume that, per the selection procedure in the text, cards 29 and
30 are chosen, replaced, and secretly controlled per steps 1-2. (Situation: at this point,
the deck is still in full cyclical stack order, with card 30 on top.) Next, at step 3 in the
Gemini procedure, let's assume that Ginny happens to deal, say, eight cards before
stopping, and let's assume that Mergel then deals eleven cards before he stops. At step
240 AMDECKO

4 you remove the two "pairs" in preparation for the climax, which results in the
creation of our three piles, A, B, and C.

Figure 2 illustrates the resulting condition of

the deck at this point, by pictorially
indicating the stack-number sequences that
exist, from top to bottom in each pile, before
any shuffling, gathering, or combining of any
piles. The "curved arrow" shown in the
sequence for pile A indicates where the stack
goes "around the horn," (i.e., from stack-
number 52 to stack-number 1). Note that this
"around the horn" point might occur in any
one of the three piles. This illustration may help you-it helped me-visualize the
various ways the piles could be shuffled and combined, and yet still maintain their
retained relative groupings.
C~ri~t-tlron~on tlce~

enry Christ's "Fabulous Ace Routine" has long been one of my favorite impromptu
performance pieces for laymen. Indeed, over thirty years ago, in Sessions, I wrote
up my version of this routine, which simplifies the original layout by eliminating
all undercuts during the Ace burying sequence. The present version captures the
benefits of Christ's original routine and my additions. It also starts and ends with the
deck in complete Aronson stack order. The original Christ routine and my Sessions
version both disturb the order ohhe deck in a number of places. In what follows, by
changing just a few minor procedures that are inconsequential as far as the effect
appears, the entire stack order is preserved.

If you have a deck in Aronson stack order handy, you now can perform the Christ Aces
at any time and then continue with your favorite memorized deck effects. Indeed, there
are two ancillary benefits that come from performing the Christ Aces with the Aronson
stack. First, all secret sight-counting of piles has been eliminated, because known key
cards instantly tell you where to divide the packets. Second, the haphazard handling
throughout the routine-with cards being continuously separated into various piles,
dealt, counted, spelled, and reassembled-is a strong convincer that the deck has been
hopelessly mixed up.

€tt€CT

The four Aces are removed from the deck, and the rest of the deck is divided into four
piles. The Aces are each placed on a packet, and the packets are then reassembled, thus
burying the Aces in four different parts of the deck. The performer then reproduces
each Ace in a different magical way, in the same order in which they were initially lost
in the deck.
242 ~M DECKO

Start with a deck in Aronson stack order.

The Layout

1) Hold the deck face up, and announce that you'll use the four Aces. Begin
spreading the cards from the left hand into the right; as soon as you reach the 6D (near
the face of the deck), secretly cull it under the spread. Continue spreading casually,
apparently looking for the Aces, and secretly re-insert the 6D back into the spread
between the 3C and the 6H. This displacement of one card is the only secret
preparation needed and fits naturally in the action of spreading to look for the Aces. (In
Christ's original routine a 7 (or a 6) gets reversed, but that 7 winds up in a different part
of the deck at the end of the routine. Here, we're going to use the 6D as that reversed
card, so I'm simply presetting the 6D out-of-place stackwise, so that at the end of the
routine it will actually return to its correct stack position.)

2) Continue spreading rapidly through the faces, until you reach the first Ace,
the AH. Separate the spread at that point, with the AH at the face of the left-hand
cards, and thumb off the AH face up onto the table at the left. (You're going to form a
row of four face-up Aces, depositing them onto the table in the order in which they
appear.) Continue spreading until you reach the AD, and deposit it to the right of the
AH. Continue in the same fashion to place the AC and finally the AS in the row. Once
you deposit the AS at the right end of the row, casually place the remaining five cards
that are in your left hand (JS through 9S) onto the face of the right-hand cards, and square
up. Situation check: Except for the 6D, the deck is still in stack order with the 9S now at
the face. The Aces have been removed and are face up on the table.

3) You'll now quickly spread through the deck again to divide it into four piles.
Try to make this look as casual and offhanded as you can, as if it doesn't matter how
many cards are in each pile. The stack helps tremendously in this regard because you
really don't need to do any counting. Specific key cards will tell you instantly where to
separate the packets. Here's the detail.

Start spreading the cards face up, and split the spread between the QS and the QC Gust
watch for the pair of black Queens). Flip the right-hand cards bookwise so they fall face
down onto the face-up left-hand cards, but the left thumb prevents them from fully
coalescing with the deck. The right hand then changes grip to take this face-down
packet from above and deposits it below the AH. (There will be eight cards in this pile.)
This flipping action is completely fair, but the handling sets the stage for a similar
action at step 4 below.
 4) Continue spreading until you
reach the pair of red Sixes. Obtain a left
pinky break under the spread between the
Sixes, as your left thumb above the spread
lightly rests at the left edge of the 6D, just
to temporarily hold it in place. The right
hand again flips all the cards above the
6D face down bookwise so they fall onto
and coalesce with the face-up 6D (Figure
1). As before, your right hand changes its
grip to take all the cards above the break and deposits this pile below the AD. This is
the standard Vernon reversal technique. The similar-looking 6H now showing at the
face of the left-hand cards helps minimize any momentary visual discrepancy (which is
why we loaded the 6D immediately next to it). (This pile contains nine face-down
cards, followed by the 6D, which is secretly face up on the bottom.)

5) Continue spreading rapidly until

you see the 7C and 4H. Split the spread
between these two cards, and turn both
hands, each holding their respective cards,
palm down. Simultaneously place the left-
hand packet face down below the AC and
the right-hand packet face down below the
AS. This is a perfectly natural and efficient
way of placing the final two packets on the
table. (What goes unnoticed is that this
handling has actually reversed the order of these last two packets from the order in
which they appeared in the spread. This is one of those minor adjustments I mentioned
that maintains the stack order at the end of the routine.) Figure 2 depicts the layout at
this point.

Situation check: the top cards of the four face-down packets, from left to right, should
be the QC, 3C, 3H, and 4H. There will be a total of 19 cards in pile #3. You don't need
to remember any of this, but the number of cards in pile #3 is what controls the
discovery of the final Ace. Comment 2 explains this in detail and offers some variant
endings.

Burying the Aces

6) You're now going to bury the Aces face down as you reassemble the deck.
Explain that you're going to lose the Aces in different parts of the deck. Ask the
spectator to remember the order of the Aces as you bury each one, because later you're
going to magically produce the Aces in that order. (It's not absolutely necessary to
244 ~M DECKO

emphasize this, but I find it adds an extra quantum of apparent difficulty: that you're
not just finding any Ace each time.)

Pick up pile #1 (below the AH), and fan it face down in your right hand. With your left
hand pick up the AH and insert it face down above the third card from the bottom of
the fan, for about half its length. Lift up the fan to flash the faces, showing the AH
clearly going into the middle of the fan; close the fan; and push the AH flush into its
packet. Deposit pile #1 back in its position on the table.

Pick up the AD (reminding the spectators that "Diamonds are next"), and drop it face
down onto pile #1. Pick up pile #2, and cleanly drop it onto pile #1, burying the AD.
(This secretly places the reversed 6D immediately above the AD.)

Pick up the AC, and drop it face down onto pile #3. Pick up the combined pile (#1&2),
and cleanly drop it onto pile #3, burying the AC.

Finally, pick up the AS, and drop it face down onto pile #4. Pick up the combined pile
(#1&2&3), and cleanly drop it onto pile #4, burying the AS.

7) I now give the deck a table cut, cutting approximately three-quarters off the
top and then completing the cut. As I do, I comment, "Just in case anyone knows where the
Aces are approximately, let's cut the cards." The sole purpose of this cut is to centralize the
reversed 6D, which makes the revelations of the first two Aces more aesthetically
pleasing. I make it clear that nothing untoward is happening, and sometimes I'll even
let the spectator do the cut. (This cut is completely optionat so if you don't care about
whether the 6D appears centered, you can dispense with it.)

Place the deck at the left side of the table.

Finding the Aces

8) Announce, "I'll try to magically locate each of the Aces in the order in which they
were lost." Ask, "Which was the first Ace?" Either the spectator will remind you,
"Hearts," or you can mention it yourself. Make a magical gesture and give the deck a
wide ribbon spread across the table from left to right. The 6D will appear face up in the
center. Act surprised. With your left hand start to scoop up the spread from the left
end until you reach the 6D. Put your left thumb on the 6D, holding it as the top card of
those in the left hand, and use this left-hand block of cards as a lever to flip the balance
of the ribbon spread face up on the table in a pile (Figures 3 and 4). (The QS will be the
face card of this face-up tabled pile). Square up the left-hand cards, secretly obtaining a
left fourth-finger break beneath the second card (the AD). It's easy to get this break
because the top two cards of the left-hand packet will naturally spread as you flip the
right-hand packet face up, as seen in Figure 4.
 (HN5T-Ah01)50fl ACE5 245

With your right hand, pick up the two cards above the break, and deposit these cards,
as one, face up directly onto the QS. As you do this, explain, "This Six must be an
indicator it indicates we need to count six cards." Deal off the next six cards from the left-
hand portion, one at a time face up directly onto the 6D, counting aloud. Pause before
you count, " ... Six," and then dramatically reveal that the sixth card is the desired AH.
Deal it face up in its original position toward the left side of the table.

As the spectator's attention is drawn toward the AH, turn your left hand palm down,
placing its cards directly onto the balance of the tabled pack. Turn the entire deck face
down, and place it at the right side of the table.

9) Remind your spectator that "the next Ace was the Ace of Diamonds." Give
the deck a wide ribbon spread across the table, this time from right to left. The AD will
appear face up in the center. With your right hand scoop up the spread from the right
end until you reach the AD. Split the spread at that point, holding the AD with your
right thumb on top of the right-hand portion. Move your right hand forward and
thumb off the AD to table, to the right of the AH. Casually drop the right-hand cards
on top of the remaining face-down tabled spread, and square up the deck.

10) Hold the deck in left-hand dealing position. I explain, "The next Ace is the Ace
of Clubs. That's the educated Ace. It watches Sesame Street and has learned to spell its own
name." Deal cards off the deck one at a time, turning each face up to form a face-up pile
on the table, as you spell aloud one letter for each card dealt: A-C-E-0-F-C-L-U-B-S.
Pause before the "S" and then dramatically turn over the "S" to reveal the AC. Toss it
to the right of the AD. With your right fingers, flip the face-up just-spelled cards face
down onto the table, and dribble the balance of the pack onto them.

11) Pick up the deck as you comment, "On Sesame Street the Aces also learn basic
arithmetic. Look, today's show is brought to you by the numbers ... " Here deal off the top
card from the deck (the 3H) face up at the right side of the table, glance at it, and say,
"three ... " Continue dealing the next card (the 6C) face up, overlapping the 3H toward
the left. Look down at it and announce, "six ... , " and finally deal a third card (the SD)
246 i'.JM DECKO

overlapping the 6C saying, " ... and eight." It appears as if these three spot cards just
happen to be there by chance. This apparent impromptu randomness - the impression
that they might just as likely have been different values-is enhanced if you act as if
you' re really just learning those numbers yourself for the first time as they' re dealt face
up.

Point to the three dealt cards and say, "Three, plus six equals nine; plus eight - that's a total
of seventeen. Let's see how talented these Aces really are." Deal cards off the deck face up
one at a time rapidly to form a face-up pile on the table, as you count aloud from one to
seventeen. Pause before the final card on "17," and then dramatically turn over the 17th
card, to reveal the AS. Toss it face up next to the AC to triumphantly end the routine.

(LEAn UP TO f)E5TOhE STACK OhDEh:

Without the Aces

At this point, if you drop the sixteen face-up counted cards onto the three face-up
"total" cards (the 3H, 6C, and SD), you can then flip these combined cards face down
and replace them back on top of (or under) the rest of the remaining face-down cards
still in your left hand. The entire deck will be back in Aronson (cyclic) order, minus the
Aces which are still out on the table. This allows you to use the Aces for some other
packet effect ("Twisting the Aces," "Daley's Aces") and then replace them back into
proper stack position at a convenient later time.

Eric Mead, an excellent practitioner with the Aronson stack, has written specifically
about various ways of re-inserting the four Aces into Aronson stack position (Mead,
Tangled Web (2006), pp. 111-121). Indeed, Eric's essay "Disorderly Conduct," dealing
with ways of dispelling the feeling of an "ordered" stack, is required reading for any
lover of memorized deck magic.

Including the Aces

I wanted a way to restore the deck to full Aronson order, including the Aces, at the end
of the "Christ-Aronson Aces." It takes just a tiny bit more procedure at the very end of
the routine to accomplish this. Here's what I do.

At step 11, as you count and deal off the seventeen cards into a face-up pile, deal the
first seven cards into a somewhat squared pile, but for count #8 deal that card (the 75)
sidejogged to the right for about half its width (leaving the 35 still partially visible).
Continue your dealing/ counting with the same rhythm for counts #9 and #10, dealing
those two cards directly onto and square with the 75. Count #10 will be the QD. On
count #11 deal that card (the 85) onto the QD, but again sidejogged to the right for
 CttN5T-AhOl'l50f'l A<E5 247

about half its width (so the QD remains visible). Then complete the dealing/ counting
from count #12 up to #16, dealing those cards directly onto and square with the 85. Per
step 11, reveal the next card (the 17th) as the final AS. Set the rest of your cards face
down onto the table at your left.

The foregoing two "sidejogs" are quite easy, and should be done without breaking
rhythm as you deal and count. It appears as if you've simply dealt sixteen cards face up
in a somewhat messy pile; in fact, the resulting pile on the table contains two "steps,"
immediately above the 3S and the QD.
A
These two visible steps will allow you to
"'
easily and nonchalantly insert the Aces
exactly where you need them when you
gather up the cards. All you need to
•
remember is to step the pile on counts #8
and #11; all other cards are dealt/ counted
directly onto and covering the preceding
card. And it doesn't matter if the rest of
the dealt cards land a bit askew; that adds
to the messy, casual look. Figure 5 depicts
the layout at this point.

Once you've produced the final AS, you'll clean up as the spectators are marveling at
your feat. Pick up the AH and casually stick it among the dealt cards, actually using the
visible step so that it gets inserted immediately above the QD. Take the AD and stick it
back among the dealt cards, this time above the 3S step. Next take the AC in your left
hand and use it to scoop up the face-up dealt cards. Turn this packet face down and
drop it onto the face-down tabled pile at the left. Finally, pick up the AS with your
right hand and "notice" the three "total" cards off at the right side of the table, still in an
overlapping face-up row. Use the AS to scoop them up, turn these four cards face
down, and replace them on (or under) the balance of the deck. The stack is back in
complete (cyclical) Aronson order. If you use a tactile key for the 9D, you can easily cut
the deck back to original stack order.

Let me emphasize that this final step of inserting the Aces back into their proper places
in the stack takes only a moment and is done in a very nonchalant and apparently
inattentive manner. It's almost as though you're "tossing" or stabbing the Aces back
among the dealt cards, and it's natural that they would land or get stuck into the places
where the pile was most open or askew (i.e., the steps).
248 ~M DECKO

commEm5
(1) Background and Credits. I first posted this routine on my website in 2002
and also performed and taught it on Vol. 3 of my DVD set, Sessions with Simon (2006). I
learned "Henry Christ's Fabulous Ace Routine" as a teenager when it appeared in Cliff
Green's Professional Card Magic (1961), p. 48. Later I worked out my alternative layout
procedure that eliminates any need for undercuts and published that method, along
with other ideas, in my essay "Meditations on the Christ Aces" (Sessions (1982), p. 112).
An integral part of my layout procedure is a new way of dealing with the final Ace, by
secretly controlling the number of cards that are in the third packet. Dai Vernon's
description of Christ's classic effect did much to popularize this great routine (The
Vernon Chronicles, Volume 2 (1988), p. 242). My performance of this effect on Volume 3
of my DVD set offers some additional presentation ideas.

(2) Alternate Endings. Step 11 is my preferred way of discovering and

producing the fourth Ace-but it is certainly not the only way. Any of the variations I
introduced in Sessions could be applied to the Aronson stack version described here.
Indeed, the use of the stack adds an element of efficiency, because the necessary
"counting" of cards for the third packet can be planned beforehand, and the use of a
known key in the face-up spread as the dividing point for the final packet obviates the
need for any actual counting during the presentation.

Those who have Sessions will understand the flexibility of this procedure, but since that
book isn't in everybody's library, let me offer a brief explanation and an illustrative
example. When we initially laid out the four packets, the reason for my choosing to
divide the third and fourth packets between the 7C and 4H at step 5 was to control
exactly 19 cards into packet #3 (the three "total" cards at the top, plus sixteen more
cards which will ultimately go on top of the final Ace, thus controlling it to the 17th
position). By varying the number of cards in packet #3, we can control the final Ace to
any specific position we want for either a count, or a spell or an estimation or a lie detector
or whatever revelation you elect. (John Bannon uses my placement procedure in
connection with a reverse faro elimination in his "Beyond Fabulous.")

For example, here's a simple, quite different ending that illustrates this flexibility.
Suppose you know beforehand the name of one of your spectators, say, Ginny Aronson.
Her name spells with 12 letters, so if pile #3 contains a total of 11 cards (which will
wind up on top of the final Ace), then you could spell your spectator's name to discover
the AS. So, how can you control pile #3 to contain exactly 11 cards? The stack allows
you to plan this outcome beforehand. The stack runs consecutively from the top down
starting with the 3H (because during the initial layout we cut five cards to the face),
minus the Aces. Either a physical count or a mental calculation (before you begin the
trick) informs you that the 11th card from the top is the 7S. So, at step 5, just divide the
last two packets between the 7S and the SS (stack-numbers 19 and 20) instead of
 Ctttil5Htf)Ol'l501"1 AC€5 249

between the 7C and 4H (stack-numbers 28 and 29), and this will automatically put 11
cards into pile #3. You would then present the entire routine, exactly as written, but
11
dispense with the three total" cards at step 11. Instead, after spelling the AC at step 10,
say, Just as the Ace of Clubs knows how to spell its own name, the Ace of Spades can spell any
11

name. For example, what's your name?" On getting a response, spell G-I-N-N-Y-A-R-0-
N-S-O-N, dealing the cards into a face-up pile, and the AS will appear on the final letter.
This will also work (without change) if your spectator is named Mergel Funsky.

Here's one more alternative ending, where you apparently find the last Ace at whatever
number is named by a spectator. At step 5 just divide the third and fourth packets
between the 8S and the 3D; this will place 14 cards into pile #3, thus controlling the AS
to position 15 at the climax. Early in the routine ask a spectator to name a number,
somewhere between 10 and 20." At the end of step 10, by simply undercutting a few
11

cards from top to bottom, or vice versa, you can secretly adjust the final AS from its
position at 15 to whatever number the spectator has mentioned. Once this casual cut
and placement have been done, turn to the spectator and ask, apparently because
you've forgotten, "What number were you thinking of?" When she replies, count down to
the spectator's number, to reveal the final AS. (The simple adjustment undercut
maintains the cyclical order of the stack).

Experimentation will show you the flexibility of this procedure. Personally, I like the
Sesame Street patter and the use of the three total" cards, just as written.
11
T~e tlronton Stack Maket Cood
11 11

here's a classic plot structure in card magic: the magician accepts a challenge to

T magically find "four-of-a-kind." On his first three tries, he skillfully produces three
cards of the same value. Unfortunately his fourth attempt produces a card of a
different value, so it appears that he's failed. To save the day, the performer magically
changes the first three cards so that they match the fourth value.

This venerable plot is one of the more entertaining plots in card magic. Its longevity in
so many card repertoires is testimony to the inherent appeal of its basic dramatic theme:
hero accepts a challenge; hero" almost" succeeds but apparently fails in his final
attempt; hero comes through with a surprise success.

So it's nice to be able to do all of this with the Aronson stack.

EttECT

The performer offers to find four-of-a-kind-each of the four in a magical way. The
deck is cut, and the card cut to is turned over to reveal a Nine. The performer then
successfully produces two more Nines, but on his final attempt he fails, producing a
Two instead. Undaunted, the performer instantly changes the first three Nines to Twos,
thus successfully meeting the challenge of producing a four-of-a-kind.

W0MSll1G

To prepare, with your deck arranged in Aronson stack order, cut the 3C to the face.
You're ready to begin.
 THE ~l\Ol)50l'l )TACK "ffiAKE5 GOOD" 251

1) False shuffle, and set the deck face down on the table. Ask your spectator
Mergel to cut off about half, as you gesture for him to place his cut-off packet onto the
table. Without comment, pick up the original bottom half and place it perpendicular or
diagonally across Mergel' s cut-off packet, to set up for the Cross Cut Force. Explain the
nature of your challenge, "One of the exercises magicians do to keep in practice is trying to
produce four-of-a-kind, in different magical ways. I like to start with a random cut, so let's see
what we've got." This explanation provides a brief time delay.

Lift off the upper packet and place it on the table. Take the lower packet in your left
hand and with your right hand point to the top card of this packet, as you secretly
obtain a break under the second card. Double turnover to reveal the 9H on top, and
/1
announce that this means you're, going for Nines." Turn the double face down and
deal the top card (really the 2S) face down off to the side of the table. Dribble the left-
hand cards onto the tabled packet to reassemble the deck and then pick up the deck.

Note that you could choose a different force, instead of the Cross Cut Force. I'll
sometimes give the deck a cut, hold a break, and do a Riffle Force. Just make sure that
whatever force you choose doesn't disturb the order of the stack, and that it's easy to
perform a double turnover from that point.

2) Give the deck one or more false cuts (a double undercut works fine, or the
Frank Thompson Triple Cut described in "Thinking Inside the Box"), and explain that
since you're going for Nines, this time you'll count to the value, Nine. Count off nine
cards from the top, but to retain stack order, take the cards singly off the top into the
right hand, each going under the previous one. At the conclusion of the count, drop the
right hand's nine cards in a face-down pile onto the table. Double turnover the "next"
card, to reveal the 9D. Turn the double face down, and deal the top card (really the 2C)
face down off to the side of the table, partially overlapping the 2S. Drop the balance of
the left-hand cards onto the tabled nine cards, and pick up the entire deck.

3) Say, "We don't have to count to nine. Instead, we can spell nine." As you explain
this, give the deck another casual false cut. Then spell N-I-N-E, again using the same
dealing procedure to take four cards into the right hand, and drop them in a pile onto
the table. Double turnover the "next" card, revealing the 9S. Turn the double face
down, and deal the top card (really the 2H) face down to the table, overlapping the
other two Twos. Pick up the tabled pile (of four spelled cards), and replace it back on
top of the left-hand cards.

4) Say, "That's three Nines so far, one more to go. Do you happen to remember which
suit is left?" As you wait for a response, double undercut the top card of the deck (it
will be the 9D) to the bottom; this action should conform to the false cuts you've done
previously. Say, "We still need the Nine of Clubs. Let's spell its full name." Spell N-I-N-E-
0-F-C-L-U-B-S using the above dealing procedure to take eleven cards into the right
252 ~M DECl)O

hand, and drop them onto the table. Act triumphant, as you turn over the top card of
the deck Gust a single here, no further doubles are needed). It will not be the expected
fourth Nine-it will be the 2D. Look distraught, as you take the face-up 2D into your
right hand.

5) Suddenly remember the original challenge: it was to magically produce a

four-of-a-kind. Use the 2D to flip the three overlapping cards (supposedly three Nines)
face up all at once, revealing that they've now changed to Twos! You have successfully
produced all four Twos.

Restoring the Stack

Once you've finished the effect, it's relatively easy to get back into Aronson order. First,
replace the 2D (which you're still holding) on top of the left-hand cards; then, pick up
the tabled spelled cards, and drop them on top. With your left thumb casually push off
the top few cards to the left, just enough so that you can obtain a break below the third
card from the top, and square up. As you do this, pick up the 2H with your right hand
and insert it into the deck from the rear, apparently sticking it into the center of the
pack, but actually inserting it into the break. Pick up the 2C with your right hand as
you obtain a break above the bottom card of the deck with your left hand (buckle, or
pinky pull down); then similarly insert the 2C back into the deck, really inserting it in
the break, above the bottom card.

I don't have a convenient way to replace the 2S into its stack-number position directly,
so I just turn the deck face up and drop the 2S onto the face. I then casually spread the
top few cards between my hands so I can obtain a left pinky break immediately above
the 3C. Now a slip cut of the cards above the break will put the 2S into its correct
position. You're back in Aronson stack order.

(1) Credits; Sources. The underlying plot has a rich history in card magic, with
different presentations and different methods. Some of the classic renditions include
"Magician Makes Good" (Joe Berg, Tarbell Course in Magic Vol. 5 (1948), p. 126);
"Matching the Cards" (Dai Vernon, Inner Secrets of Card Magic (1959), p. 22); and
"Magician vs. Gambler" (Harry Lorayne, Personal Secrets (1964), p. 27).

It was Michael Vincent who first pointed out to me the serendipitous pairings of the
Nines and Twos in the Aronson stack, while Try the Impossible was at the printers.
Michael uses these paired cards to perform an excellent sleight-of-hand version of
Vernon's "Matching the Cards" (see his DVD set The Classic Magic of Michael Vincent,
Vol. 1, Disc 2). I worked out my present routine and showed it to Michael on my next
visit to London. The" Aronson Stack Makes Good" was originally published in MAGIC
Magazine, April 2002, and on my website.

My suggested spelling and counting productions in the text are virtually automatic, but
if you're willing to introduce some modest sleight of hand, there are many striking,
visual possibilities for producing each of the Nines; Michael Vincent's routine, cited
above, is a good place to start.

(2) First or Last. One key variant in the classic presentations of this plot is
whether (1) the final" odd valued" card gets selected at the outset but remains
unknown until the climax, or (2) the" odd value" is produced last, as the fourth and
final attempt, thus appearing as a mistake.

My personal preference is for option (2). In my opinion, producing it at the end has
greater logic and better drama. The presence on the table of a face-down "unknown"
card during the first three productions seems to me to invite suspicion or at least
curiosity-whereas showing it immediately to be just an indifferent value (a Nine)
mitigates against any apparent force. Having an unknown card chosen at the outset
also presents an illogicality: if it's apparently unknown, how would the performer
know which "four-of-a-kind" he's targeting?

Professionals are clearly split on this choice. For one more example of knowledgeable
magicians taking the other route, check out the next comment.

(3) Nonnan Beck's "Matching the Cards." Shortly after I posted the" Aronson
Stack 'Makes Good"' on my website, Jamy Ian Swiss sent me notes on an alternative
routine created by Norman Beck, with a touch from Jamy. It provides an interesting
counterpoint to my routine and shows that there's more than one way to look at this
plot, even within the constraints of the Aronson stack. It adopts the Vernon approach
of having an unknown card selected at the outset.

Let's assume that the bottom card of your Aronson stack (the 9D) is a tactile key (either
a short card or crimped or whatever). To prepare, cut your Aronson stack so that the
lOD is on the top (4D at the face). Then, secretly transpose (exchange) the order of the
top two cards (so the top card is now the JC). You're ready to begin.

i) False shuffle, and then obtain a break below the 9D via your tactile key. Force
the JS (immediately below the break) by your favorite method, and place it aside on the
table, unseen. Don't cut the deck when you remove the JS; the JC remains on top.

ii) Give the deck one or more false cuts. Double turnover the card you've
apparently cut to, revealing the lOD. Turn the double face down, and deal the top card
(really the JC) face down to the table.
254 i'.JM DECfiO

iii) Double Undercut the top card to the bottom. Double turnover to reveal the
lOC. Turn the double face down, and deal the top card (really the JH) face down to the
table alongside the other supposed Ten.

iv) Again, Double Undercut the top card to the bottom. This time, triple
turnover to reveal the lOH. Turn the triple face down, and deal the top card (really the
JD) face down to the table, with the other two supposed Tens.

v) Explain that this means the unknown card that was initially selected must, of
course, be the remaining Ten. Turn it over, but act distraught when it is seen to be not a
Ten, but the JS. Make a magical gesture over the three supposed Tens, and then turn
them face up, revealing that they've now changed to Jacks!

The clean-up to restore Aronson stack order is the same as used in my "Jack
Coincidence" (Try the Impossible, p. 213). Briefly, cut the lOC back from the bottom to
the top. With your right hand casually pick up the JH, JC, and JD, in that order from
the face. Your left hand, holding the rest of the deck, secretly obtains a left pinky break
beneath the top card, the lOC. The right hand flips its three cards face down onto the
top of the deck and immediately does a small packet slip cut of the cards above the
break (i.e., the left thumb peels off just the top card, the JD, as the right hand moves to
the right with its three-card packet and then immediately drops those three cards back
on top). The net effect is simply to place the JD back into stack position beneath the
lOC. All that remains is to cut your tactile keyed 9D back to the bottom and replace the
JS back on top.

This routine was posted on my website in 2002. Norman Beck had a somewhat
different way of beginning the effect, and it was Jamy Ian Swiss who suggested the pre-
set exchange of the lOD and the JC, which simplifies the procedure.
~ccen­
t__.ick.s
€CCEl'l-ThlCK5

The items in this section share one thing in common: I didn't know where to put them.
Some things just don't fall under neat headings or categories, so I've included them
here.

"Mental and Physical" is expressly designed to be used with a special wallet;

occasionally a prop can achieve a cleanliness, a hands-off isolation, that can't be
matched by any other means.

"Square Deal" necessitates a significant stack, but the climax it produces is startling in
two ways: first, because of the magic square's inherent properties, and second because
the spectator herself freely dictates the "total."

"Medium, Well-Done" is an informal piece for a couple who wants to present a brief
two-person mind reading test. But the underlying combination may be of interest to
cardicians, independent of its use for mentalism.

"Disillusionment" is a brief essay that tries to present- to lay people- the value and
fun of, and a reason for, not knowing a magical secret. It probably will have limited
utility, but it's the way I think about this sort of thing. I just wish I could convince more
laymen of its truth.
Mental and P~ytical

ometimes certain props can inspire particular routines. Like many magicians, I went

S through a period of "wallet addiction," buying practically every special wallet that
hit the market; many of them still reside in the backs of various closets. But some
wallets can accomplish amazing things hitherto not envisaged. I developed this
particular routine expressly for the "Time Warp Wallet," which Dave Solomon
marketed.

TflE Pf\OP

Himber-style wallets always held a particular fascination. The two fully separate sides
permitted switches, vanishes, or appearances, and such broad utility was seductive.
Early on-actually back in the 1960s-a clever Illinois magician named Ed Brown
created a novel twist on the Himber-style wallet: Ed's radical idea was to not have two
fully separate sides. Instead, in Ed's wallet each of the two secret sides still remained
partially visible from the opposite side by virtue of a clear plastic window on the center
divider. When opened, one side of Ed's wallet displayed the window, while the
opposite side had a fairly standard little flap, which functioned as a small "pocket."
The pocket could hold a playing card, and since the flap was only about an inch high,
most of the playing card in that pocket remained visible.

You may be wondering how it could prove beneficial to eliminate the completely
separate sides of a standard Himber wallet. The answer is that Ed Brown's "window
wallet" could accomplish a unique feat: it allowed two visible playing cards to secretly
change places with each other, both cards remaining visible before and after the secret
exchange. If the cards were back-side out, their appearance would be the same before
and after the secret switch. The pictures will make this clear.
250 AM DECtsO

Figure 1 displays this type of wallet with a card (marked A) stuck into the pocket flap.
If you close the wallet and reopen its other side, it will look as in Figure 2-the identical
card now appears within the window (in fact, that card is still under its pocket flap, but
its flap is hidden behind the window border). That's what the wallet does with just one
card. Now, let's use two cards, marked A and B. Figure 3 below shows a starting
position, with card A in the pocket flap and card B under the window. If you close the
wallet and reopen its other side, it will look as in Figure 4- the two cards have changed
places. Now just imagine those pictures 3 and 4 without any A and B markings, and
you'll understand why the exchange of cards is secret and undetectable; the "before"
and" after" look exactly the same.

Ed Brown originally used his wallet to present a very deceptive version of Alex
Elmsley' s "Between the Palms." When Dave and I first learned of the Ed Brown wallet,
I made a few rough mockups for us to play with, and we were fascinated with what we
could accomplish. Dave's recent resurrection of this window-wallet actually is a bit of
nostalgia for us; it brings back the days of our early sessions together. Almost forty
years later, David Solomon finally was able to market a professional version (complete
with a locking magnet!).

I think one of the wallet's strongest assets is the way its two visually different sides help
convince the spectator that a card is, and remains, completely isolated from anything on
the opposite side. In the following effect the particular patter lines subtly reinforce the
spectator's memory that his "thought-of" card has been isolated under the wallet
 ffiEl"ITAL AnD PffY51CAL 259

window from the outset. The procedure is straightforward and easy for the spectators
to follow, and the method couldn't be easier, since it requires no sleight of hand.

Get a duplicate of any one card (let's assume it's the 7D) and place it under the window
in the wallet, back out. Have the regular 7D on top of the deck. (You'll be forcing this
card on one of your spectators. It's important that you use a forcing method that
appears straightforward and simple; a classic force or under-the-spread-cull force
works well, but for simplicity and ease, let's use the venerable Cross Cut Force in this
description.) Have the closed wallet in view on the table.

WOhKH'lG

1) Shuffle the deck, retaining the force card on top, and have your first spectator,
Ginny, cut the deck" anywhere she likes." Comment, "We'll get back to this in a moment,"
as you casually place the original bottom half onto the original upper half,
perpendicular (the standard way of setting up for the Cross Cut Force). By having the
cut done at the outset, and then returning to it a bit later, you'll create a helpful time
delay.

2) Turn to a second spectator, Mergel, explaining, "I want you to use your
imagination. Imagine you're looking through a window, and on the other side of that window
you see an image of a playing card. You can imagine any card you'd like, but think of one
specific card, and make a vivid image of that particular card seen through the window. Got it?"
When Mergel acknowledges he's thinking of a card, say, "That's one way of choosing a
card- mentally. And only you know which card you're thinking of"

3) Turn back to Ginny and explain, "The other way of choosing a card is physically.
That's why I had you physically cut the deck, and you could have cut anywhere you wanted.
But you cut here." As you say this, lift up the upper portion of the deck and point at the
top card of the lower packet (it's the forced 7D). "Please take the card you've cut to, look at
it, and remember it. In fact, show it to a few people, and then place it back into the deck
anywhere you'd like. I'll turn away, because I don't want to know what card you've got." Turn
aside. When Ginny acknowledges that she's done, say, "Since you've physically picked a
card, you can get even more physical and give the deck a shuffle, so no one has a clue where your
card is." After Ginny has shuffled the cards, summarize, "We've had two cards chosen, in
two different ways - mentally and physically."

4) Comment, "Mergel, the reason I asked you to imagine seeing a card in a window is
because before we began, I placed one card in my wallet" - here, open the wallet to display
260 '1M DECKO

the card in the window side-"and as you can see, I put it under this cellophane window, to
commit myself Now that everyone sees that I have already committed myself, for the first time
tell everyone the card you're thinking of, whatever card you imagined." Let's assume Mergel
states that he imagined, say, the KS. Whatever card he announces, smile and say, "So
far, so good." Leave the wallet open on the table.

5) Address Ginny, "You also selected a card, not mentally but physically. And you
physically shuffled it back into the deck. So, before you say anything, I'm going to physically try
to find your card." Pick up the deck, and fan the faces toward yourself as you quickly
scan the cards to locate the KS (the card Mergel named), all the time looking at Ginny as
though you're trying to obtain some clue to help determine her card. Smile knowingly
as you comment, ''I'm pretty sure it was a red one, this one," as you remove one card from
the deck and toss it face down onto the table. Actually you remove Mergel' s KS, but
your verbal reference is a miscall, in fact describing the color or some feature of the
forced 7D. Table the rest of the deck, pick up the card you've just removed
(supposedly, Ginny's card) and tuck it, still face down, under the flap on the non-
window side of the wallet. Say, "OK I've committed myself to your physical card as well."
Casually close the wallet, leaving it on the table.

6) Ask Ginny, "Now that I've committed myself to your card, for the first time tell
everyone the card you physically chose." When Ginny announces it was the 7D, breathe a
sigh of relief as you mutter something like, "This is my lucky day." Open the wallet
(secretly opening it the other way, so the two cards inside have switched places), and
remove the card from under the flap (now the duplicate 7D), placing it face down in
front of Ginny. For the first climax, turn it face up to reveal it is indeed her physical
selection.

7) Finally, turn to Mergel and summarize, "Before we began any of this, I put one
card behind this window in my wallet, and only then did I ask you to simply imagine a card seen
in a window. And you could have imagined any card you wanted, whatever card that came into
your mind. And what card was it that you imagined?" Mergel reiterates that he thought of
the KS. For the second climax, slowly remove the card from the window side of the
wallet, and turn it over to reveal Mergel' s card.

commtms
(1) Sources; Credits. You can read more about Ed Brown's routine in "Between
Elmsley, Brown, and Himber" (Racherbaumer, Kabbala, Vol. 3, # 1, p.1). As a historical
note, Ed Brown's wallet was later the inspiration for David Bendix's "Bendix
Bombshell" wallet, which substituted a zipper in place of the window.
 ffiEnTAL MD PttV51CAL 261

An earlier version of my "Mental and Physical" appeared in David Solomon's Time

Warp Wallet (2010), in the instruction booklet that comes with the wallet. One side
benefit of Dave's wallet is that, by simply inserting a photo or ID card in between the
panes of the plastic window, you can convert it into a regular two-sided Himber wallet.
You may still be able to obtain Dave's "Time Warp Wallet" at his website,
www.davidsolomon.net.

(2) Dealing with the Duplicate. At the end of the trick, you're left with an extra
7D. Depending on what effects you plan to do afterward, you can proceed in different
ways. One possibility is to place both cards from the wallet back into the deck. At
some opportune moment later on you can either remove the duplicate 7D or use it to
advantage in another effect. Another alternative is to casually leave the 7D in the
wallet, thus setting you up for a repeat.

(3) No Duplicate Version. For those who don't want to use a duplicate, consider
the following variation. It even offers a plausible rationale for why the physically
chosen card is first put into the wallet, only to be removed a moment later. It follows
the same procedure and plot as written above, except that, in this version (again
assuming the force card will be the 7D), instead of placing a duplicate 7D under the
window as preparation, we'll place the 7H (the mate of the force card) under the
window. Then proceed exactly as written, all the way through step 5. At that point
you've apparently committed yourself to two cards, but Ginny hasn't yet announced
the name of her physically chosen card.

Look at Ginny and say, "I think I might have been a bit hasty," as you open the wallet
(secretly opening it the other way, so the two cards inside have switched places), and
remove the card from under the flap (now the 7H). Show the face of this card to Ginny
as you continue, "Don't say anything. I think I was very close, but not quite right. Let me try
to get it exactly." Apparently this is the card you just removed from the deck a moment
ago, and Ginny will see that it is, in fact, quite close to her card (the 7H is about as close
as you could get to her "chosen" 7D and still miss). Leave the wallet open on the table
(because the dirty work's already been done and the switch is complete). Without
pausing, replace the 7H back into the deck, and spread through the cards again (faces
toward yourself), this time looking for the 7D (the actual force card). When you find it,
remove it and, without showing it, place it face down into the non-window side of the
wallet, still leaving the wallet open on the table. Apparently you've corrected your
"mistake." Now proceed to step 6, saying, "OK, that's it. No more changing my mind."

Say to Ginny, "Now that I've committed myself to your card, for the first time tell everyone the
card you physically chose." The wallet is already lying open on the table, so you can
proceed directly to the double climax, as written. This ruse of using the mate as a "close
miss" is the same as in "Double-Ment." In fact, this routine follows that procedure
quite closely, except that the wallet allows the two cards to appear isolated at all times.
Square Deal

M
agic squares are fascinating. When an audience confronts one for the first time,
the sheer number of totals (columns, rows, diagonals, quadrants, etc.) are almost
guaranteed to be impressive. Their oddity, combined with the fact that many
people are intimidated by (and thus in awe of) mathematics, gives the magic square a
sense of arcane power.

Typically, creating a magic square is presented as a feat of skill-either as an amazing

ability with mathematics or as an exhibition of memory (or both). Magic or mentalism
can be "added" to such skill in demonstrations where the desired magic square total is
apparently unknown to the performer.

"Square Deal" takes a rather different presentational tack. It's not presented as trying to
form a magic square at all-rather, the magic square comes as a complete surprise at the
end of a fortune-telling reading. While "Square Deal" is quite powerful and surprising
in its own right, it has become my favorite application of another of my effects, "Signs"
(from Simply Simon). I'll first describe "Square Deal" as a stand-alone effect; then in
Comment 2, I'll explain how it can be enhanced in combination with "Signs."

€tt€CT
The performer offers to give a fortune-telling reading. Your spectator, Ginny, freely
cuts off a packet from a deck of cards, and the magician then haphazardly lays out a
rectangular pattern of cards, dealing from whatever point Ginny cut at. This layout is
used to deliver a humorous reading. The reading includes telling Ginny her "lucky"
number.

When Ginny counts the packet of cards she initially freely cut off, it exactly matches her
announced lucky number. For the climax, the performer then shows that the
rectangular card pattern is in fact a magic square, with every direction totaling Ginny's
freely cut lucky number!

SETUP
This trick depends on a prearranged stack of 26 specific cards. It helps to think of the
stack as comprising two sections. The first fourteen cards constitute section A: (from
top down) Joker, AC, 2S, 3D, 4S, SD, 6H, 7D, SH, 9C, lOS, JC, QS, KC (crimped). The
remaining twelve cards of the stack comprise section B: (from top down) SC, JH, QH,
AD, 6C, 4D, lOD, SC, 2H, 7S, 9H, 3S.

Set up the entire deck as follows (from top down): twenty-one indifferent cards, section
A, section B, and finally the remaining six indifferent cards.

1) False shuffle the deck. Obviously any full-deck false shuffle will work, but
since the top 21 cards can be in any order, this offers leeway for some real partial
shuffling. For instance, you can overhand shuffle about a third of the deck with
nonchalance and then toss those shuffled cards back on top. (You can give yourself
even more leeway by starting with a slightly different setup: just move the bottom six
indifferent cards to the top of the deck so that the top 27 cards are the indifferent ones.
You can then overhand shuffle this top half freely and then finish by shuffling six cards
singly back to the bottom. This returns you to the required setup.)

Approach Ginny, saying, "I want you to cut off half the deck. It doesn't have to be perfect, but
try to make the halves fairly equal." Ginny's allowed cut can be anywhere from between
21 to 31 cards inclusive; this offers a wide leeway surrounding the midpoint of the deck.
I find that my admonition to try to get the halves fairly equal makes my spectator super
cautious, but if she cuts too far off, have her replace them as you explain that fortune
telling requires the piles be approximately equal. (While not essential, I generally mark
the first eleven cards of Section A, Joker through lOS, each with a small pencil dot. That
way, when Ginny cuts, as long as you see a pencil dot on top of the lower portion,
you'll instantly know you're within the safe range.) Ginny retains the packet she's cut
off at the side of the table.

Ttl€ LAYOUT
2) You' re now going to deal or toss cards face down from the balance of the deck
to form a 4 x 4 rectangular grid or layout. It will appear as if you just deal or drop the
cards onto the table haphazardly, but in fact they will be laid out in a particular order
(which is the same for every performance).
264 AM DECt)O

First, I'll give you a quick overview of this layout procedure. You'll start by first
dealing four cards onto the table; then you'll pause momentarily. During this pause,
you'll casually cut the packet you're holding at the crimp. Then you'll continue dealing
twelve more cards to fill in and complete the sixteen-card rectangular pattern.

Because of the limitation on where Ginny can cut, the first four cards will always come
from section A. I'll refer to these four cards as the four "Keys" because they're the ones
that will determine the magic square's total (in all directions). After laying out these
four Keys, cutting at the crimp will bring Section B to the top of the packet you're
holding. The twelve cards of Section B will then constitute the rest of the layout and
will always be laid out in the same order and in the same positions in the grid. They are
the ones that form the basis of my" canned" reading. That's the overview.

Now, here's the detail. Imagine a 4 x 4 grid on the fig. 1

table. Pick up the balance of the pack (after Ginny's Audience
cut) and lay out the top four consecutive cards
(which we'll call A,B,C, and D) in order into the
specific spaces A,B,C,D shown on Figure 1. Your A
goal is to try to make this look haphazard, so that
these four cards seem to be randomly placed. To do
this quickly and to make it look casual, I use both B
hands so it looks as if I'm simultaneously dropping a
pair of cards. With the pack held in my left hand, I
thumb over card A into my right hand and drop A
c
onto the table in its position in the grid, as
simultaneously my left hand, still holding the deck,
thumbs off card B into its position. Then I quickly
D
deal C and D into position. Performer

After laying out these four Keys, pause and ask, "Have you ever had your fortune told with
playing cards?" As Ginny responds, casually cut at the crimp, bringing all the cards
including the crimp to the bottom (thus getting rid of the rest of stack A).

3) You'll now continue to layout the next twelve cards (which constitute all of
stack B) in a casual, seemingly haphazard order. In fact, I've arranged stack B so it will
look as if you're just filling up the empty spaces. The next two diagrams (Figures 2 and
3) have squares marked with the numbers 1 through 12. These numbers indicate both
the ORDER and the LOCATION in which you will lay out the remaining twelve cards.

For the first eight cards, you'll use both hands to place two cards at a time into their
proper places, dropping off two cards into each horizontal row. Here's how I proceed.
 )QUAl\E DEAL 265

Figure 2 Figure 2 (showing specific squares in the grid

numbered 1-8) depicts both the order and the
location where you'll drop the first eight cards. Start
2 1 A with the top, or most forward, row. Thumb off the
top card (it will be the 8C) into your right hand.
B 4 3 Then with your right hand, drop that card into space
#1 as your left hand, still holding the deck,
simultaneously thumbs off the next card (the JH)
6 c 5 into space #2. Move down to the next (second) row
and do essentially the same thing: thumb off the top
card into the right hand and drop it off into space #3
8 7 D as you simultaneously deal off the next card into
space #4 with your left hand. Do the same thing for
the third row and the fourth row. You will have
quickly filled up eight spaces. The pattern is easy to remember because for each row
you're simply filling in the two leftmost empty spaces.
Figure 3 Finally, fill in the last four empty spaces by quickly
dealing the next four cards, starting with the top row
2 1 A 9 down to the bottom row (dealing them into spaces 9,
10, 11, and finally 12, shown in Figure 3). I act as if
I'm just filling in whatever few spaces happen to
B 4 3 10 remain.

6 c 5 11
Set the rest of the deck aside. As mentioned, the
above numbers in the layout represent the ORDER
in which you fill in the cards. When you're finished,
the layout should look like Figure 4 (with all the
8 7 12 D cards still face down).

THE f)EADll)G
Figure 4
4) Although it's taken some space to
KEY
JH 8C A
2H describe the above procedure, in real time it only
takes a short while: Ginny cuts off a packet, and
KEY you deal out a sixteen-card grid. From here on,
B AD QH 78 everything is presentation. You' re going to do
fortune telling, or a "personal reading," for Ginny
KEY based on whatever cards "happen" to turn up in
40 c 6C 9H the grid.

KEY I'm incapable of giving any kind of reading other

5C 100 38 D than tongue-in-cheek, so I've planned my particular
cards to give me some humorous lines, complete
with puns and slight double entendres-but it's
266 ~M DECf)O

pretty easy to use cards or patter that match your own particular approach (serious,
bizarre, introspective, etc). As you'll see at the climax, only the values of the cards are
relevant to the magic square, so you can substitute suits or colors as you see fit. Since
the four Key cards will vary, they're not part of my stock jokes or reading, but
whenever you can create a special patter line for them, by all means do so.

To begin my "reading," I turn over all the cards in the grid face up, starting with the
bottom row (nearest me). I point to the relevant cards as I mention them. Here's a
rough script of my reading, with particular cards indicated whenever I point at them.

"The four suits reveal your fortune about four topics: travel, career, money, and romance. Look,
[SC] Clubs indicate travel, and the Five of Clubs means high-class travel: five-star hotels and
restaurants and visiting fancy clubs. On the other hand, it might mean Europe on five dollars a
day and drinking only club soda. You have a couple of clubs [6C and SC], which means a
moderate amount of travel.

[3S] "Spades stand for work, you know, digging. Good, [7S] here's the Seven of Spades. Seven
is a lucky number and indicates success at work- although it could also mean you'll file Chapter
7. Most of the Spades are low small numbers, which means only a moderate emphasis on work.
You've got other areas you value more highly.

[4D and lOD] "Diamonds stand for material wealth. You know what they say about diamonds
and women. [AD] You've got the Ace, which is the highest value, so that suggests a fair amount
of material success, and there are quite a few Diamonds, so you should be fairly comfortable.
Diamonds sparkle, and that may indicate that your sparkling personality is your most valuable
asset.

"Finally, we get to the real reason everyone wants her fortune read- the area of romance and
love. [2H and 9H] The Hearts are concentrated, which shows you narrow your focus and don't
spread it all over. You've found a specific partner [point to the JH or QH]. Someone who
wears his/her heart on his/her sleeve." (Additional optional lines: "I hope this doesn't mean
he's/she's two-faced. Be careful when meeting strangers. This man's carrying an axe." [Or,
pointing to 2H: "Looks like you've got a little twosome on the side." I told you my lines were
optional.]

At some point during your reading, you will announce to Ginny that the cards also
reveal her lucky number. You can instantly learn this number by simply adding "18" to
the value of whatever card occupies Key D (the lower right corner of your grid). For
this purpose, Jokers are 0, Aces are 1, up to Kings = 13. For example, if the value of the
Key card at D happens to be a 5, you'd say that the cards indicate that Ginny's lucky
number is 23 (i.e., 18 + 5).

Of course, you could also learn Ginny's lucky number by secretly adding up any
column or row (since, after all, it's a magic square), but why tax yourself with the
addition of four numbers if you don't have to.
 )QUAhE DEAi. 267

Precisely how you incorporate Ginny's lucky number into the reading is entirely up to
you. You may want to phrase it as a question, "Does the number 23 mean something
special to you?" And then go on to explain that the cards seem to indicate that 23 may be
a lucky number for her. If the lucky number happens to trigger some specific
association or shared tidbit of knowledge, you might reference that (e.g., here in
Chicago, for a period of many years, everyone instantly recognized 23 as Michael
Jordan's jersey number, so it was a well-known lucky number). I occasionally made up
a supposed lottery association, saying, "These cards say that your particular lucky number is
23. Amazingly, that was last night's Powerball winner. Too bad I didn't give you this reading
yesterday."

While it's tempting (and easy) to use the card layout itself to reveal Ginny's lucky
number, don't do it. Since every column, row, and diagonal adds up to her lucky
number, one wants to use this feature, but you need to resist such temptation. You
don't want to even hint at the upcoming magic square climax.

However you phrase the lucky number reading, just do it in a way that Ginny will later
recall what you told her.

Ttt€ ffiAGIC

5) So far, you've done some fortune telling (or some comedy), but no magic has
yet occurred. That's about to change, with first a minor climax and then a surprising
major one. Continue, "The cards say that your lucky number is 23 [or whatever]. When we
started, you cut off some cards. [Point to the pile off to the side to remind Ginny.] Why
don't you count the number of cards you cut, on the long shot ... " Let Ginny count her cut-off
pile. It will exactly equal the lucky number you told her.

6) We're now ready for the big climax. You're going to reveal that the grid is
actually a magic square-one that (amazingly) totals the number of cards Ginny freely
cut off. Continue, "That's an amazing coincidence. You could have cut off any number of
cards, so perhaps 23 really is your lucky number. But in fortune telling, the value of every
single card is important. The number cards are self-explanatory, and Jacks are 11, because
they're one higher than 10; Queens are 12, Kings are 13. Look, if we add up this row of cards,
the total is 23 - exactly your lucky number. And ... " Here, in an increasing crescendo,
reveal that the total of every column, every row, both diagonals, each of the four corner
quadrants, and even the four outer corner squares, add up to Ginny's lucky number." ...
your fortune is clearly in the cards."

(Offiffi€nT5
(1) Background and Credits. The magic square stack was originated by Bob
Parrish and Bert Allerton (in Rufus Steele's The Last Word on Cards (1952), p. 46). The
/1
Parrish stack used values only; I devised a pre-set reading" and revised the stack to
266 ~M DEC~O

incorporate specific suits, so that the fortune layout would always fit my reading (and
canned lines). Parrish's procedure required an overhand run shuffle, during which you
would run cards singly to eliminate the balance of the A stack. I felt this handling was
too cozy (and it occasionally required running ten or more cards), so I substituted a
single cut at a crimp. I also changed the stack's order to let you apparently lay out the
cards haphazardly. Ted Lesley first informed me about this effect. His full routine
appears in M-U-M, March 2002, p. 26. Ted revealed the spectator's lucky number in a
datebook (using a nail writer), and he added the fortune telling presentation and
incorporated marked cards to confirm you were in the stack. I first published my
version in my 2003 Lecture Notes and performed it in the show at the TSD Convention
in Chicago in 2003. I posted it on my website in 2005, with the explanation of how it
linked to my trick "Signs" (see Comment 2 below).

(2) Combination of Square Deal with Signs. "Signs" (from my Simply Simon,
1995, p. 271) uses a special utility that I call the Cross Index Index (see the section by
that name). I'm not going to re-describe "Signs" here, so the following will only make
sense to those who are already familiar with the Simply Simon material. Briefly, "Signs"
utilizes a secret index of small wallet charts that lists the twelve Zodiac signs and sets
forth data and information about each one. But by a special system of cross-indexing,
any of twelve different numbers can be "shown" to be the unique lucky number
associated with any of the Zodiac signs. There's much more to these charts, but that's
enough to give you an idea of what's involved.

This combination allows you to apparently predict the spectator's own Zodiac sign and
other personal information. Moreover, it will appear as if her lucky number was fixed
and determined by her Zodiac sign, even before she freely cuts the deck!

Here's a bare-bones summary of how I incorporate "Signs." As additional preparation,

I mark the section A cards with specific marks, so that as soon as Ginny makes her
initial cut, I can look at the new top card and know exactly how many cards she's cut
off. I also have my wallet handy, set up with the twelve Signs charts, per Simply Simon.

At the outset I ask Ginny to merely think of her Zodiac sign as she cuts the deck. The
marks tell me how many cards she's cut (i.e., her lucky number), and I then
immediately cast out twelves, to get a remainder between 1-12. This remainder tells me
which variable sequence I'm working with. Thus, if she's cut off 27 (as an example), I
cast out twelves (27 minus 24) and wind up with a remainder of 3, which tells me that
the applicable Signs sequence I'll be using is 27-Green - CJ - Earth.

I then start to deal out the rectangular grid, but after I've dealt out the four Keys, I
pause to make a prediction. I take out my wallet, remove my business card, write
something on the back, and leave my card face down in front of Ginny. In fact, I draw
the design CJ. This pause provides excellent cover for the casual cut at the crimp, and I
then proceed with the balance of the layout and the fortune telling. During my
"reading" I do not announce her lucky number, but I do work in the remaining two
variables (Color and Planet), e.g., in this example I might casually mention that, "The
 SQUAtiE DEAL 269

cards indicate that Green is your dominant color. Green governs your moods and emotions,"
and later, "Certain of the heavenly bodies govern our actions, and this suggests that your
decisions are ruled by the planet Earth." Of course, these comments mean nothing to
Ginny- but they will soon.

After I finish giving the reading about Love and Romance, I ask Ginny "for the first
time" to tell us her Zodiac sign. Suppose she answers Leo. I now have all the
information I need to apply the Signs formula, so I can remove the correct chart from
my wallet index. I hand this chart to Ginny, and now begins a rapid-fire series of
revelations that gradually convinces Ginny that something very weird has been
happening.

Here's my patter script from this point: "Hallmark gives out these wallet cards at gift shops.
They tell a bit about each astrology sign. Leo the Lion ... here, you can check. What is Leo's
dominant Color? [She looks and acknowledges it's Green.] Really? And Leo's Ruling
Planet? [She checks the chart under Leo and acknowledges it's Earth.] Could that be just
coincidence? Well, way before we began, I stuck my neck out and committed myself by writing
something on this card, remember? Every zodiac sign has a particular constellation symbol, but
it also has its own unique geometric symbol. What does that chart say is the symbol for Leo? ...
That little house? And no other Sign has that symbol, does it? Well, then it's more than
coincidence because I drew this. [Reveal the design you drew.]

"Something's definitely at work here, and I'm not sure what it is. Let's take it one step further.
Each zodiac sign has its own unique lucky number. What is the lucky number for Leo? [She
looks at the chart and says Leo's lucky number is 27.] And no other Sign has that lucky
number, does it? At the very beginning, you cut off some cards, while you thought of your sign.
And your lucky number is 27. Why don't you count the number of cards you cut, on the long
shot ... "

Then reveal the magic square for the climax.

I appreciate that not everyone will choose to make up a set of the necessary twelve
wallet charts for "Signs," but for those who do, this combination of climaxes makes an
indelible impact.
Medium, Well-Done

ince Ginny retired from her law practice, she and I have been presenting our two-

S person mind reading act, It's the Thought that Counts, more than ever. It's the most
fun I've ever had performing magic, but I'd be the first to acknowledge that, given
what's involved, it's a rare couple that will put in the time and effort needed to master
this kind of act.

I'm not going to talk about the workings of our act here. However, we're sometimes
approached by couples (or, more honestly, by the magician husband) asking whether
we could recommend some simple trick that a couple could perform together as a mind
reading demonstration. Nothing difficult, just something a couple might learn fairly
easily, to occasionally perform informally for their friends. And since my response is, at
bottom, a card trick (with an intriguing combination of methods), it certainly has a place
in this book.

€tt€CT

One of the more common "plots" for a two-person mind reading demonstration is the
two-room playing card test. Typically the wife (let's adopt mentalism' s terminology
here, and call her the "Receiver") is sent out of the room. Once she's gone, her husband
(more professionally, the "Sender") has a card selected from a deck of cards by one of
the attendees at the soiree. The card is returned to the deck, the deck is shuffled, and
then the Receiver is called back into the room. With suitable mind reading fanfare, the
Receiver runs through the deck and finds the selected card.
 ffiEDIUffi, lUELL-0011€ 271

TEST conomons

There are two different recommendations that I customarily offer, depending on how
serious the couple is and whether the Receiver is willing to put in some effort to learn a
sophisticated technique. For the very beginner, I give advice that's not worth extended
discussion in this book: I suggest that the Sender simply force a card (see Comment 4
for a few observations).

But there's a more sophisticated method that we ourselves used (years ago) at small
parties. It's quite deceptive because of the rigorous "test conditions" under which this
two-person experiment can be performed. First, the selection is truly free. Second, the
Sender himself need not know what the selected card is. Third, it can be done without
the Receiver ever returning back to the main room. One of your spectators can bring
the shuffled deck into the other room where the Receiver is waiting, hand her the deck,
and she can still find the chosen card without the Sender being anywhere near her.
These last two conditions particularly appealed to us in situations where we wanted
something that would subtly dispel or cancel the notion of verbal cues.

Card magicians will appreciate a more detailed description of the selection procedure.
After the Receiver is sent out of the room, our Sender very cleanly spreads a deck face
down between his hands for a spectator to freely remove any card he wishes (really).
When the spectator selects a card, the Sender sets the rest of the deck onto the table, still
in a spread condition. After looking at his selection, the spectator is invited to replace it
anywhere into the spread, square up the deck, and shuffle the cards. The spectator then
brings that shuffled deck to the Receiver in the other room. As before, she can look
through the deck and confidently remove the correct card.

While I designed this approach specifically for a two-person test, it could be used by
one person to perform a challenging card location routine. I won't leave you hanging,
but before you read on, you may want to think about how you might accomplish this.
Sometimes this kind of methodological puzzle produces new, offbeat solutions that
may be different from or better than mine. When you're through working out your
own answer, read on.

Our method combines a stack with a small bit of sleight of hand. More specifically, the
Receiver has to know any stack or arrangement where each card "keys" the identity of
the next card in the stack. For his part, the Sender needs to know how to put a crimp
into a card.
272 ~M DECKO

Early on I taught Ginny the Si Stebbins stack (because she has steadfastly refused to
memorize the Aronson stack). For this two-person test, virtually any full deck stack
will work. It can be cyclical, memorized, formula-driven, or whatever. As long as one
card keys the identity of the card that immediately follows it in the stack, that's all you
need. In fact, only the Receiver needs to know the stack; the Sender doesn't, because
ironically, he never learns the identity of the selected card until the Receiver reveals it.

The reason I've introduced a combination of a stack with a crimp is simply that, in this
kind of effect, you don't want to be crimping the selected card itself. There are many
quite subtle card locations/ discoveries where the method depends on secretly crimping
the selected card as or after it's replaced; that's perfectly acceptable in a card trick. But
under the test conditions given here, there's too much attention focused on the card the
Receiver discovers. One of the first things a curious spectator might wonder about is
whether that selection was somehow secretly "marked." So I think it's critical to keep
the selection itself "free from guile" (to quote the Professor).

Likewise, it's common in card locations to crimp a card adjacent to or nearby a selection
that is replaced. That's also a fine method in card discoveries, but such a placement of a
key card then hampers having the deck shuffled thereafter. I'm willing to pay the price
of ringing in a stack (for this kind of one-off demonstration) to get an extra layer of
deception.

Having mind reading powers is a very individual trait, so would-be mentalists should
concoct their own tales to tell. So, putting patter aside, after the Receiver has been sent
out of the room, here in bare-bones form is how I (the Sender) would proceed.

1) Introduce the deck. A false shuffle is helpful but probably not essential
because the spectator himself will be shuffling in a moment. Since the stack is cyclical,
it can be cut with impunity. Spread the deck face up between your hands, to show that
the cards are mixed and different.

2) Turn the deck face down and spread it slowly between your hands, asking
your spectator Mergel to point to any card he wants as it goes by. It's important that
Mergel appreciates that he has a completely free choice. When he touches one, offer
him the opportunity to change his mind. Once he settles on a card, say, "I don't want to
see it or even touch it, so please take it out of the deck." As soon as the card is removed,
that's when you secretly put a small crimp into the card that was immediately above the
selection.

I don't think it matters precisely what kind of a crimp you put in, or where on that card
it goes, so long as both (1) the crimp is fairly subtle, and (2) the Receiver knows
beforehand specifically where on the card to look. Here's what I do. As Mergel
withdraws his touched card, I slightly separate the spread at the point of removal, and
 ffiEDIUffi, WELL-DOl'lE 27")

hen I rest the right-hand section onto the left-hand section just slightly (for leverage).
['he tip of my right pinky (or, if you prefer, your right middle finger) underneath the
:pread contacts the inner right corner of the card that was above the selection and
)fesses lightly on that corner, thus putting a small downward corner crimp into that
:ard. (You may find that it helps to steady the cards if you rest your left thumb on the
eft edge of the card you're crimping.)

3) As soon as I've put the "work" into the card, I drop the cards on the table, still
n a spread condition. The spread may become slightly messy as I drop it, but that's
:ine; it just looks more casual and uncontrolled. I back away slightly and say, "I don't
~ven want to touch the rest of the cards. So, I'll turn my head away, and then please look at and
'emember your card, and then replace it anywhere in the deck. Next, gather up the cards and
5ive them a shuffle."

Allow Mergel time to do this, and before you turn back around, have him confirm that
his card is now lost somewhere in the shuffled deck.

It's a presentational choice whether to have Mergel show his selected card around to
others or to keep its identity just to himself. There's more audience involvement when
others in the room know the card and "share" in transmitting it, and it prevents the
possibility of Mergel' s mis-remembering the card. (Mergel, however, insists there's no
way he'll forget it, and he assures me that his memory is a lot better than mine-which
is quite difficult to imagine!) On the other hand, when only one spectator knows the
card, you can build up his personal role and make him the center of importance, as
everyone watches him send his thought into the next room, "because he's the only one
in the world who knows that card" (which, at that point, is true).

4) After Mergel has shuffled the cards, instruct him to bring the deck to the
Receiver, who's been patiently waiting across the hall. When she gets the deck, all she
needs to do is locate the crimp. Sometimes she'll be able to see it just by looking at the
edge of the deck. Otherwise the Receiver can spread the cards between her hands,
looking at the faces to see what card makes a "mental impression" on her. By glancing
at the inner non-index corners as she spreads, she'll eventually notice one card with a
crimped corner. And if she doesn't see it on her first try, she can casually rotate the
deck 180° and try for a stronger impression. As long as she knows what a small crimp
looks like, she'll find it.

Once she sees which card has the crimp, by virtue of the stack she'll learn the identity of
the selection; it is the next card in stack order. She can then remove the selection and
reveal it as she sees fit. (And she can, if she wishes, also remove the "work.")

5) That's where we'd typically end the experiment. Occasionally in a social

setting you may confront the demand to "do that again." I would personally resist such
274 AM DECYiO

a request and go on to my/ our next miracle. But if you want to fool everyone- or if
you' re diabolical and are willing to engage in additional preparation to set up a
subsequent miracle-believe it or not, this test could be repeated (see Comment 2).

commEms
(1) Credits; Sources. "Medium, Well-Done" first appeared in MAGIC Magazine,
February 1996, p. 63. I've been unable to locate a citation for the particular crimp
method I describe in the text (it's one I've used for years, but it's certainly not
something I originated). In the above MAGIC write-up Jon Racherbaumer, the editor of
the column at that time, refers to it as a Jack Merlin crimp. Merlin was a clever
magician who used crimps extensively (see, e.g., Hilliard, Greater Magic (1938), p. 57), so
it's quite possible that Merlin originated this specific crimping method.

(2) A Repeat; Deck Switches. Here's how this test can be repeated. While in the
other room, the Receiver removes the selected card from the shuffled deck, hands it face
down to the spectator who brought her the deck, and asks him to deliver it back to the
main room for verification. She remains behind for just a moment, waiting to hear the
applause before she triumphantly re-enters. During that moment of delay, she has
ample opportunity to swap the shuffled deck for a duplicate stacked deck that she's
carrying in her purse. She quickly runs through the new deck, cuts the deck at the
duplicate of the selection, and removes and hides that duplicate. She then returns to
her well-deserved applause, casually sets the duplicate deck onto the table, and takes
her bow. When the original selection is now replaced onto that tabled deck (thus
restoring it to a full-deck stack), the couple is ready to repeat the test.

Or, as a card magician, you're now able to perform your favorite stack tricks using a deck
that the spectators will remember that they shuffled. It thus becomes one of the more subtle
deck switches extant. People won't suspect that your innocent Receiver could be so
devious. Mine can.

(3) Variations; Alternatives. A Charlier shuffle is typically reserved for smaller

packets; it can look a bit odd when done with a full deck. But when doing mind
reading experiments you don't want to appear to be an expert shuffler; you just want to
look like you' re casually mixing the cards. Since the Charlier shuffle looks like a
random mixing, but actually has the effect of only giving the cards one cyclical cut, it
works quite well in this effect. You can find a good description of this ancient false
shuffle in Roberto Giobbi's Card College, Vol. 5 (2003), p. 1110.

I've personally never used daub to mark a card, but it seems like daub (think: pool cue
chalk, in a neutral color) should be a viable alternative to a crimp. The Sender would
 ffiEDIUffi, WELL-DO[)€ 275

apply the daub to the face of the card immediately above the selection, and then
proceed as in the text.

(4) Forcing the Card. For those whose spouses-here, I'm safely "gender
neutral" - are unwilling to learn a stack, a simple force will have to suffice. All the
Sender and Receiver need to do beforehand is agree on two cards, e.g., the Eight of
Hearts and the Jack of Spades, in that order. For an initial experiment, while the
Receiver is out of the room, the Sender forces the Eight of Hearts. The card is returned,
and the deck is shuffled and brought to the Receiver. She already knows what card to
pull out of the deck. And if requested to repeat the test, the second time the Sender
simply forces the Jack of Spades, and the Receiver can again discover it. If you attend
lots of parties frequently, it's prudent to occasionally change your two agreed-upon
force cards.

This method is only as impressive as the quality of your force. If you can do an under-
the-spread force, that's pretty clean and straightforward. At the other extreme, perhaps
you could get away with a completely hands-off force. You could shuffle the cards, put
them on the table, have a spectator cut the pack, and then explain that he, and he alone,
should look at the card he cut to, remember it, and then mix the cards. With proper
misdirection and time delay the.venerable Cross Cut Force might work. Those two
forces are appropriate precisely because they involve minimal procedure. That's what
mind reading requires. Don't even think about forces that involve dealing multiple
piles, or casting out nines, etc.

(5) Further Study. For those who want to pursue this type of effect more deeply,
there are many such two-person tests scattered throughout the mentalism literature.
Annemann' s Practical Mental Effects is replete with clever ways in which a husband and
wife can secretly code playing cards or other information; Annemann' s En Rapport is a
complete two-person act with valuable advice. Corinda' s 13 Steps to Mentalism contains
an entire chapter on "Two Person Telepathy." And those are only a few of the basics.

This is not the place for me to open up a broad discussion on two-person mentalism;
this is a card book. Perhaps a separate book focusing solely on the theory and practice
of two-person mind reading would be a better place- it might be titled It's the Thought
that Counts; that could be a catchy title for a book. Who knows, maybe someday ...
 t's easy to deal with a spectator who delights in the mystery of magic. When she sees

I something that appears impossible, she smiles and enjoys the illusion. Indeed, if
someone else in the audience tries to guess the secret, or starts to explain how he
thinks it was done, your appreciative spectator is liable to protest, "No, no, don't tell. I
don't want you to spoil it."

It's more difficult dealing with the opposite kind of spectator, one who voices the
contrary position: he just has to know the secret. While he may admit he's been totally
fooled, his curiosity produces frustration and nagging: "Please, just this one trick, I
really need to know. Come on, you know it won't matter, and I won't tell anyone else.
Why can't you tell me, just this once?"

How should we deal with such a spectator? What kind of response can we offer to the
spectator who sees the puzzle as paramount, someone who hasn't yet sensed the
entertainment value of being left with, indeed being immersed in, an innocent
conundrum?

I take it as a given that (1) we aren't going to reveal the secret, but also (2) we want to
placate him (or her, but it's usually a him) and certainly don't want to alienate him. Is
there anything we can say that diplomatically bridges these two goals?

For what it's worth, below is a kind of response I've tried that has had some measure of
success. It's an answer that appeals to the spectator's intellect-which, after all, is
what's bugging him in his quest to "solve" the mystery-yet at the same time shows
that you're sincerely concerned that he have a happy and entertaining experience. It
also shows that you've had experience with this situation, that you've thought about it
before, and that it has some interesting psychological and emotional substance to it-all
of which helps you to come across as a thoughtful performer.
 Dl51LLU51011ffiEnT 277

What follows is an expanded exploration of a few key ideas that clearly need to be
pared down and offered, if at all, in a nutshell version. It's a response that applies only
to certain introspective, open-minded spectators, and only to those whom you judge
might be capable of feeling the astonishment that we associate with magic. But in the
right circumstances, this kind of argument may prove helpful.

* * *

You may not realize it, but when you ask me to reveal a magician's secret, you are
asking, quite literally, to be disillusioned. Revealing a magical secret is actually
undoing an illusion.

Magicians create an illusion. Not just any sort of illusion, but a very specific kind of
illusion: the illusion that we can do something impossible. We all know that I can't, that
I didn't, really do the impossible; I only made it look that way. That's what makes it an
illusion.

That illusion of impossibility is a very special illusion, that few people get to experience.
Because the impossible doesn't happen in the real world. Ever. It only occurs in
illusions that magicians create.

But a magician's illusion is a fragile thing. It exists only for a short time; thereafter, it
may exist only in your memory. You'll feel that unique experience-the experience of
sensing something that seems to be impossible - only for so long as the magician's
illusion stays alive. It's a sensation of mystery, a gripping curiosity, an emotional wow,
an eye-widening surprise-all these are wrapped up in that sensing of the impossible.

The moment your mind learns the secret, that complex of feelings disappears. When
you know how it's done, that illusion will be lost, gone forever.

* * *

Think back over your own experiences, or perhaps to stories you've heard-where you,
or someone else, was disillusioned. Maybe when a kid is told there is no Santa Claus; or
when someone suddenly finds out his friend has betrayed him; or maybe when
someone realizes for the first time that his all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful parent is
in fact flawed, imperfect, or somehow damaged. In each example, the person who's
disillusioned is saddened by that experience.

Why? Because in each case, the illusion itself was comforting, or fun, or playful, or
happy. We have a good time living with, maybe even living in, illusions. But when
someone is disillusioned, when someone learns the truth behind an illusion, it's like a
balloon is burst. That happy illusion is no more; it's gone forever. Maybe you've
270 AM DECY\O

learned a truth, but the reality that's revealed may not be as enjoyable as the fun,
innocence, and playfulness of the illusion that you've lost. Disillusionment can be
deflating, saddening, downgrading, disheartening, demoralizing, disappointing, and a
host of similar sobering adjectives - but it's seldom fun.

* * *

If you enjoy witnessing the magic, that special, illusive, rare experience of something
that seems impossible, consider whether that's an experience you really want to lose-
because the price of such disillusionment is pretty high. And once you know the secret
behind the illusion, it's too late.
Vr-ed icti()D§
If you had predicted that there would be an introduction to the Prediction section here,
you would have been wrong.
PonJerin~ PreJictiom

P
rediction functions as an important magical effect in a basic, visceral sense - it's
everyone's wish that he could foretell the future. A prediction plot strikes a vital
chord; the magical power of knowing a future outcome or event can be an
immediate hook.

But since we're often self-labeled "tricksters," our audience is initially going to wonder,
"How did he do that?" It's only when we can bring our audience past this first
question, beyond thinking about method, that we can really begin building our illusion.
So while we're not here to discuss methodologies in the sense of considering specific
ways by which particular prediction tricks might be accomplished, we ought to
consider method generally because that's what our audience will first be pondering.

Lay spectators think in broad generalizations. For instance, if something vanishes, they
may not know specifically about holdouts, pulls, or topits, but they are likely to think,
"You hid it somewhere," or, "It's up your sleeve" - and that may be enough to satisfy
their curiosity. If you leave them with some possibility, however generic, then as far as
they're concerned, they've "solved it." One of my favorite magic thinkers, Darwin
Ortiz, points out one of the ways magicians think differently from laymen: "If a
magician succeeds in figuring out ninety percent of a trick but can't figure out the other
ten percent, he will feel that the trick fooled him; if a layperson succeeds in figuring out
ten percent of a trick but can't figure out the other ninety percent of the trick, he will
feel that it didn't fool him" (Ortiz, Strong Magic (1994), p. 23). Lay people may still
admire your skill, and they may still have been entertained, but you didn't" do the
impossible," because they "know" how, or at least know "a way," you might have done
it.

With prediction tricks, while we magicians know and can think about hundreds of
different specific methods, nuances, and subtleties, spectators will still think in global
generalizations. Without trying to set a hard and fast line about how spectators will
252 ~M DECl)O

"always" think, we can safely predict that there are (at least) two general, broad-based
approaches that will occur to most normal spectators.

First, a spectator will consider your "act" of predicting-your stating something, or

your writing something, or your placing a card on the table-whatever you do that
commits you to some claim about a future event. She'll wonder about certain broad
methodological questions: was that prediction really made at the time it was supposed
to have been made? Once made, could it have been altered or switched thereafter? As
performers, we need to ask how confident our audience is that the prediction, once
made, is fixed, unchangeable, and out of the control of the performer.

Second, a spectator will consider the" outcome," the eventual result that occurs (which
the performer supposedly predicted). Was it somehow "forced"? Who or what caused,
controlled, or brought about that outcome? The spectator's own choices or acts?
Chance? Was the performer an instrumental part of the cause? Were the events leading
up to that outcome fair, random, and free? Were the procedural steps clear,
understandable, appropriate, necessary, and justified?

A thinking spectator typically will think along both these lines, and it's our job to bring
her beyond this. How can we prevent, or cancel, or eliminate such thoughts?
Obviously we try to nip them in the bud by pointing out the restrictions we impose on
ourselves, the limitations under which our prediction is made and secured, and our lack
of control over the predicted result. This is helpful and important, but the fact that we
do this is a tacit recognition that the spectator is indeed thinking about possible
methods. And frankly, that's good. It shows that she's analyzing, which is a necessary
first step toward ultimately recognizing that what you accomplish is magical (or
impossible, or defies logic, or whatever you want to call it). There's nothing wrong
with her thinking along these lines so long as she doesn't stop there.

TWO €~Tf)Effi€5
Let's examine two classic prediction effects, both frequently performed, that isolate the
spectator's two common thought patterns. First, consider the classic "51 Faces North"
or "Open Prediction" card trick. In that trick, the magician openly names aloud a
specific card as his "prediction," and then a spectator deals through a deck, stops on
one card, and it matches the prediction. Second, at the other extreme, consider the
classic newspaper headline prediction, often performed by mentalists as a publicity
stunt for an upcoming show. There, the performer usually delivers to the host of an
upcoming show some kind of a container, supposedly containing a prediction sealed
inside. He instructs the host not to open that container, but to guard it and bring it to
the show. Eventually, at his performance the magician displays that day's newspaper,
with whatever headline happens to be the top story of the day. The container is then
opened, and a prediction inside is revealed (and hopefully is correct).

I've chosen these two specific examples because they isolate, to a stark degree, the two
"generic" approaches that a spectator will take. And the strength and popularity of
these two classic effects stem precisely from the fact that their conditions all but rule out
one of these two broad methodological approaches. Each of my examples goes out of its
way to immediately and with strong conviction cancel out one of the two broad
methods that would, even if only inchoately, occur to any thoughtful spectator. The
Open Prediction is aptly named; the performer begins by openly naming one single
card aloud. There simply can't be any question of the magician's subsequently
tampering with, switching, or changing his prediction. He said it aloud for all to hear.
264 AM DECKO

The point of the Open Prediction plot- and indeed the challenge accepted by
magicians-is that precisely because the method cannot (it seems) reside in the
"prediction" that is made, all thought is focused on the outcome, the result, and on the
clarity, fairness, and freedom of the procedures leading to it.

I selected the newspaper headline prediction example because it functions in exactly the
opposite way. Its strength lies in the fact that there is (apparently) no way for the
outcome, the headline of that day's newspaper, to have been forced, controlled or
known. The "news" seems completely dictated by chance events, or at least events not
subject to manipulation by the performer. (This is not always actually the case, if you
know a local editor, or if you predict a headline of, say, the morning after election
night.) In other tricks, outcomes might be controlled or known: spectators might
suspect that playing cards could be forced, that dice could be loaded, that "everyone
names red" - but no one suspects that a future day's headline could be manipulated.
And because of this conviction, in the typical headline prediction, no one ever questions
the events or circumstances causing that outcome (the headline). Instead, all of the
spectator's attention is concentrated solely on the fairness of the performer's prediction,
his written or recorded commitment: is it really inside the container? Is the container
really safe-guarded? Does the magician have any opportunity to switch the container
or tamper with its contents?

Naturally there's a potential price to pay for so convincingly cancelling out one of the
two approaches that our hypothetical spectator would instinctively consider: by so
totally eliminating one approach, we leave her focused on just the remaining "generic"
method. Such a one-sided focus is dangerous to the extent that it allows her to uncover
the real method.

Conversely, focusing on one generic method- even though it is the right method-can
ultimately be beneficial if the real, specific method is either so well disguised, cancelled,
or misdirected that the ordinary layman cannot discover it. Just because a spectator
starts down a path doesn't mean she will reach or see the end. The one "right" way
may be so hidden, so complex, so improbable, so difficult, or so counterintuitive that a
spectator-even if she tangentially considers it-will dismiss it as not plausible.

This last possibility is one that I've wrestled with for a long time in connection with two
of my all-time favorite creations. I'm talking about my "Shuffle-bored" and my "Prior
Commitment." (If you don't happen to know about either of these effects, don't worry;
the two following trick write-ups will bring you up to speed.) All you need to know for
this discussion is that both of these effects are, in essence, based on certain subtle,
almost self-working procedures that produce results that one wouldn't expect could be
controlled. In the case of "Shuffle-bored," even though a deck gets well shuffled by two
spectators, it secretly stays divided into two distinct portions (each of which can contain
any predetermined cards you might want). In the case of "Prior Commitment," two
 POroENf)G PhEDICTl0f)5 2~5

freely selected cards are secretly controlled to two known and pre-set numerical
positions in the deck, even though the performer touches the deck only minimally.

So, for both of these effects, I've asked myself (often): if I present them as predictions,
am I running a risk that such a presentation could be shrugged off with, "Oh, somehow
he just caused it to turn out like that?" (Or worse: "Oh, it must always wind up that
way!") Are there presentational steps I can take that will counteract such dismissive
conclusions? Are there alternative presentations, perhaps different from predictions,
which might not lead a spectator to think that way? A presentation isn't "merely" the
dressing that a trick wears, isn't merely the icing that makes the trick alluring and
intriguing enough so that a spectator will want to see it. While presentation certainly
ought to make a trick entertaining, it can also render it more deceptive by channeling
how a spectator will think about it.

Please understand that this present analysis is not simply about "Shuffle-bored" and
"Prior Commitment." Rather, I'm using my two effects as a springboard for this
discussion because I've grappled with these general issues for years in the specific
context of these two effects, trying various avenues to implement the kind of
considerations we're weighing here. The discussion below will have broader
application, to a whole class of prediction-type plots. My own preferred "solutions"
(described in the following two trick write-ups) are examples of how I ultimately
resolved these issues for these two pet effects, and, as you'll see, I come down quite
differently for each of them. But the reason for this theoretical prelude is because most
prediction effects are susceptible to this kind of analysis and can (hopefully) benefit by
the performer's being aware of these competing factors.

I ought to state a few assumptions or ground rules. Most importantly, for this
discussion I'm interested only in an audience of lay people, not magicians. Magicians
think differently from laymen, they watch differently, they bring different knowledge to
bear, they remember different things, they have different expectations, and they even
enjoy things differently. (It's of course true that magicians can enjoy a good
performance, even if it's aimed at a lay audience, but that doesn't mean they're thinking
like laymen during it.) So, my present analysis is limited to trying to anticipate how
and what an intelligent layman might think.

Second, it seems essential, in any attempt to posit how or what someone might think, to
first acknowledge that lay people are not all the same. There are a wide variety of
audiences and thus a wide variety of reactions, attention spans, backgrounds,
curiosities, etc. Drunks don't watch or think in the same way as do sober scientists, so
let's assume a lay audience somewhere in between.
266 ~M DECt)O

So, what specific techniques are available to help us strengthen our presentations for
prediction effects? In no particular order, let me mention a few that I've used often.

First, it matters a great deal exactly when a lay spectator comes to learn that a prediction
is involved- because until she does realize that she's watching a prediction effect, she
won't (can't) be thinking about how or whether the performer might be controlling or
forcing the (predicted) outcome. Consider two alternative presentations of a simple
card trick. In the first, the magician starts by writing something on a piece of paper and
handing it to Adam to hold; he then asks Adam to withdraw a card from the deck.
When the paper is opened, on it is the name of Adam's card. In a second alternative,
the performer starts by asking Beth to withdraw a card from a deck and show it around
openly to everyone. The performer then calls attention to the card case, which has been
on the table all along. The case is opened, and inside is found a playing card from a
different deck; it is a duplicate of Beth's selected card.

The thoughts, concerns, attention, and cautions of Adam and Beth will be quite
different at the moment when each selects his or her respective card. From the outset
Adam supposes that his paper is important and relevant, so when he is asked to select a
card, he's already on guard, already trying to connect his actions to the paper and its
message. He may be more watchful, more decisive, more ornery, or more protective.
And this, in turn, means he's probably going to remember his "card picking" procedure
more afterwards, just because he was on heightened alert during it. In the second
variation, Beth isn't aware of any prediction at all until the very end of the effect.
Nothing warns her about any "upcoming result," so she has no expectations, no
cautions, nothing telling her to be careful as she chooses a card. Her selection is made
without any "predictive" stage having been set. Nothing has happened to suggest that
which particular card she selects might be of particular, let alone vital, importance. (Just
imagine trying a classic force under each of the two scenarios, and you'll quickly
appreciate the differences.)

So we can refine our point: the moment when a spectator starts to think of your trick as a
prediction effect can make a huge difference. And, a fortiori, to the extent Beth isn't
thinking about prediction tricks until some later moment, that itself will affect how much,
or how accurately, she can later recall what has happened, when trying to reconstruct things.
Why? Because what we remember is partially a function of how alert and attentive we
are at the time of the actions being recollected.

That's why some of the strongest prediction effects are those where the prediction is
"hidden in plain sight." In that type of effect, the audience is unaware of any prediction
at all until it is ultimately revealed (usually toward the end or after the dirty work has
been done); but once it has been revealed, the audience concludes (possibly wrongly)
that it's been indelibly committed to since the outset. Because that prediction isn't
 PO()l)EhlflG PhEDICTIOfl5 207

initially recognized as such, it doesn't trigger suspicion or focus attention until later.
Such a delayed prediction can be enhanced when it's tied to, or part of, a prop that's
already been introduced into the effect earlier, apparently for a different but relevant
use or reason. A deferred revelation of the already-in-use prediction not only functions
to disarm the spectator from considering the method earlier, but also functions to add
surprise and theatricality- surprise because it is unexpected, and theatricality because
it is seen to have been intricately woven into the plot, to be a necessary and appropriate
place for the prediction to in fact be. (In "Prior Commitment" two Jokers appear face
up in the deck early in the routine. This appearance seems to be a comic interlude,
while secretly functioning to accomplish the one necessary maneuver. At the end, the
two numbered positions are shown written on the backs of these Jokers - this is the first
time the spectators realize it's a prediction trick.)

Second, we can take the bull by its horns. Even when your spectator does conclude that
somehow, you, the performer, must have controlled or caused the outcome, this may
not be a death knell. It then becomes a question of how your spectator feels about, or
interprets, such a conclusion. One possible reaction: it might give rise to a cavalier
claim, dismissively writing you off with her triumphant put-down, "Aha, I know how
it's done!" Or, quite conversely, such a conclusion itself could be part of her recognition
that magic, impossibility, is an unresolved dilemma within her mind. Somehow, you
must have made this happen, but I watched everything you did, and I saw with my
own eyes that we shuffled the cards freely ... etc. Sometimes the "impossibility" she
senses is her inability to reconcile two incompatible conclusions, both of which seem to be
indelibly true. That's the outcome we're striving for, and so as long as she feels and
cannot escape from both horns of the dilemma, we've achieved it. Yes, we leave her
with the conclusion that somehow we are in control of what has happened- and yet,
we also leave her with the perception that this experiment was completely "hands off,"
that we "didn't go near it," that the choices and options were made by her, i.e., that we
couldn't have controlled it.

Magicians, armed with our arsenals of skill, clever thinking, diabolical props, and subtle
psychology, can often defeat a spectator's attempts to puzzle things out. We can cancel
out whatever methods she might consider and can frustrate her rational attempts so
that she just gives up. (One of the factors I try to incorporate into tricks is to make the
method so counter-intuitive that, if it is even considered, it will be readily dismissed.
"No one would go to the trouble of memorizing the position of every card in the deck!"
or, "You shuffled and cut, and I shuffled and cut, so we know the cards were randomly
mixed ... " ) And when this works, we can still create a predictive impossibility. It's still
magic, because although she "knows" (i.e., feels in her gut) that somehow you did it, she
also "knows" (because she "was watching really closely") that there's no way you could
have. That dichotomy is a successful moment of astonishment, wonder, awe, or
whatever you want to call it.
200 AM DECKO

So, we don't necessarily need to dispel the conclusion that we caused the outcome to
occur. A perfectly acceptable response is to let this conclusion stand, but to counter it
with strong evidence that we couldn't have been the cause. All the lessons we've
learned about emphasizing conditions, being "hands off," acting innocently and openly,
using props that seem ordinary and examinable, and not doing anything that might be
suspicious or questionable (i.e., acting natural) combine to strengthen the other horn of
the spectator's dilemma.

(ffALL €r1G€ AnD LIKEA61LITV

There's a parallel phenomenon we' re all familiar with, of how the same "discovery" or
conclusion can nevertheless produce different reactions toward our performance.
Consider a close-up magician who performs a routine in which he magically produces
four Aces from an apparently shuffled deck and then at the end he produces, say, a
Royal Flush (or shows the full deck in new deck order). Complimentary spectator Carl
reacts enthusiastically, "That was amazing; you must be incredibly adept with your
hands. I wouldn't want to play cards with you!" But dismissive spectator Doris says, "I
know how you did that. It was sleight of hand!"

Have these two spectators reached different conclusions? Or is it rather that,

recognizing that dexterity and skill must be at the base of the effect, they deal with and
react to this conclusion in quite different ways? Complimentary Carl wants to express
both his admiration and his amazement that such skill is even possible. He's in awe
because he's never realized that such accomplishments could be achieved so innocently,
so artfully, and yet so deceitfully. Dismissive Doris thinks a trick is offered as a
challenge, a puzzle to be solved, and, perhaps being insecure, she claims to have
"solved" it by stating the obvious. The same generalized conclusion ("you're skillful
with your hands") might be felt either as admiration of the performance, a descriptive
statement of what one witnessed, or as a discovery of the secret.

What governs which way spectators will react? Virtually everything. Their personality,
who they're with or are trying to impress, what they're concerned with at the moment,
and a host of other variables over which we have no control. But there is one relevant
factor we do have control over: ourselves. One of the major factors governing which way a
spectator will react is, stated baldly: whether or not they're on our side. Are they for us or
against us? And that can depend on how we present ourselves. Are we friendly,
warm, comforting, helping, encouraging, self-deprecating, non-judgmental, etc.? Or are
we challenging, combative, superior, self-centered, critical, insulting, etc.? A spectator
is inclined to accept, support, believe, and trust those who they like, those who they
would emulate, those who give them a good time and make them feel comfortable.
Conversely, a spectator tries to "take down," challenge, question, doubt, and suspect
one who stands above and lords it over her. So, for predictions (and most magic), you'll
 PonDEhlnG PhEDICTIOn5 269

be thought more convincing if your success is the result that the spectators
unconsciously desire.

One more observation before we switch tacks. If the spectator is going to conclude that
yes, you the performer somehow are the controlling factor, the "cause" of the outcome,
the instigator of whatever magic has happened, make sure that the credit, in fact, goes
to you-not to the clever prop, not to mathematics, not to a stooge, not to a trap door or
a blinding distraction. This is an area where magicians and lay people do think quite
differently- magicians have a lot more knowledge (about virtually any methodology)-
but knowledge here can be a dangerous thing. Just because a magician will attribute
something to a stack, or math, or something "self-working" doesn't mean a layman will.
(Laymen often guess wildly and sometimes illogically as to what you can or can't
/1
accomplish. Witness how often you hear the cry of it's up your sleeve," or "sleight-of-
hand," even when your sleeves are rolled up and you don't touch the cards.)

Here's a personal example. I don't mind if in "Shuffle-bored" my spectators conclude

that somehow or other I must have done something to "cause" the final outcome,
despite it seeming impossible for me to have controlled it. However, I do mind if they
conclude, "Oh, it must be mathematical," or, "It must happen automatically." In my
original Shuffle-bored manuscript, I mention Dave Solomon's recommendation that the
performer should himself shuffle the deck a few times (even though it's not required).
Dave suggests such shuffles in order to add a (false) hint that the performer's skill may
possibly be at work. While I don't go that specific route, I'm fully in agreement with the
goal that we need to make it clear that we're in charge. I do want to act the part of the
magician, albeit mixed with a bit of humor and humility. Yes, I want to ensure that it's
me who gets the credit, but I find it sufficient just to smile and wink as I remind them
that "I didn't do anything."

DIUlftATIOft

So far we've explored a few ways of enhancing our presentation of predictions, to

undermine or overcome the ways in which our "generic" spectator may commonly
think about them. An alternative route is to change the nature of the effect and not to
present it as a prediction at all. While there are several viable plots that can be
substituted, it's important to recognize the tradeoff: if you're no longer predicting an
outcome in advance, you're giving up the specific hook of tapping into the wish that so
many people have, namely, having the power to "know the future."

The first and most popular alternative premise is to convert your prediction into an act
of divination or mind-reading (or even clairvoyance, in cases where the spectator
herself doesn't yet know the outcome). Again, consider our simple example where you
make a prediction and then perform your best, most convincing card force. Such a plot
290 ~M DEC110

could just as easily be presented as having a spectator select and look at her card, at
which point you would read her mind and divine the card. Or, if she selects her card
but doesn't look at it, you could wave you hand over the tabled card, receive vibrations,
and then reveal its name. Darwin Ortiz argues that prediction plots work best when the
actual outcome is, in fact, not predetermined, i.e. methodologically the prediction is
secretly made after the fact, via a nail writer, index, multiple outs, etc. Conversely,
Darwin argues that when you do know the result from the start, a divination
presentation is preferable, precisely to help hide the fact that you knew it (Ortiz, Lessons
in Card Mastery (2012), p. 176).

The 32-year history of my "Shuffle-bored" is instructive, in showing how people

(including me) have changed in their views on prediction presentations. In my original
Shuffle-bored manuscript, I discussed several different prediction presentations at length
(a completely controlled outcome, a variable outcome with a small index, etc.). But
although I explored such prediction possibilities, I ultimately recommended against
presenting "Shuffle-bored" as a prediction, for many of the reasons discussed above.
Instead, I argued for using a divination premise or a clairvoyance-type presentation (of
"x-raying" the deck) to mentally determine the face-up/face-down status of the deck.

Years after Shuffle-bored was published, both Ali Bongo and Aldo Colombini came up
with prediction presentations that were extremely entertaining, incorporating both
successive multiple predictions and a final prediction that appeared to be a mistake.
For the climax, the magician revealed that this "mistake" had itself been predicted, as
an" exception." This sequence of predictions incorporated both build-up, surprise, and
a magician-in-trouble plot, all of which added tremendous entertainment value to the
effect. Indeed, such a prediction presentation became so popular among magicians that
my original argument in favor of divination was somewhat lost. (A recent DVD
features a very effective divination presentation for "Shuffle-bored" - but the creator,
while praising my effect and its methodology, suggests that he didn't like the fact that
the original was a prediction effect, so he had decided to turn it into a divination!
Apparently he hadn't read my original manuscript.)

Finally, to bring the irony full circle, over the years I've changed my own preferences.
As the next trick, "Random Sample Shuffle-bored," illustrates, I've revised my priorities
and have adopted a prediction approach, but one that incorporates the "hidden-in-
plain-sight" feature. "Random Sample" introduces a small booklet that humorously
purports to be a "research study" on how people randomly shuffle cards. Only at the
climax is it realized that this "study" correctly "predicts" how this particular audience
will randomly shuffle the cards. The existence of a prediction is thus disguised and
becomes a surprise when revealed.
 PonDEtiinG Pl\EDICTIOfl5 291

(OllKIDEl'lCE

A second alternative premise or plot-when you're hesitant to present an effect as a

prediction-is to convert it into a "coincidence" effect. That's often my personal
preference, because I generally find a coincidence effect to be more deceptive. Let me
explain why.

Again, let's take a well-known effect as our example: Vernon's "The Trick that Can't Be
Explained/' (Lewis Ganson, Dai Vernon's More Inner Secrets of Card Magic (1960), p. 76).
In Ganson' s original write-up, a prediction of a specific playing card is written down,
the deck is fairly shuffled, and the magician eventually produces that predicted card in
a manner that (hopefully) appears to be governed by chance. Most card magicians have
experimented with that trick's open-ended methodology, but that's not the topic of this
present discussion. Shortly after I first saw Vernon's effect, I decided to present it as a
two-deck coincidence effect. I would have spectator #1 select a card from deck #1 but
not look at it; it would be tabled face down, unseen by anyone (including me) until the
climax. However, by whatever method I chose (a force, a stack, a glimpse), I would
secretly know the identity of card #1. I would then have deck #2 shuffled by spectator
#2 and proceed to have her "freely" select a card per the Vernon procedure. For the
climax, the two cards would be shown to match. (And, when a second deck wasn't
available, you could approximate this miracle by using mates.) My reason for
suggesting such a "coincidence" presentation is that when the performer himself apparently
doesn't know the "first" card, you undercut the typical "prediction" reasoning from the start.

When two choices or events or results are involved, it's more difficult for the spectator
to reason backwards (or to reconstruct) because he doesn't know where to start from.
Once the spectator believes that the tabled card #1 has actually been randomly chosen
and is unknown (and a good force, or a cyclical stack, can accomplish this), then the rest
of Vernon's procedure just won't be thought of as "aiming" toward a particular
"designated" end. Once the necessary starting point for prediction-type reasoning is
removed, the spectator is left without a focal point from whence to start his reasoning.

Now it's clear that there's a price to pay, a tradeoft when you convert a prediction to a
coincidence premise. First, of course, you need to add some additional methodology in
order to make the first choice or event appear to be random and unknown. Instead of
simply putting your prediction face down on the table, you'll have to construct an
additional "force" or peek or whatever; when there are two choices you have to controt
by definition there will be more trickery involved. Also, a coincidence may not quite
pack the same presentational "punch" that a prediction offers. That strong hook, of
having a special power to tell the future, is no longer there.

A coincidence carries with it a different feel that has its own strengths. A coincidence
effect offers the opportunity to show how two spectators can be in sync, or "united" in
292 AM DECKO

action, or harmonious in their choices, tastes, and decisions. That can in itself be an
effective humanizing presentation, even if it's not the direct, straight line of knowing
the future. A coincidence can often appear more spontaneous, more "in the moment"
than a prediction. A prediction by its nature means an outcome is somehow known or
preordained, and that in turn suggests less freedom. Conversely, a coincidence appears
less fixed; until the very end, no one knows what might occur, because it might not
happen at all. Finally, the "magic" of a coincidence has its own "hook" - it suggests
having the ability or power to overcome incredible odds; to "win" in a battle with
"chance;" to have random events "line up" perfectly in a way we could only wish for.

Indeed, the strength of a coincidence effect is proportional to the perceived odds against
its occurring by chance. And since many spectators are bad at understanding
probability, you can often misrepresent or exaggerate the actual odds you're apparently
surmounting. Part of what I find alluring about the classic "Berglas effect" (where any
card named by a spectator is discovered at any named numbered position in the deck) is
the fact that it seems so incredibly unlikely. A spectator gasps, "It could have been any
of 52 cards, and it could have been any of 52 numbers" - the combinations seem
astronomical! In truth, the real odds of success are just 1 out of 52, no different than just
guessing what card you picked. But the coincidence plot, with two choices, allows you
to magnify the appearance.
* * *
Which brings me to the end of this exploration of predictions. The next two effects
show you the results of my own re-thinking of two of my own favorite effects. In
"Random Sample Shuffle-bored" I've opted for a prediction presentation for a trick I
originally argued shouldn't be done as a prediction. You'll see how I've adopted some
of the safeguards mentioned above. In "Two by Two" I've gone the opposite direction.
I've taken my "Prior Commitment," which was quite successful as a prediction (it was a
television hit when it fooled Penn and Teller) and converted it into a coincidence piece
(where the odds really are over 2600 to 1!).

I hope you like these newer presentations, but of course I'm not arguing that you
should no longer use the originals or even that these are better. I guess I'm simply
saying an old dog can still learn new tricks.
~andom Sample S~uff le-~ored

f>ACKGhOUl1D

n my original Shuffle-bored manuscript (1980), reprinted verbatim in Bound to Please

I (1994), I offered many different presentations and alternative procedures. One

section discussed ways of presenting "Shuffle-bored" as a prediction, but at that time
I felt that other (non-prediction) presentations were stronger. More recent
developments and contributions by others over the past thirty years have changed my
thinking, and I've suitably altered my own presentation for one of my favorite effects.

One major breakthrough in making this effect more suspenseful and entertaining was
Ali Bongo's suggestion of multiple predictions, each revealed on successive unfoldings
of a piece of paper-with a kicker prediction filling up the entire sheet of paper when it
was fully unfolded. Aldo Colombini came up with a similar presentation. Strong as
this is, I nevertheless felt it had a potential weak spot. Their performance began by
showing the prediction at the start. I think it's unwise to announce beforehand that the
paper contains a prediction. That changes the tenor of the trick and focuses the attitude
and expectations of your audience in exactly the wrong way- because once the
spectators understand that a prediction has been made, they will think about the
ensuing shuffling procedures differently, focusing on them with an eye toward a
possible controlled, forced, or planned outcome. It would be preferable to avoid such a
mental orientation; ideally, the spectators should blithely randomize the cards without
any awareness of any prediction. Only later will they realize that a prediction has been
made.

That's why, in my opinion, the best predictions come as surprises. But the surprise
ought to be Aristotelian in nature: once it is revealed, the audience should recognize it
as a natural outgrowth of events that preceded it. The audience should realize with
hindsight that the prediction was clearly foreshadowed by, even organically tied to, the
294 AM DECtsO

earlier steps. The surprise is not only dramatic, but is appreciated precisely because it is
seen to be exactly what should have been expected. At that point, it's too late for the
spectator to backtrack or apply retrograde analysis, yet the fact that the prediction has
been in full view negates alternative predictions or multiple outs.

I wanted to apply this concept of surprise to "Shuffle-bored" and for a long time tried to
think of a presentation for the folded paper that would allow me to have it out in the
open from the start, but not to label or describe it as a prediction. The "Market
Research" theme provided the key that allows this.

TflE f>OOKLET tOLD

One further improvement also bears on the issue of surprise. Ali Bongo's original
folded paper prediction was simply a sheet of paper that was repeatedly folded in half
until it was 1/8th its starting size. Since such a prediction paper doubles in size on each
unfolding, it becomes somewhat obvious that additional predictions will be
forthcoming on each further unfolding, until the paper is fully opened. Such
anticipation is a presentational weakness, mitigating surprise at the final prediction.

The new booklet fold employed here helps

1 solve that problem. Let's take a closer look at
the way the paper is folded, and how each
subsequent revelation gets displayed. We'll
start out with an 8112 x 11 inch sheet, with
printing on both sides as depicted on the two
pages following this write-up. You can
recreate this with any word processor, or you
could photocopy those two pages, double-
sided. (I'll try to post a download of these
two pages on my website for convenience.)
2 Once we're finished with the cutting and
folding, it will look like a little paper booklet,
approximately 2 %" x 4 %",with a title on the
cover (shown in Figure 1). The humorous
title Market Research on Random Shuffles
doesn't let the spectators know that it
contains a prediction. This "booklet" will
open normally, i.e., bookwise, to display a
two-page spread on which the First
Demographic level result (i.e., the first
prediction) is written (Figure 2). By turning to the next page in the folded booklet, the
Second Demographic level result is seen, and similarly, the next turn of a page displays
 f)Al)DOm SAmPL€ SffUttlE-~OhED 295

the Third Demographic level result. Notably, with this particular "fold" all three page
spreads are the same size, exactly what would be expected for this size booklet. There's no
visual or advance hint that there's more to come or that the inside of the paper might
contain yet a final prediction.

SGINIOW-VIG
:110
XIS

It's actually quite easy to construct this prediction booklet, but a bit complicated to
describe. We'll start by first putting the folds into the paper in their proper positions.
Lay the paper on a table, with the "Six of Diamonds" side face up, but oriented so the
writing is upside down as you look at it (Figure 3). Fold the right half of the sheet over
to the left (Fold #1, Figure 4), so the right edge meets the left edge, thus halving the size
of the paper lengthwise, and press in this crease (Figure 5). Next fold the top half of the
paper down toward you, so the top edge
meets the bottom edge, once again halving
the size of the paper (Fold #2, Figure 6).
Finally, fold the top half of the folded
packet down toward you again (Figure 7),
so the top edge meets the bottom edge,
once again halving the size of the paper
(the creases created by this fold are Fold#
3). The resulting packet will be 1/8th of
the size of the original sheet and should
look like Figure 1.
296 AM DECl)O

But we're not quite finished. We still need a

few more adjustments so that each of the
three page spreads can be opened
separately, one after the other, in normal
book fashion. Squeeze each of the creases to
firmly mark their positions into the sheet.
Now, reopen the sheet to its full size, and
place it on the table just as you started. On
Figure 8 I've indicated two points, A and B
(located at the two places where Fold #1
intersects Fold #3). With a sharp pair of
scissors or a knife, carefully cut a slit in the
paper, exactly along Fold #1, but only from
point A to point B (Figure 9). Make sure the
cut is sharp and clean, so no ragged edges
are left.

We're now ready to refold the paper into

booklet format. To do this, we're going to
use the fold lines we created earlier, but we
need to "refold" a couple of them so they
fold in the opposite direction (in origami
jargon, we' re going to change some
mountain folds to valley folds and vice
versa). Here's how. Put the paper on the
table in its original starting position. Fold
the right side over to the left, along Fold #1
Gust as we did in Figures 4 and 5). Now
comes the crucial step: pull Fold #2 of just
the upper portion of the sheet upward, toward
you, to reverse the direction of that middle
fold (from a valley fold to a mountain fold).
The cut you made allows this upper side to
pull away and separate from the underside
of the sheet, on either side of this middle fold
(Figure 10). Continue to pull this middle
fold toward you and down (Figure 11) until
it meets the bottom edge of the paper (Figure
12); the sheet is now folded in quarters.
Finally, fold the top half of the packet down
toward you, so the top edge meets the
bottom edge (Figure 13). Give the packet a
 f\A11DOffi SAffiPLE SHUttLE-bOf\ED 297

quarter turn counterclockwise on the table,

and the finished booklet will be facing you, 12
with the Market Research title on the cover.

If you've folded it correctly, you should be

able to open the cover bookwise and view
the first page-spread (Demographic Level l,
as in Figure 2). By turning the next "page"
of the booklet (it's actually a double
thickness of paper, held together at the top),
you'll display Demographic Level 2 (Figure
14). By turning to the third page-spread 13
you'll display Demographic Level 3 (Figure
15). In performance, at the climax of the
effect, after you've revealed Demographic
Level 3, you will unfold the paper fully, for
the final kicker (see step 9 below).

Once created, the booklet can be used

repeatedly by simply refolding it into
booklet form. ·

14
SETUP Ot DECK

The deck needs to be divided into two

groups. One group consists of any sixteen
black cards, any six Hearts, and the Six of
Diamonds. Let's call the cards in this 23-
card portion the "Target" cards. The Target
cards may be in any order. The other
portion simply comprises the remaining 29
unused cards (the "Remainder"). Note and 15
remember the face card of the Target
portion as a key. Drop the Target cards on
top of the Remainder to reassemble the
deck, and you're ready to perform.

For those who use the Aronson stack,

there's an easy way to transition directly
from the Aronson stack into this Random
Sample Shuffle-bored stack, with just one cut (see Comment 4).
296 AM DECISO

WOhKll1G

1) Have the deck on the table and the booklet in your pocket. Explain, "I'll let
you in on one of the most important secrets of magic: knowing how people behave. For example,
imagine how valuable it would be if you could know beforehand how people will shuffle cards. In
fact, such information is so crucial that magicians have actually commissioned a market research
study to find out what happens when ordinary people randomly shuffle cards." Introduce the
booklet, showing only the front to display its title. Leave it on the table. "This study
examined thousands of random samples of shuffling, and here are the results."

As you continue speaking, give the deck a couple of casual shuffles that maintain the
divided deck setup and the position of the key card. Since the cards within each half
can be legitimately mixed, you have much leeway; a jog shuffle or a couple of Ireland
shuffles work fine. Casually spread the faces toward your helpers to display the
randomness of the cards; as you do, spot your key card and injog it slightly. Square the
cards and place the deck face down on the table. "Here, let's try an experiment. I need two
people who know how to shuffle, perhaps some bridge or poker players. We can conduct a
random trial right now. Under test market conditions, the two of you, Ginny and Mergel, will
randomly shuffle this deck. In fact, we'll randomize the cards in every way we can imagine."
Try to select two helpers who know how to riffle shuffle on the table. While not
essential, I've found that there's less risk of a spectator failing to follow your
instructions or inadvertently messing things up when the cards are kept on the table.
(As an alternative, you may want to try Lennart Green's "Rosette Shuffle.")

2) Casually cut the deck into two piles by lifting up at the injog. "Each of you can
use about half the deck. In card games the rules require that you shuffle on the table, like this."
Here, take either one of the two halves and demonstrate a table riffle shuffle. Then give
each of your two helpers, Ginny and Mergel, one of the halves. It doesn't matter who
gets which half, but you must remember who gets the Target pile. Let's assume Ginny
gets the Target cards. "So why don't each of you give your cards a shuffle." Have Ginny
and Mergel each table his shuffled half face down. "Those look pretty random, but we're
going to randomize the cards much more."

3) Your helpers will now proceed to totally mix the deck into a face-up/ face-
down mess by performing a random-appearing series of cuts, turnovers, exchanges,
and shuffles. But you will instruct them at each stage, as follows:

a) Ask each helper to cut his half into two piles.

b) Ask each helper to turn over either one of his two piles.
 f)Aooom SAmPI.E SflUttlE-f>Ot.ED 299

c) Exchange the two piles that were just turned over. Mergel gets the pile that Ginny
turned over, while Ginny receives the pile that Mergel turned over. Each helper now
still has two piles in front of him (one he started with, and a turned-over pile that came
from the other helper). To coordinate things (and speed it up), I typically perform this
exchange myself. I simply reach over with both hands, pick up the two just-turned-
over piles, and cross my arms, placing a pile in front of each helper.

d) Ask each helper to shuffle his (or her) two piles together. This mixes the face-up
cards into the face-down ones. (If either helper desires, he can then give his respective
half another shuffle (or more) to further randomize the face-up cards among the face-
down ones, so long as he doesn't turn over any additional cards. Although it's nice to
have this flexibility, I've found it's not really necessary, given the repeats coming up in
step 4.)

An option. When Ginny and Mergel have each finished shuffling, you can spread their
halves across the table to display the random face-up/ face-down condition of each half.
One further option: to speed things up, I'll sometimes help one or both of my helpers
with the shuffles, or perform them myself. But make it clear that you're not doing
anything furtive, just shuffling two piles together.

In the above sequence of steps (a - d) there are many places where Ginny and Mergel do
indeed have a free choice (e.g., how many cards get cut at step (a), which pile gets
turned over at step (b), how many times the cards get shuffled at step (d)), and you
should make the most of emphasizing this randomness, "Each resulting pile is mixed face-
up and face down, and no one could possibly know how many cards are in either pile, or which
cards are face up, or where the face-up cards fall!" (All of which is true!)

4) But you're not finished. Believe it or not, your helpers can now perform steps
a-d again (and again and again, but that would be overkill). I find one repetition really
sells the randomness. Just follow steps a-d again, to further mix the cards. Caveat: you
need to be attentive and careful. On this second time around, since each pile already
contains face-up and face-down cards, it's possible (at step (a) or step (b)) that one or
more face-up cards may appear on top of a pile. This is perfectly fine, but you need to
note (and remember) which of the piles was turned over at step (b) so you'll know which
two piles to exchange between your helpers. Remember the rule: you must exchange
the two turned-over piles (regardless of where face-up or face-down cards happen to
show up).

5) Ginny and Mergel each have approximately half the deck in front of them.
Continue, "We said that the two of you would shuffle the entire deck, so let's put those halves
together. But to randomize things further, Ginny, why don't you turn over your complete half
one more time." Why did we ask Ginny to turn her half over, instead of Mergel? Because
way back at step 2 we remembered that it was Ginny who received the Target cards.
)00 ~M DECtsO

The rule at this point is simply that whichever helper initially got the Target half is the
person who turns over their half. (This final turnover is, in fact, the crucial turnover
that "cancels out" all of the previous randomization created by the reversals, exchanges,
and shuffles at steps (a-d). That's why, in my original "Shuffle-bored" manuscript, I
dubbed this entire procedure the "Cancellation Combination.")

Once Ginny has turned her half over, have either Mergel or Ginny shuffle the two
halves together, to reassemble one complete, very mixed-up deck. Again, to speed
things up, I'll often do this final shuffle for them.

6) We're now ready to reveal a series of amazing climaxes. By this time your
helpers may have forgotten about the little booklet that's been lying in view on the
table, so pick it up and display its cover again as you remind them, "Now you've got to
admit that your shuffles are about as random as you can get. And that's exactly what this
research deals with, random shuffles. In fact, this research was so extensive, so scientific, that it
was done at three different demographic levels." Here, open the cover of the booklet to
display the first page spread. Show it around, as you explain, "The first level studied the
General Population at Large, everyone who ever shuffles cards. That certainly includes the two
of you! Look, the study found that over 50% of the General Population will randomly shuffle
exactly 23 cards face up. Let's check." Pick up the deck and rapidly deal it into two piles
onto the table, separating the face-up cards from the face-down ones. Count aloud as
you deal each face-up card, and the suspense and awe will grow as you near the bottom
of the deck. Make sure you deal cleanly and openly, so there's no suspicion of any
tricky dealing. When you've separated the entire deck, there will be exactly 23 cards
face up! (In fact, as a result of the Cancellation Combination, the Target cards-and
only the Target cards-will be face up!) Your audience will be stunned by this first
climax, but there's more.

7) Continue, "Well, the research seems accurate, as far as it goes, but of course, this
might just have been a coincidence. To be really scientific this study tested even deeper." Turn
the next page of the booklet to display the second reported Demographic level. "You
see, because magicians commissioned this study, we were very interested in how one specific
group of people shuffle. Not just anyone, not people in general, but just those people who are
sophisticated and clever enough to watch magic. So, the research gets much more specific ... "
Here, read the result, " ... among audiences who watch magic, over 75% will randomly shuffle
so that the face-up pile has exactly 16 black cards. Let's check again." Pick up the face-up pile
and rapidly deal it into two piles, separating the black cards from the red ones. Count
aloud as you deal each black card, and you'll find exactly 16 black cards, just as the
research study reported! (As your audience absorbs this second climax, note the
uppermost card of the face-up red pile. If it happens to be the 6D, casually cut the red
pile once without comment, to bury the 6D somewhere within. This preserves the
drama of the third climax.)
 f)~moom SAmPLE SHUttLE-f>OhED )01

A small point: I've consciously chosen to have this second prediction deal with the
black cards, instead of the red ones. Since the upcoming third climax deals with the red
cards, a focus on the black cards during this second stage keeps the attention off the
face-up red cards, so there's less chance of anyone noting that almost all of the reds are
of the same suit.

8) Continue, "This is really a precise study. But there's still one more group that
magicians are interested in. Not just our entire audience, but what about those specific
participants who come up here to help? So, this research studied a third demographic level."
Turn the next page to display the third research result. "This tells us what is likely to
happen when two discriminating, intelligent helpers randomly shuffle." This generally brings
a chuckle, as your helpers realize they are being praised. "In those cases, according to this
research, the face-up red cards will all be Hearts. Take a look." Confidently push the pile of
seven face-up red cards toward Ginny, gesturing for her to check that they are all
Hearts. Don't look at the cards yourself as she does, and simply smile confidently, as
though the correct result is a foregone conclusion. When she points out that there's one
miss, the 6D, act a bit confused and mutter, "Well, almost all ... " Then, display the
Demographic Level 3 page again, as if searching for a way out of this disappointment.

9) Hold up the offending 6D, as you offer a lame excuse, "Well, I guess no research
is pe1ject ... but wait," - here, glance back and forth at Ginny and Mergel - "that result
was for discriminating, intelligent people." Pause at your own joke, but then quickly
acknowledge, ''I'm only kidding. You two are obviously discriminating; you're watching me,
after all. And there's no question that you both shuffled the hell out of those cards - we all
watched you ourselves. But look, it says 99.3 % of the time, so there's still some wiggle room.
These statistical studies always leave a margin of error."

You'll now unfold the entire sheet of paper and display the inside, to reveal the final
research result: your research has even predicted the errant Six of Diamonds! For
maximum impact I do this in two quick steps. I first unfold it in half (as in Figure 16),
/1
and immediately give the paper a quarter turn, so the spectators can read the statistical
margin of error" message (as in Figure 17). After a one-beat pause, I pull the ends of the
paper apart (as in Figure 18), revealing the inside of the full sheet, thus displaying the
final kicker. Don't try to hide the slit; it's not supposed to be a secret. However, if you
hold the fully-opened paper taut (Figure 19), the slit won't be too visible.

Your audience should appreciate this final climax, and the fully opened paper indicates
that nothing else is hidden and that the effect is over. "Thanks for helping support our
research."
commEm5
(1) Credits; Sources. "Random Sample Shuffle-bored" was first published in
MAGIC Magazine (August 2003). I also performed and taught it on Volume 2 of my
DVD set Sessions with Simon (2006).

So many magicians have played around with "Shuffle-bored" over the years that it's
impossible to acknowledge everyone's contribution. My original Shuffle-bored
manuscript (1980), reprinted in Bound to Please (1994)) mentions Charles Hudson and
Bob Hummer as my inspiration and starting point. Their predecessor effects, however,
had a significant limitation because the two spectators had to agree on one number, and
both helpers were required to reverse that same number of face-up cards. I worked out
a way to allow the numbers to be different, which provides a freer handling and
significantly adds to the random appearance. I then added a number of other features,
including an optional stack that allowed the spectators themselves to perform the initial
cut. Later Harry Lorayne re-popularized the effect, and Harry deserves credit for
speeding up the mixing procedure and for suggesting that it be repeated.

I offered a quite different prediction presentation of "Shuffle-bored" as the climax of a

three-phase betting routine, in my "Point Spread" (Simply Simon, p. 3). I still consider
"Point Spread" a particularly sophisticated use of the principle, since the spectators
thoroughly shuffle the cards throughout the first two phases. My session conu-ade,
John Bannon, and I have been brainstorming the notion of surprise for a number of
years, and John's "Wait Until Dark," in his Dear Mr. Fantasy (2004), is a constructive
way of applying surprise to a prediction for "Shuffle-bored." The multistage folded
paper prediction concept is the brainchild of Ali Bongo. Bob Sheets is the genius behind
two crucial elements of "Random Sample Shuffle-bored." Bob first showed me the
particular booklet paper fold, and it was Bob's idea to use a Market Research prediction.
I developed Bob's theme into a study of random shuffles with various demographic
levels (and expressly eliminated any reference to "prediction").

The happy result is "Random Sample Shuffle-bored," where the paper prop now has a
plausible meaning and purpose, and the spectator's mixing procedure is now justified
as one more random sample of shuffling.

(2) Dividing the Groups. You might prefer to crimp the face card (the key) of the
Target Group instead of remembering it. This allows you to cut the deck in half at step
2 (at the crimp) without looking through the faces.

Some performers prefer to insert a Joker as a separator between the two groups. You
can begin with a wide face-up table spread of the entire deck to show the cards in
random order and then notice that the Joker is still in the deck. Nonchalantly remove it,
separating the deck into two halves at that point.

(3) One More Turnover. Here's one more option to consider. At step 5, instead
of directing Ginny to turn her half over, I'll sometimes offer my helpers a choice, asking,
"To randomize things further, let's turn over one half and then shuffle them together. Which
half should we turn over?" When Ginny and Mergel decide, turn over whichever half they
designate, and shuffle the two halves together. Just note whose half gets designated. If
it's Ginny's (or whoever initially got the Target half), proceed as described. If instead
Mergel's half gets turned over, shuffle the two halves together, and then comment,
"Let's randomize them one final time," as you casually turn the entire deck over, and give it
one more real riffle shuffle. It looks for all the world as though you' re randomizing the
cards from both sides. This last turnover of the entire deck leaves the deck in the same
condition as if Ginny's half alone had been reversed. Again, offering this final "choice"
of halves to turn over is completely optional. It's just a nice touch to be aware of.

(4) Transition from the Aronson Stack. The idea of creating a transition from the
Aronson stack directly into my "Shuffle-bored" is the brainchild of Alain Nu. Years ago
Alain showed me a simple slip cut that accomplishes pretty much all you need.

This enables you to perform any series of memorized deck effects or built-in effects that
keep the Aronson stack intact and then, for the climax, perform "Random Sample
Shuffle-bored" with the deck you've been using. The complete Target group, and
)04 AM DECISO

indeed the full deck set-up, is easily generated directly from Aronson stack order with
just one slip cut, as follows.

1) Hold the deck (in Aronson stack order) face up in left-hand dealing
position.

2) Casually start to spread the cards from the left hand into the right until
you spot the JD. Obtain a left fourth-finger break above the face-up JD (i.e.,
between the JD and the 4S) as you close the spread.

3) Hold the deck vertically, faces toward you, with the back of your left
hand toward the audience. Rest your left thumb on the face card of the deck (the
9D) in readiness for a slip cut of this single card. You're now going to apparently
give the deck one cut, as follows. With your right hand, grip the upper portion
(the cards above the break) from above. With your left hand, undercut all the
cards below the break and deposit them onto the right-hand packet, but as you
perform this cut, your left thumb applies a slight pressure on the face of the 9D
and peels it off onto the left-hand cards. It's sort of a backward slip cut, where
the uppermost card (the 9D) remains as the top card, both before and after the
cut. (That's why you've held the deck with the backs facing the audience.)

Situation check: you're still holding the deck vertically with the faces toward
you, and the 9D is still the card at the face. Immediately beneath the 9D is the JD.
The top card of the deck (whose back is closest to the audience) is now the 4S.

That's it. As far as the audience is concerned (assuming they're even watching),
you've simply given the deck a single cut.

4) Casually spread through the face-up deck, until you spot the 6C. It will
be slightly beyond the center of the deck. Injog this 6C slightly, square up the
cards, and flip the pack face down bookwise. Table the deck face down, with the
injog toward the rear end of the deck.

5) When you're ready to perform "Shuffle-bored," casually cut the deck

by lifting up at the injog (so the 6C becomes the face card of the upper half).
Hand that top half to Spectator 1 and give the rest of the cards to Spectator 2.
Spectator l's packet contains the requisite 23 cards that exactly fit the
requirements of the Target group. So, during the course of the various "Shuffle-
bored" shuffle, exchange, and turnover procedures, all you have to do is make
sure that Spectator l's half is the one that ultimately finishes face up.

Naturally, you could omit the step of tabling the deck, and simply divide the
cards into two portions at the 6C while they're in your hands. I prefer to leave
 the deck on the table for a moment, just because I think the time delay and the
dead cut on the table makes it seem a bit more "hands off."

6) Once you run through the above steps a few times, you'll see how easy
it is. But it can be done even more efficiently. In the above description I've
broken it down into several separate actions so that you can see exactly what
needs to be done, but in actual practice these actions can be combined so that all
of steps 2-4 occurs in one smooth cut of the deck to the table. Try the following:
with the deck held face up in original Aronson stack order, quickly backspread
from the top and injog the 6C (you'll know exactly where to find it, at position 8
from the top) and then spread the cards near the middle to obtain your left
fourth-finger break between the JD and 4S. Now perform the slip cut/peeling
action described in the text- but, instead of depositing the left-hand cards onto
the face of the right-hand packet to complete the cut, simply turn your left hand
palm down and place the left hand's packet face down onto the table. Your left
hand now takes the right-hand cards, turns them face down, and drops them
onto the tabled packet, to complete the cut. The 6C will remain secretly injogged
at the rear of the tabled deck.

Alain used a different Target group, with a different set of predictions. I chose to alter
Alain's Target group to the one written in the main text. For the record, here's Alain's
original Target group. After doing the slip cut, instead of dividing the deck at the 6C,
Alain split the deck at the AS, and used the following set of predictions:

1. There will be 21 cards face up.

2. 6 of them will be red cards.
3. All of the Red cards will be even numbered cards ...
4. .. . except the 9H.

I worked out my grouping, described in the text, which has a couple of benefits: the
23/29 card split is a bit more even, and it's somewhat easier for spectators to instantly
recognize that the red cards are all Hearts, instead of having to think about their
individual numerical values. I also felt it's a nice subtlety to mention the black cards in
your second prediction (instead of the red cards) because this focuses attention away
from the red cards until you get to the third prediction.

(5) Retained Groupings. Surprisingly, after performing "Shuffle-bored" with a

memorized stack, the deck is NOT fully randomized. Indeed, it's in a "divided deck"
condition that could be used for some very strong locations. If you visualize the
Aronson stack cyclically (i.e., stack-number 1 follows 52), you'll see that the two
separated halves at the end of "Shuffle-bored" in fact constitute two groups, easily
distinguished by stack-numbers: one half contains stack-numbers 37 through 8
inclusive, and the other includes stack-numbers 9 through 36 (with the sole exception of
stack number 52, which is the only card in the "wrong" half; that's the 9D that you slip
cut). As long as you remember this 9D exception, you can use this secret division to
advantage. (See, for example, my essays "General Observations on the Memorized
Deck" in Card Ideas; "Memorized Math" in The Aronson Approach; my discussion in the
Shuffle-bored manuscript on memorized deck and selection applications; and my
multiple selection "High Class Location" in Simply Simon).

(6) Eliminating the Slip Cut. I later discovered an alternative way of making the
transition from Aronson stack into "Shuffle-bored" - that eliminates the slip cut
altogether. (Interestingly, this method produces a multitude of possible sets of
predictions.) Here's how: Just precut the Aronson stack so that the 10C is at the face.
That's it.

Now you can divide the deck anywhere above the KD (which is now located 31st from
the top of the deck) and you will be able to use the upper portion for the multiple
predictions in "Shuffle-bored."

Here's just one example. If you divide the deck immediately below the AS, here is the
sequence of predictions that works for this particular cut:

1. There are 23 cards face up.

2. 15 of the face up cards are black.
3. All of the face-up red cards are spot cards ... [with the JD showing as an
apparent "mistake,"]
4. ... except for the Jack of Diamonds.

The fascinating thing is that there exists a comparable prediction for the top portion of
cards no matter where you divide the pack (as long as it's above the KD). That's because, with
the 10C cut to the face, there's only one red picture card among the top 30 cards, the JD,
and since it's the very top card, it will always be included in the top portion.

The fact that the pack can be cut anywhere (above the 31st card) presents an intriguing
possibility-you could theoretically allow one of the spectators to "divide the deck in
half." Once she does, if you glimpse the bottom card of the packet she cuts off (or the
top card of the remaining half), you'll know just where she cut, and can calculate the
correct prediction accordingly. (Of course, if you're doing the folded paper prediction,
you won't find this useful, as you'll want to have the prediction prepared beforehand.)
Two by Two

hile I've always shared my card ideas with the magical fraternity, I've been
somewhat proprietary with respect to the specifics of "It's the Thought that
Counts" -the mind reading act that I perform with my wife Ginny. This
particular effect incorporates a secret that Ginny and I often use in our performances, so
I was initially hesitant about revealing it.

But since "Two by Two" is a card effect, that tipped the balance in favor of its inclusion.
It can "play big" and is suitable for parlor or platform, or it can be done close up, for
just two spectators. And while I don't like to pick favorites among the various things
I've created over the years, I will say that the combination of methods used here and the
openness of handling puts it right near the very top of my favorites list. It's a fitting
piece to end the book with- or to close an act.

"Two by Two" is a different approach to the" Any Card at Any Number" plot-in
several respects. First, it doesn't follow the Berglas condition of having any card and
any number named. Instead, both the cards and the numbers are selected from decks of
cards, one a regular deck of playing cards and the other a deck of children's "flash
cards" numbered from 1 to 52. Second, it's performed with two selected cards being
discovered at two numbered positions, so the odds are magnified greatly. And third,
the selection procedures for both the two playing cards and the two number cards are
very free and fair. As you read the description, try to visualize how the conditions and
handling will be perceived by a lay audience. I hope you'll be impressed.

€tt€CT

The performer displays two decks of cards: one is an ordinary deck of playing cards
and the other is a deck of "number cards" bearing the numbers from 1 to 52.
From the deck of playing cards (which can be shuffled), two spectators, Ginny and
Mergel, each freely cut off a packet of cards, look at the cards they cut to, and replace
their packets, reassembling the deck. The performer spreads the deck face up to show
that any of the 52 cards might have been chosen. The deck is then squared and left face
down on the table.

The number deck is then shuffled and the faces displayed, showing a mixed, random
order of the numbers from 1 to 52. This deck is then spread face down so that Ginny
and Mergel can each freely pick a number card. Those two chosen number cards are
shown; let's suppose that Ginny selects number 19 and Mergel selects 44. All the rest of
the number cards are spread face up on the table and are seen to be different.

Since Ginny picked number 19, she is instructed to pick up the playing card deck and to
deal and count 19 cards and to place the nineteenth card aside, still unseen. She then
hands the balance of the deck to Mergel, who is instructed to continue the count until he
reaches his number, 44. He does so and places the forty-fourth card aside.

For the first time the spectators announce the names of the respective playing card they
previously cut to. When Ginny and Mergel turn their" counted-to" card face up, they
are seen to be their freely selected cards.

The deck may immediately be used for any other card effect.

PhllKIPL€5 AflD PhOP5

The secret has two parts. One part is something that some of my readers will already be
familiar with- my "UnDo Influence" principle. The other part is a specially gaffed
deck of number cards, sort of a double Monte Cristo deck, adapted to numbers. In a
nutshell, the UnDo Influence principle is used to secretly control the two free selections
to the numerical positions 19 and 44. The gaffed number deck is a specially designed
"force" deck that forces those two specific numbers. I'll elaborate on each part.

In my book Try the Impossible I wrote a lengthy dissertation on a math-based

displacement procedure that I called "UnDo Influence." I presented several ways of
handling that procedure and a host of tricks and applications for it, but at bottom they
all accomplish one rather startling result: even though two spectators can freely select
cards by the cutting procedure described above, the performer can secretly control both
of those selections to two pre-determined numerical positions in an innocent action of
simply removing two Jokers from the deck. "Prior Commitment," a prediction trick,
was the most popular effect using the UnDo Influence procedure, partly because it was
virtually self-working.
 Two f>V Two )11

At the other extreme, buried later in the UnDo Influence section was another, more
challenging effect, "Twice as Hard," which required both a memorized deck and the
ability to perform some mental calculations "on your feet." The plot of my "Twice as
Hard" was closer to a "double Berglas" effect: two freely selected cards were ultimately
discovered at two freely named numbered positions. It's still a powerful effect, but the
required mental operations mean that it's not often performed.

This present effect, "Two by Two," is my attempt to duplicate the plot and results of
"Twice as Hard" while capturing the ease
44 21
and simplicity of "Prior Commitment."

19 44 21
Some tradeoffs had to be made (the two
numbered positions are chosen from a
number deck, instead of being named), but
I was also able to achieve a cleaner, hands-
off procedure that seems to eliminate the
possibility of any trickery.

The second part of the secret involves a

specially designed, gaffed number deck.
Most magicians are familiar with "double-
ended" playing cards; I've simply adapted
this concept to "number" cards.
Approximately 24 of the number cards are
double-enders that all depict a number 19
boldly in the center and at one index, but
each of these cards have different random
numbers at their opposite index. I call these
24 cards the "19-gaffs." There are also 24
more double-enders that all depict the
number 44 boldly in the center and at one
index, but each of these has other random
numbers at their opposite index; I call
these 24 cards the "44-gaffs." Finally the
deck also contains four "full-faced" regular
cards, whose faces we can casually display
as "convincers" that the deck is normal.
Figure 1 illustrates representative samples
of cards from the deck: one shows a 19-
gaff, one shows a 44-gaff, one shows a
"regular" 21, and there's an "Advertising"
card. The backs of all the cards in the deck have a nondescript diamond design. I call
the end of the gaffed cards that depicts either the 19-index or the 44-index the "force
)12 f'.IM DECfiO

end" and the opposite end of the gaffed cards (which depicts the random indices) the
"normal end."

Note that if you display a gaff to the audience, holding it with the force end upward,
your fingers can easily cover the normal index at the bottom so the card will appear as a
big bold 19 or 44; the normal index is completely hidden (Figure 2). And you can
display two cards held together in a wide fan just as easily (Figure 3).

When the deck is spread on the table or between the hands with the normal indices
uppermost, the deck appears to contain different cards with numbers ranging from 1-
52, in a random order. Figure 4 illustrates two portions from the deck spread face up;
everything looks completely normal (because the 5 and the 33 on the face of each spread
are "regular" cards). But if we were to rotate those two identical sets of cards 180
degrees and then re-spread them, we would get a very different picture. Figure 5
depicts what the opposite "ends" of those same two groups of cards would look like -
they're all force indices. Naturally, the spectators will never see the cards spread this
way.

A brief note about fonts: while all of the indices on this number deck are fairly big and
bold, the "big" number in the center, while also bold, has been printed using a narrower
font style. This means that when you spread the number deck across the table or
between your hands, the only part of the faces that can be clearly discerned is the index;
little or none of the center number is visible. It looks like what people suppose is an
"ordinary" number deck (assuming there is such a thing).

Finally, in the interest of theatricality and clean handling, for my own performances I
built a small display stand that I used to hold and display the two number cards once
they're picked. The first stand I made was simply a piece of stained wood with a slit cut
into it; the slit is just deep enough to cover the bottom index. The stand allows you to
openly display both selected numbers and to leave them in full view, without any need
for holding them in your hand or covering the index. I was so pleased with my first
stand that I decided to go one step further: I had another stand made in clear acrylic. It
 Two ~v Two )1:~

functions exactly the same way (hey, it's a

hunk of plastic with a slit!), but I asked the
craftsman to "brush" or matte the front

19 44
face. This dulls or hazes the acrylic just
enough so that it isn't fully transparent.
The result is shown in Figure 6.

I'm explaining this effect, complete with

the props, exactly as I perform it. At first I
was hesitant about including a routine that
required a custom-made deck because I appreciate that some readers may not want to
go to the trouble of making or buying such apparatus. But then I recalled two of my
favorite magic books, Tommy Wonder's Books of Wonder (co-authored by Stephen
Minch), which contains a section of 100+ pages entitled "Mechanical Marvels." It's
fascinating reading, displays amazing creations, and is a fount of ideas- but you'd need
to have a watchmaker's skill and a fully-equipped workshop to construct much of it. So
I felt better about describing a special deck. (I've had some of these gaffed number
decks printed for me, and I will try to make them available at my website, as long as my
supply lasts. See Comment 4 for details.)

I'll continue with a detailed description of how I perform "Two by Two." But please
note: you don't absolutely need such a gaffed number deck (and certainly don't need a
display stand) to replicate this effect. You can capture much (but not all) of the
cleanliness and ease using just a regular number deck. See Comment 2 for a discussion.

SETUP

First, the regular deck. You'll need a full deck of 52 playing cards, plus two Jokers. For
ease of reference, let's assume that you're using one regular Joker and one Guarantee
Joker (in performance you certainly could use two identical Jokers). The two Jokers
need to be inserted at precise positions in the deck; the rest of the 52 cards may be in
any order you wish (which, by the way, can be helpful in presetting, maintaining, and
resurrecting partial stacks you might want to subsequently use in other effects; see
Comment 1).

The easiest way of inserting the Jokers where they belong is to first create a face-up pile
of 8 indifferent cards and then put the regular Joker face up onto the face of that pile.
Now place 19 more indifferent cards face up onto that Joker and then put the Guarantee
Joker onto the face of the pile. Finally place the remaining 25 indifferent cards onto the
face of the Guarantee Joker. Turn the entire deck face down, and you're ready to
proceed.
If you check, you'll find that the Jokers are in the 9th and the 29th positions, counting
from the top of this 54-card deck. If you want to remember the positions that way, fine.
All that matters is that the two Jokers occupy those designated positions; that's a
mathematical requirement for the trick to work.

I printed my gaffed number deck with a total of eight additional "regular" (full-faced)
cards: 5, 17, 21, 33, 52, an" Advertising" card, plus a regular 19 and 44. I use four of the
regular cards at the top and bottom of the deck, to cover the face and for casual display
when I initially show the number deck. A full face helps establish (without saying so)
that the cards are normal. The Advertising card is just text that has general information
about number decks; I think it adds a touch of additional authenticity. Finally, the
regular 19 and 44 should NOT be inserted into the deck, because you wouldn't ever
want a duplicate 19 or 44 to show after the two number cards have been selected and
removed. I printed a regular 19 and 44 only so that I can leave them lying casually on
the table after my performance, just in case an over-curious spectator comes up to chat.

Note that the regular 17 is an optional extra regular card, but since there's already a
gaffed 19/17 card in the deck, if you're going to use this regular 17, then you should
first remove that gaffed 19/17 from the deck. My preference is to use all five of the
regular cards (you'll see how I use the regular 17 in my description below). But there's
room for much variance here, depending on how many "shows" you want to do.

Here's how I set up my number deck. It's basically in two distinct banks: I start with all
the 44-gaffs at the top half, followed by all the 19-gaffs (with all the force ends facing the
same direction). I put the regular 5 and 33 on top and the regular 21and52 at the
bottom. I always put the regular 52 card at the face, so that it's the first number card the
spectator sees when I introduce the number deck; it's a subliminal but unstated
convincer that the deck comprises 52 cards. This 52, and indeed all the full-face regular
cards, are oriented in the same direction as the normal indices. That way, when you
hold the deck face up, the orientation of the face card will instantly tell you which end is
which. I pencil dot the corners of the regular 17 card and insert that card into the
middle of the bank of 19-force cards. (An option: I also pencil dot the back of the
lowermost 44-gaff so that I'll be able to quickly spot the division point between the two
banks when I eventually spread the cards face down.) Initially, I keep the Advertising
card with the deck. Square up the deck and leave it face down or in a case.

1) The patter you use is, of course, your personal choice. Because a number deck
is associated with children, and because it lends itself to talking about" simplicity," I
orient my script in that direction. "When we were very young, even before we learned about
playing cards ... " As I speak, I ribbon spread the deck of playing cards face down across
 Two f>Y Two )15

the table and leave them spread on the table. Then I pick up the number deck, as I
continue," ... some of us first played with these. Number cards, from 1 to 52. Our teachers
used these flash cards to teach us number recognition, and then later we even learned simple
addition. Toys 'R Us still sells these." To illustrate, I hold the deck of number cards
vertically, faces toward the spectators, and casually spread them slowly between my
hands, displaying the random indices as I complete my sentence. When I reach the
bottom of the deck, I toss the Advertising card off to the side of the table, without
comment. Then I take the 52 card into my left hand and casually display it front and
back. This, of course, reveals the face of the next regular card (in my setup, the 21) as a
minor convincer of the ordinariness of these cards. Having briefly introduced the two
decks, I put the 52 back on the face and table the number deck.

I now scoop up the playing cards, as I continue, "Our earliest card games were very simple,
like Go Fish. Children don't like complex rules or procedures, don't want a lot to remember.
One of the reasons we have fond memories about childhood is its utter simplicity. Not a lot of
ways to mess up ... So, let's try something that's as simple as possible."

While I say this, I give the playing cards a casual (false) shuffle. Note that you've got a
fair amount of leeway here because your only requirement is to maintain the positions
of the two Jokers; any or all of the other cards can be mixed in whatever way you want.
Since the bottom 25 cards are all indifferent, perhaps the easiest method is to do an
overhand jog shuffle of not-more-than those lower 25 cards. Hold the deck in position
for an overhand shuffle and undercut slightly less than half the deck from the bottom
(thus assuring that it's not more than 25 cards). Begin your shuffle by injogging the first
card singly, and then shuffle off the rest of your cards onto the injogged card. Begin a
second overhand shuffle by taking a break under the injog and then shuffle off to that
break. Toss the rest of the cards on top. Your top half of the deck (with both Jokers)
remains intact while the bottom stock of cards has been mixed.

Square up the shuffled deck, and place it face down on the table in front of your two
spectators, Ginny and Mergel.

Note that your spectators have not yet seen the faces of the playing cards. You've
openly displayed the faces of the number deck, but the playing card deck has so far
been handled so that only the backs have been seen. This is intentional. Curiosity
arises when something isn't yet known or seen. Since the playing cards are, in fact, an
ordinary deck, I want to focus any potential attention or suspicion on it and not on the
number deck. We'll use the fact that the faces haven't been seen to advantage in a
moment.

2) We're now going to have two playing cards selected in a quite fair manner.
(Those readers familiar with the UnDo Influence procedure know what's coming.) I
continue with my theme of simplicity: "The simplest way to pick a card is just to cut to one.
So Ginny, please cut off about a third of the deck, look at the card you cut to, show it around to
everyone, and remember it. I won't look." As I offer this instruction, I demonstrate by
pantomiming a cutting action, so that Ginny understands that she's to look at the face
card of her cut-off packet and then to hold up her packet so that others can also see its
face card. Note that Ginny has a twenty-card range within which she may cut; the only
requirement is that her cut must fall somewhere between the two Jokers. Your request
that she cut "about a third" puts her midway into this range, and with that kind of
leeway, you can't miss.

I turn aside so that I can't see Ginny's card, and while Ginny is occupied with showing
the card she cut to, I ask my second spectator, Mergel, to also cut to a card. "Mergel, you
cut off another good chunk, look at the card you cut to, show it around, and remember it. Again,
I won't look ... two cards to remember, that's pretty simple." Again, the only restriction here
is that Mergel must cut below the second Joker, i.e., anywhere into the lower 25 cards.
By asking him to cut off a "good chunk," you'll direct him smack into the middle of his
permitted range.

3) After the two packets have been cut off and the two cards remembered, ask
Ginny to replace her cut-off packet back onto the balance of the deck, and then ask
Mergel to replace his packet on top, thus reassembling the deck. The order of these
replacements is important: the first packet cut off is in fact the first packet replaced.
You, of course, don't mention this "inversion" of packet order, and it usually flies by
unnoticed. I summarize, "Each of you has freely cut to a card, remembered it, and replaced
it- and I didn't even touch the cards."

4) The spectators will certainly feel that their selections were made freely, but as
mentioned, they still haven't yet seen the faces of any playing cards other than their two
selections. It's thus quite fair and natural for you to dispel any suspicion by displaying
them. Pick up the deck, turn it face up, and place it at the right side of your working
surface. Give it a wide ribbon spread across the table from right to left, showing the
spectators the faces of all the cards. I accompany this action by explaining, "And you
might have cut to any of 52 different cards ... "

At this point I look down at the spread and grimace slightly because I notice the Jokers.
I act a bit annoyed with myself (my inner script is: "Damn, I forgot to remove the Jokers").
So I straightforwardly remove both of them. But I do it in a special way-and this next
action is the crux of the entire effect. Please bear with me, because I'm about to describe
in some detail what should seem to be-and what really is-an innocuous action. (For
those familiar with UnDo Influence, you're about to do a variation of the Face-up
UnDo.)

You've given the cards a wide spread from right to left so that the indices will be facing,
and legible to, the spectators; that's so that they can easily spot and focus on the Jokers.
 Two ~y TWO )17

The regular Joker will be nearest the left (face) end of the face-up spread, and the
Guarantee Joker will be more toward the right (top) end. Don't simply slide the Jokers
out of the spread. Instead, with your left hand held palm down, rest your left thumb
lightly on face of the regular Joker and push all the cards above this Joker leftward,
squaring these cards into a loose pile which
you leave on the table, immediately to the
left of the Joker. This exposes the full face
of the regular Joker. In a continuing
motion, with your right hand pick up the
Joker (Figure 7) and toss it aside,
somewhere off at the right side of the table.
Your attention should be fully on your
right hand's action and on the Joker you' re
removing (not on the cards you're moving
aside to the left), and your continuing
patter strengthens this focus," ... except for these Jokers, which shouldn't be in here anyway ...
I hope neither of you are thinking of a Joker ... "

Without hesitating, repeat a similar action

to discard the Guarantee Joker. As before,
rest your left thumb lightly on the face of
the Guarantee Joker, square up all the cards
above (to the left of) this Joker into a loose
pile, and casually drop this pile directly onto
the face of the first pile you made (Figure 8).
Immediately pick up the Guarantee Joker
with your right hand and toss it aside, near
or onto the regular Joker. Again, your eyes
and body language should focus toward the right, on the Joker you're discarding. The
cards at the left, the ones you pushed aside, are treated as unimportant, merely what
you momentarily moved out of the way so that the audience could clearly see that
you're removing those "pesky" Jokers.

As you're discarding the second Joker, look at your two spectators, supposedly for
confirmation that neither of them did, in fact, cut to a Joker. (They didn't.) You now
finish your sentence, explaining, " ... because I can only work with a 52-card deck." As you
speak, with your left hand pick up the combined pile (at your left) and drop it face up
onto the remaining spread of face-up cards (the ones that were to the right of the
Guarantee Joker), squaring them up to reassemble the entire deck. In a continuing
motion, turn the deck face down and leave it on the table.

I perform this entire step 4 at a leisurely pace. At the beginning of the spreading action
the spectators' interest is on noting that the cards are all different, but then a minor
distraction arises: Jokers are where they shouldn't be. So they're tossed aside. And the
performer offers a reason for this: because he can "only work with a 52-card deck."
(Why? We'll answer that in the very next step and patter line). But this open, innocent
spreading of all the cards, followed by the removal of the errant Jokers and verification
that neither spectator is thinking of a Joker, has misdirected the audience from seeing
the only "move" in the entire routine. It should seem as if absolutely nothing has
happened, but in the process of removing the Jokers, you have subtly exchanged the
order of the middle and bottom sections of the deck.

If you're familiar with the UnDo Influence procedure, you know we're already way
ahead. Because, believe it or not, Ginny's selection now resides at the 19th position from
the top of the deck and Mergel' s selected card now occupies the 44th position.

5) You now complete your explanation of why there should be only 52 playing
cards, as you pick up the number deck and say, "That's because I have only 52 different
numbers, in no particular order." Give the number deck a brief overhand shuffle
(basically, an Ireland Shuffle) as follows. Start by shuffling off two cards singly (the
regular 5 and 33), and then continue shuffling in small blocks or clumps until you
approach the middle of the deck. You then shuffle about half a dozen cards singly
(until you're confident you've passed the center) and then continue shuffling in small
blocks or clumps again until you reach the bottom of the deck. Shuffle the final two
cards singly (which places the regular 21and52 on top).

This shuffle is optional. You've previously displayed the number deck, and the
audience will see its random order again in a moment, so further proof isn't necessary.
I do it because I feel that a casual mixing of the cards implies that I don't know (or care)
where any particular number might lie. An Ireland shuffle is easy: you can make sure
your single-card shuffles straddle the midpoint by just estimating a broad range around
the center. The shuffle exchanges the positions of the 44-gaffs and the 19-gaffs, moving
the 19-gaffs to the top half. (If you decide not to do this Ireland Shuffle, then be sure to
revise your starting order, so that the block of 19-gaffs starts out already on top.)

6) Hold the number deck face down in your left hand, first making sure that the
"normal" ends are toward the audience. (Just rotate your wrist slightly so that you can
see the face card; as long as its "top" is toward the audience, the deck is oriented
correctly.) You're now going to have Ginny and Mergel each select a number card. I do
a simple demonstration first. I spread the cards face down between my hands, saying,
"Now we get to the kid's deck. I'm going to spread the cards slowly and have you touch one, and
when you do, I'll stick it out like this." As I spread, I'm watching the backs, and when I see
the pencil dot somewhere in the upper half, I outjog that card so that the spectators can
see it projecting half way among the backs. I immediately swivel that card out to
remove it from the spread, show its face (it will be the regular 17), and drop it face
down on top of the deck. This minor demonstration is just one more "sell" that the
 Two f>Y TWO )19

deck is random (apparently I might have outjogged "any" number). Again, such a
demonstration is optional.

You'll now have two cards touched by your spectators. Your only requirement is that
Ginny touch any card within the upper 19-gaff block and that Mergel touch a card from
among the lower 44-gaffs. By virtue of the Ireland shuffle, the pencil dotted 44-gaff will
now be the uppermost card of the lower bank of force cards. This conveniently reveals to
you exactly where the lower set of gaffs begins.

Extend your right forefinger to illustrate and say, "Ginny, reach out with one finger and
touch one of these numbers at random." Start spreading the number cards face down
between your hands, fairly slowly, so that Ginny appreciates that she has a clear choice
of individual cards. You'll instantly spread past the top two (regular) cards, and then
you have about 24 cards available for Ginny's "free" choice. When she touches one,
very cleanly and openly outjog it about halfway. Then, continuing to spread past the
(pencil dotted) center, move to Merget asking him to extend a finger and touch one.
When he does, again outjog it half way. By pacing your spreading so each touched card
comes from the desired force block the selections feel very free.

Frequently, in performing the customary "pick-a-card from a spread" action, magicians

act quickly, cozily, furtively, or dismissively. Here it's the opposite: these two number-
card selections can create the feeling (and visual memory) of the spectators having an
absolute freedom of choice- so make the most of it. I usually mention something like,
"We' re keeping it simple, the way a child would pick a number."

7) Once Mergel's card has been outjogged, you're going to very cleanly remove
the two touched cards from the spread. Square the deck into your left hand, leaving the
two selections outjogged. Bring your right hand palm down over the two outjogged
cards, and put your right first finger at the outer end of the left long edge of the two
outjogged cards (Figure 9). Now swivel the two outjogged cards clockwise 180 degrees
to bring them out from the spread, and once they're out, hold them face down in your
right hand, right thumb above and right first and second fingers below (Figure 10). It's
a very natural way to remove the two selections (and, of course, you've subtly reversed
their indices).

But don't call attention to the selections yet. Instead, in a continuing action turn your
left hand palm down, rotating your hand inward at the wrist (thus turning the deck face
up) while simultaneously moving the deck to the right side of table (Figure 11). Place
the (now) face-up deck on the table, and immediately spread the cards face up in a
horizontal spread across the table from right to left. Because of the way you turned your
left hand palm down, the deck has been turned end-for-end and all the normal indices
will show and be facing the audience (Figure 12, performer's view). Accompany this
action with the reminder, "Each of you might have touched any of these numbers ... "

8) Now shift your attention to the two cards in your right hand. I take the pair
of cards into my palm-up left hand, gripping them lightly at their inner left corner- left
fingers below, left thumb above (thumb gripping both cards)-and rotate my hand to
display the faces of both these number cards. As I do, I spread the two cards widely, to
reveal as much of their faces as I can. My left fingers cover the 44 index at the lower left
of the front card, and, of course, the front card itself covers the 19 index on the card
behind it, so everything looks completely innocent (see Figure 3 above). I accompany
this display with the words," ... but tonight you chose ... 19 ... and 44. Ginny touched a 19,
and Mergel picked a 44."

One important caveat: as you display these two selections, make sure to look at their
faces yourself. Above alt do not announce "19 and 44" before you've looked at them.
It's an obvious point, but it's critical that you act as if you didn't know (or care) what
numbers would be chosen until this very moment. (I will sometimes add an apparent
ad-lib, to reinforce that these numbers aren't speciat such as, "Not particularly
meaningful by themselves, unless one of you happened to be born in 1944. ")

I always use my display stand, so I now place the two cards into the stand one at a time
as follows. I turn my left hand palm up (thus lowering the two cards face down) and
move the cards toward my right hand. I take the lower card (the face card, which
 Two r,v Two )21

shows 44) into my right hand by its inner right corner, holding it still face down, while I
retain the upper card in my left hand. I now display the face of this upper card again,
showing the 19 (with my left fingers hiding the normal gaff) and insert it into the
/1
groove in the stand, toward the right end. As I do, I repeat, "Ginny picked 19 ... Once
the 19 card is in the stand, with my left hand I take the remaining number card (by its
inner left corner), lift it up to once again display its face, and insert it into the stand to
the left of the first card, reminding Merget " ... and you picked 44. (The numbers now
11

read in correct order in the stand, as seen by the spectators.)

If you're not using a display stand, you can still show the two cards one at a time in
much the same way, but after you display each one, just drop it face down onto the
table. As long as the spectators remember these two chosen numbers, the number cards
have served their purpose. (Aesthetically, the stand allows a nicer picture by keeping
the two numbers openly displayed, but the effect is still the same.)

9) At this point everything methodological is already done. You can focus all
your energy on building up the double climax. In my opinion, the strength of this
routine lies in the clarity, openness, and simplicity of its procedures, so I emphasize
those factors. If the audience buys into this fairness, you've accomplished an
impossibility.

All that remains is to reveal the two coincidences. While I appreciate that counting and
dealing cards is potentially tedious and that spectators deal slower than we performers
do, in this routine it's important for the spectators to do the dealing. Everything has
been so clean until now that it would be disappointing, possibly even suspicious, for the
performer to take the deck of playing cards into his hands for the climax. Besides, you
can use the drama of the count to add suspense.

Point to the deck of playing cards, which has been lying face down on the table since
you removed the Jokers, and address Ginny, "To stay with the simplicity, I don't want to
touch anything. So you do it. Ginny, pick up the deck, and since you chose number 19, in a
loud, clear voice count off 19 cards from the top, one at a time. Turn each one face up into a pile
on the table as you count- but don't deal the 19th card. Stop right before you reach the 19th card
/1
••• When Ginny gets close to the 19th card, continue,
/1
and without looking at it, deal
...

that 1911i card face down over here. Since I use the display stand for the number cards, I
/1

have Ginny deal the 19th playing card face down onto the table, right in front of the
number card 19 in the stand.

Once Ginny completes her count, have her give the remaining undealt playing cards to
Mergel. Say, Mergel, you chose number 44. Ginny's already dealt off 19 cards, so you
/1

continue counting from that point. Deal them one by one face up here- that first one is '20' -
and continue up to '44,' but stop just before you deal the 44t1I card ... Great, and deal that 44t1i
card face down, over here. I have Mergel deal his card face down in front of the number
/1
 card 44, so that the picture at the finale serves
as a visual summary of the coincidence that
has happened (Figure 13, audience view).

10) All that's left is to reveal that each

spectator's chosen number has, in fact,
discovered that spectator's playing card. Ask
Ginny to name aloud the playing card she
freely cut to and has been remembering.
When she does, I bring the simplicity theme
full circle by explaining, "We've been talking about how childhood and simplicity go together,
and magic has a similar appeal. Children like magic precisely because it makes things simple.
With magic, children don't have to worry about cause and effect. They don't have to ask or
1
wonder how.' Things just happen. When we're children, even the impossible can happen.
Look." Here, turn over the playing card that Ginny dealt at number 19.

Everyone knows what's coming, but they're still dying to see Mergel's card. Ask
Mergel to name his playing card. When he does, turn over the card dealt at number 44
to reveal Mergel' s cut-to playing card.

Once the routine is finished it makes perfect sense to put the number deck away, since
1

it's clearly a deck dedicated solely to this specific routine. You can continue to use the
playing-card deck for whatever subsequent card routines you want, because it's a full,
ordinary deck.

comm~nT5

(1) Credits; Sources. The UnDo Influence control and procedures are discussed
in detail in the first ninety pages of my Try the Impossible (2001). See pages 89-91 of that
book for credits and sources of the concept.

At step 9, I recommend that the spectators deal and count the cards face up. One reason
is, of course, that it's more open and innocent; there's simply less hidden. But another
reason is that dealing face up retains the order of the cards. If the deck starts with a full
or partial stack, some or all of that stack can be maintained throughout the cuts and
displacements that happen in this routine. Thus that stack will be available at the end
of "Two by Two" for a subsequent routine. If you're interested in learning which parts
of the deck stay completely in order and which parts need a cut to restore their original
order, check out the section on "Stack Preservation" in Try the Impossible, pp. 82-88.

(2) Non-gaffed Number Deck. I've always used the gaffed number deck for this
effect, but there's a straightforward way to duplicate "Two by Two" with just a regular
(full face) number deck. All you need is a good way to force the number cards 19 and
44. And there's even a (minor) advantage in using a regular number deck, in that there
are no indices that need to be hidden; at the end, you're left with a number deck that
could be examined (though I'm not sure why this would be necessary).

Obviously it would be important to have a force procedure that was in keeping with the
simplicity of the rest of the routine. An under-the-spread cull force of the two desired
number cards would be my preference to most closely duplicate the clean "spectator
touch" procedure of "Two by Two." I'd avoid any force that is procedure-intensive;
you don't want to complicate matters or add additional dealing. But, that said, there
are other forces that are quick and direct. You might want to experiment using the Milk
Load procedure and/ or the Funsky Force. A casual overhand shuffle, having each
spectator call 'stop' and taking "the card she stopped at/' has much to recommend it.

(3) Alternative Positions. As explained in Try the Impossible, the UnDo Influence
procedure isn't wedded to just the single combination of 19 and 44; there are several
different alternative pairs of numbers that work well and still give you a wide range
within which the spectator cuts can be made. There are formulae in Try the Impossible
that help you calculate what combinations are available.

(4) Availability of Gaffed Number Deck. As mentioned, if you're interested in

obtaining a gaffed 19 / 44 number deck for "Two by Two/' I've had them printed and
will make them available on my website, www.simonaronson.com, for as long as the
supply lasts (no promises). This is the same deck that's shown in the illustrations. It
has a blue diamond back design and comes with the regular full face cards mentioned
in the text. It was not printed by U.S. Playing Card Company, so it doesn't have quite
the same feel as a deck of Bicycle playing cards. That said, it's eminently usable for this
effect.

I'm not a pitchman and am not eager to promote sales. Quite the opposite- I'd actually
rather that no one perform this trick except me.
Po~hcript

Ginny: Whew! That was an awful lot of tricks we just sat through. My mind is numb
from trying to remember so many cards.

Mergel: Yeah, Simon better thank us for being spectators in his book. He really owes
us one, big time. We should have forced Simon to take food breaks between each trick.
He could have sent out for pizza about a hundred times.

Ginny: Yes, we did a very nice thing for him. He needed us to be his audience, to help
with his descriptions. Very few people would have been that patient.

Mergel: If we hadn't been there, Simon would have been forced to make up two
"pretend" spectators, and there's no way they would have been as cooperative as we
were. I can't see anyone else sitting through all those tricks. My butt is sore.

Ginny: But wasn't it fun, at least some of it? We got to see some pretty good tricks,
didn't we?

Mergel: Yeah, most of them. But some were pretty much the same, like when we
added up all those totals, over and over. There were umpteen versions of that. Or at
least four.

Ginny: I understand, but don't forget, we're laymen. To us, those versions might all
seem pretty much the same, but I bet magicians who read them will appreciate the
differences.

Mergel: They'd appreciate them more with pizza.

Ginny: Now that we've seen everything in the book, did you have any favorites?
Mergel: Yeah, the last one - because that meant I could stop watching.

Ginny: Seriously, which did you like best?

Mergel: The Funsky Glimpse, the Funsky Force, the Funsky Four-for-Four Switch, the
Funsky Flipover Switch-you get the idea. With everything I contributed, Simon
should have titled his book Dear Mr. Funsky.

Ginny: At least your picture is in the book, a couple of times.

Mergel: That's because I negotiated that as part of my contract. I made Simon put us
both in there, right in the endpapers. In color! -So, hey, all you readers out there! You
should judge this book by its covers ... Ginny, do you think they heard me?

Ginny: I'm sure they did. And they're probably wondering about it right now ...

Mergel: Simon promised that I could have the last word. My favorite books end with:
"We all lived happily ever after." Like this: