DOUBLE IMPACT

EFFECT

Two decks of cards are shown and the spectator asked to choose one.

He then names any one of the fifty-two cards. It’s an absolutely free choice. He is asked to open the deck of cards, which has been on view throughout, and remove his chosen card. To his amazement, it isn’t there. In fact when he counts the cards he discovers that there are only 51. His chosen card is missing.

The second deck is now opened. All the cards are blue backed, except for one. One card is a stranger card and has a red back. Believe it or not this is the missing card. The same card that the spectator names right at the beginning of the routine.

HISTORY

In 1949 Eddie Joseph released his now famous effect Premonition. Shortly after, George Armstrong released his version of the trick. He said he had devised it some years earlier, inspired by Bill McCaffrey’s Prize Winner routine from Greater Magic (1938), but it was only when he read advertisements for Eddie Joseph’s routine that he decided he had better publish his method if he wanted to receive credit for his handling.

The effect, in all cases, is that a freely named card is shown to be missing from the pack. The named card is then reproduced from the pocket or, in McCaffrey’s case, a hat.

There are two disadvantages to most Premonition routines. The first is that the pack of cards is not on view from the beginning of the trick. The second is that the missing card is usually produced using a card index, a device that is not very popular with magicians.

Double Impact solves both problems and yet manages to keep the routine virtually self-working.

BASIC METHOD

Before proceeding to a full description of the method it is best to give a simplified description of the working, which is the same principle that McCaffrey employed.

Imagine a deck of cards that is made up of two sets of twenty-six different cards. In fact the pack consists only of odd red cards and even black cards. Throw one of the cards away so that you have only 51 cards in the deck. Now arrange the deck so that no duplicates are together.

If you asked someone to name a card and they named, say, an odd black card, you could count through the cards and show it to be missing. What’s more there are only fifty-one cards in the deck. No one notices that some cards are duplicates.

That’s the basic principle of Prize Winner and Premonition and the same principle is used in Double Impact. The difference is that the decks are not only used to show a card missing, but can be used to reproduce a missing card, an idea that came to me after reading McCaffrey’s original routine.

REQUIREMENTS

DECK A - ODD RED DECK

This deck is in a RED CASE.

The deck is made up of 25 red-backed cards and 26 blue backed cards.

The red-backed cards are shorter than the blue-backed cards.

The red-backed cards consist of:

Odd Diamonds

Odd Hearts

Even Clubs

Even Spades

So that the deck consists of only 51 cards, the red-backed Ace of Hearts is not used.

The red and blue back cards alternate through the deck. The top card is a red-back card. Because there are less red-backed cards than blue-backed cards, you will have two blue-backed cards at the face of the deck. The card on the face of the deck should be the blue-backed Ace of Hearts.

Think of this deck as the Odd Red Deck. That shouldn’t be difficult as it is in a red case.

DECK B - ODD BLACK DECK

This deck is in a BLUE CASE.

The deck is made up of 25 blue-backed cards and 26 red backed cards.

The blue backed cards are shorter than the red-backed cards.

The red-backed cards consist of:

Odd Clubs

Odd Spades

Even Hearts

Even Diamonds

So that the deck consists of only 51 cards, the blue-backed Ace of Spades is not used.

The blue and red back cards alternate through the deck. The top card is a blue-back card. Because there are less blue-backed cards than red-backed cards, you will have two red-back cards at the face of the deck. The face card of the deck is the red-backed Ace of Spades.

Think of this deck as the Odd Black Deck. Again, not difficult because it is in a blue (almost black) case.

NOTES ON THE TWO DECKS

One final point: Before performing the trick you should ensure that the decks are arranged so that no duplicate cards are near each other. That goes for values too.

That seems to be a lot to think about but if you have the cards in front of you, you’ll find that it is actually quite simple and logical. The two decks mirror each other. Once the cards are set up (and that is just a matter of commonsense) all you are remembering are two phrases: Odd Red Deck and Odd Black Deck.

PERFORMANCE

STEP 1 – CHOOSING THE CARD

Toss the two decks onto the table and ask for the assistance of a volunteer. Say, “I’d like to try some with these two decks of cards. Do you play cards? Well, it doesn’t really matter as long as you know the different values. It’s not really a card trick. What I want you to do is just think of a card. Don’t tell me what it is yet, but just imagine it. Imagine the colour, the suit, the value. Have you got one in mind? Good, because this morning I had a card in mind too. It’s in one of those two decks on the table. By the way, which card are you thinking of?”

The volunteer names the card and upon hearing it you work out which one of the deck does NOT contain it. Remember, it will be missing from one of them. Now there’s a quick way of working out which deck it’s missing from. Let’s try a few examples. Let’s imagine that the volunteer names the Eight of Spades.

Now you know two things about the decks on the table. The one in the Red Case is known as Odd Red Deck. The one in the Blue Case is known as Odd Black Deck.

As soon as you know the colour of the chosen card think of the deck that matches it. In the case of the Eight of Spades you will think of the Odd Black Deck. Immediately you know that this case contains only BLACK cards that are ODD. And since the Eight of Spades is even, it is not in that deck. So right away you know that this is the deck you need to work with.

Let’s try another example, say, Queen of Hearts. It’s a red card so you think of the ODD RED DECK. Since that deck contains only ODD cards, once again you know that the chosen card is missing from it. This is the deck you will work with.

A third example; Three of Clubs. You immediately think of the ODD BLACK DECK. The Three of Clubs is an ODD card so you know that it is in that deck. Since you are looking for the deck that it is missing from, you know that it is the other deck, the red one, that you should be working with.

That’s it. It’s a very simple system and you’ll find it useful in other tricks which use similar set-ups. Far easier than trying to remember which decks contain which mixtures of cards.

STEP 2 – CHOOSING THE DECK

So far the volunteer has named a card and you know which deck it is missing from. Let’s go back to our first example, the Eight of Spades. You know it is not in the blue deck, so this is the deck you want to work with. The next step is to bring that deck into play. So you say, “Would you choose one of the decks of cards on the table, any one it doesn’t matter…..”

You are about to work a Magician’s Choice. If the volunteer picks up the red deck, ask him to place it in his pocket. You then pick up the blue deck.

If, on the other hand, he picks up the blue deck, you move the red deck aside and work with the deck he has “chosen.”

That’s it.

STEP 3 – THE MISSING CARD

Take the deck, open it and remove the cards face up from the case. Hand them to the volunteer face up.

“There are fifty-two cards in a deck. I want you to deal the cards face up onto the table. Count them aloud as you go and stop when you get to your Eight of Spades.”

When he does this you don’t want him to flash the backs of the cards. So either make sure he is holding the cards close to the table or that he is seated at the table when counting.

He will deal right through the deck, not find his Eight of Spade, and yet count only 51 cards. Now along the way he will have passed lots of duplicate cards but he won’t notice them because a: he is only looking for the Eight of Spades, b: he is also busy counting, c: you ensured that no duplicates were together. Having said that, see the End Notes for further thoughts on this.

It’s best that he deals the cards into a fairly tight pile so that duplicates are not noticed after they have been dealt to the table. Occasionally you might want to straighten the dealt cards. You can even pick up the cards and look though them as if checking that he hasn’t missed his Eight of Spades. Try to act as if you expect the Eight of Spades to turn up.

When it doesn’t. Ask the spectator to look inside the blue card box in case it got left inside. It didn’t.

Finish by saying, “That’s strange. The Eight of Spades, the card you thought of, is missing. Do you know why that is? I’ll tell you. I snuck the card out while you weren’t looking. Really! In fact to make sure you wouldn’t see me do it I took the Eight of Spades out of that deck this morning.”

STEP 4 – PRODUCING THE THOUGHT OF CARD

Pick up the discarded red case, open it and remove the cards face up. Toss the case aside.

Spread the deck face up between your hands. Look for the Eight of Spades. There are two Eight of Spades in that deck, a short one and a long one. You want the long one. Now I find it easy to spot which is which by looking at the end of the card and noting whether it has been trimmed. But if you want to be extra sure you could just scratch a line through the indices of all the long cards in both decks. That would make it even easier.

Toss the long Eight of Spades face up onto the table.

“You see, I was so sure that you would name the Eight of Spades that I took it from that deck and placed it in this deck.”

Because the deck is made up of long and short cards, just like the Svengali deck, you can spread it face down across the table top to show that all the cards have red backs. It’s a simple move, you just hold the deck from above by the narrow ends. As you make the spread you let the cards riffle off the fingers and thumb and drop onto the table. They fall in pairs, the short red cards falling on top of the long blue ones.

Don’t spread the cards. Drop the cards. The hand is held several inches above the table as the spread is made. You can do it in one quick casual movement.

To finish, ask the volunteer to turn over the tabled Eight of Spades. He’ll be surprised to find that it has a blue back.

When gathering up the cards be sure to put the blue-backed Eight of Spades into the blue-backed deck. Putting it back into the red-backed deck will look a bit odd!

END NOTES

Another way of displaying the cards is to let them drop from one hand to the other. This is another handling associated with the Svengali deck. The deck is held vertically in the right hand, the thumb on top and fingers underneath. The right forefinger is curled behind the deck and applies a little pressure. The right thumb releases the cards and they fall, in pairs, face down into the waiting left hand.

The trick is even better if you use two volunteers. One person names a card while another looks through the deck for it. He can count the cards aloud as you ask the first person whether there was any particular reason for selecting the card he did. Doing the trick this way means that the rest of the audience don’t pay much attention to the cards as they are dealt. They only become interested in that deck when they discover that the thought of card isn’t there. And by then, it’s too late.

Finally, I should explain that Premonition is not necessarily a good trick. It has the same flaw as The Open Prediction in that the spectator has to deal through an entire deck to establish that the named card is missing. This can be very dull. If you wanted a more straightforward way to produce a named card, you’d probably just use a Brainwave Deck.

I think Premonition (and The Open Prediction) is a good card problem and solving problems is part of what interests us about magic. However, another potential hazard of solving card problems is to build upon sand instead of concrete. The use of a deck that has twenty-six duplicates is a possible cause for concern. Are we to believe that the spectator dealing through the deck wouldn’t notice a single one of them?

The truth is that we don’t know. And there are too many instances of tricks being based on older, unproven or little understood principles. Ignore the fact that this idea has been used extensively in published tricks. When did you ever see a great commercial performance of Premonition? The same applies to The Open Prediction and, another bête noir of mine, The Princess Card Trick. These are very common tricks in magic but finding examples that work in a professional show is difficult. There are probably good reasons for that.

Magicians never know what the spectators are thinking. One aim of any performance is to ensure that the assisting spectator doesn’t have the opportunity to give voice to any doubting thoughts. This means managing the assisting spectator. You are performing for the audience. The assisting spectator, though he doesn’t know it, is part of your cast. You cast him because you hope he will play his role well and be convincing when he deals through the deal and declares the card missing.

In creating a presentation for the trick you should think about how you want the assisting spectator to react, how that reaction is conveyed to the rest of the audience and why they might find it entertaining. The entertainment value of your interaction with the assisting spectator and audience, this magical tableau, will determine the success of the performance not whether a duplicate card is spotted, but never mentioned, during the deal.

Essential Magic Conference

The third Essential Magic Conference will take place on the 27th, 28th and 29th of July. This is the world's only digital conference for magic and magicians. It's organised by Luis de Matos, Marco Tempest and myself.

What does that mean? Well, 33 of the world's top magicians will be presenting lectures, presentations and performances from Studio 33 in Portugal. These are broadcast worldwide via the Internet and viewable on your computer, laptop, iPad or even iPhone. That's 3 days of magic.

If you are watching via your computer you can also interact with the Speakers and other members via our chat facility. Watch, comment and discuss. Ask anyone who has ever attended. It's great fun and offers opportunities that you won't even get at a real live be-there convention.

The broadcasts are archived online where you can view them on demand for a year. Before that year is up you will receive a DVD box set of all the conference content. That way it is yours forever. In fact the DVD box set sells for $150, that's more than the price of registration for the conference which, I think, a bargain at $99.

Between now and the conference dates free weekend screenings will show excerpts from past conferences. You can register or sign up for the free screenings at the Essential Magic Conference website.

That's the end of the plug. Thank you for reading!

Opus Magazine

In 1987 I began contributing to Opus Magazine, edited and published by friends Ian Keable, Chris Power and JJ. It contained a lively mix of articles, reviews and tricks and boasted of its "independence" from the magic establishment, a claim made, incidentally, by nearly everyone who ever started a magazine magazine. Nevertheless reviews were honest and forthright at a time when, in the UK at least, every performer and convention seemed to get wonderful reviews no matter how bad they were.

As you'd expect such "honesty" occasionally made for controversy and even landed the editors in some awkward situations when coming face to face with the people they'd reviewed. But it was this very stance and the magazine's refreshingly different voice that gained it quite a following and explains why Opus Magazine attracted many notable names to its pages.

Why do I mention this? Well, because all five volumes of Opus Magazine have now been scanned and are available as pdfs from Opus Magazine's new website.

I'm a big fan of scanned magazines. Not only do they give us an insight into the past but they are vaults of forgotten knowledge. A great idea is a great idea no matter when it was conceived. And magazines are full to the brim with inspiration. Inevitably a volume of any magic magazine is always greater than the sum of its parts. Opus volume one is a terrific read. The passing years have given me some distance between being aware of the magazine's editorial dilemmas and reading the magazine purely for enjoyment. But I was genuinely amazed at the solid quality of the magazine, the range of content and the A-list of contributors. I think you will be too.

Anyone who subscribed to the Essential Magic Conference this year got volume one free as part of their subscription. If you missed EMC2011 you can still subscribe, catch up and get the bonuses and DVDs. Or you can go straight to the Opus Magazine website and purchase volume one along with the other four volumes.

Essential Magic Conference 2011

This year's Essential Magic Conference will take place on the 7th, 8th and 9th of July. For those who don't know this is an online conference for magicians. 3 days of magic, 16 hours of lectures, presentations and performances from 33 magicians. All broadcast live in high quality video and then uploaded for online access whenever suits you. And if that wasn't enough we send you a DVD collection, 8 DVDs in fact, containing video of the entire event.

It's no exaggeration to say that last year's event was an outstanding success being given an 'Epic' rating from our members in an online poll on the last day of the conference. The conference is organised by Luis de Matos, Marco Tempest and myself and we'd like to see you all there again this year. The Speaker list has been finalised and will be posted online in the next day or two. We think you will be amazed. Meanwhile you can visit the Essential Magic Conference website to find out more, sign up for the EMC Newsletter or register. http://essentialmagicconference.com/

Double Trouble

This is an extremely simple trick I published in Cardopolis (1984) in which both your selected card and the spectator’s becomes reversed in the deck. Despite the simple means involved the effect is a stunner for laymen. It is directly based on Walter Gibson's Double Reverse which can be found in Annemann's Miracles of Card Magic. See the new Dover edition. It was David Bentley of Chester who first showed me the original effect many years ago.

METHOD: Give the deck to a spectator and ask him to shuffle it, cut it into two halves and give you one half of the deck. You then both shuffle your respective halves and whenever the spectator feels, the cards are sufficiently mixed he is to look at the bottom card of the packet and place it face down on the table in front of him.

By way of example you turn over your packet and point out that the card on the face of the packet is, let’s say the Ten of Spades. Now ask him to look at the bottom card of his packet, emphasising that he need not show you the card, and having memorised it he is to place it face-down on the table.

As soon as the spectator does this you perform a double lift from the face of the packet now face-up in your left hand. Deal the top face-down card on the table in front of you. This is an indifferent card and the Ten of Spades is face-down on top of the face-up packet.

Obviously this is illogical but the spectator, occupied with his own task, will not notice what you have done and will assume that the Ten of Spades is the card on the table. When you do it put more emphasis on the fact that you are making no attempt to see which card the spectator is putting on the table rather than what you are doing with your cards.

Now there are two cards face-down on the table. Pick up the spectator’s card and insert it apparently face-down into your face-down packet asking the spectator to do the same with your card and his packet.

Once more the spectator will be one step behind you and when he is busy inserting your card in his packet you flip your packet over by inserting the left thumb under the cards to lever them over. Your right hand covers the turning of the packet and then lifts takes the packet from the left hand and places it on the table.

When the spectator has completed the action you ask him to follow suit and put his cards on the table. You now place your cards on top of his. Then pick up the deck and cut one quarter of the cards from the bottom to the top. 

Recap on what has happened. Two cards have been selected and lost in the deck. Your's was the Ten of Spades. Ask the spectator for the name of his selection. Spread the deck across the table and reveal that the two selected cards are now face-up in the face-down spread. It happens so quickly that it appears to be completely impossible.

NOTES: The differences between this routine and the original are that at no time do the cards actually go behind the back and more importantly the spectators do see your selected card at the beginning of the trick. It's very simple but very effective.

Raynaly's Any Card At Any Number

Despite its recent popularity Any Card At Any Number (ACAAN) is not a new plot. The version described here is that of Edouard Raynaly who described it in the January 1908 edition of L’illusionniste magazine. I found it on the Ask Alexander database among Jean Hugard’s files.

Hugard translated a lot of Raynaly’s work and some made its way into his magazine. Indeed there is a description of this particular Raynaly effect under the title of Coincidence in Hugard’s Magic Monthly for October 1955. I offer it here purely as a reminder than many a good trick remains hidden in print. I think it’s a real gem.

EFFECT: Two decks of cards are shown, both in their cases. A spectator is asked to choose one, drop it in the envelope and seal it.

He is asked to choose a number from 1 to 52 and write it on an envelope without showing anyone.

The performer approaches a second spectator, leans close and whispers something to her. ‘Did you hear me? Good. Keep it a secret for now. I’ll ask you about it later.’

The performer takes the remaining deck from the case, shows it, shuffles it and then has two cards chosen by a third spectator.’

‘You have two cards. But the lady here only has one secret. Give me one of the cards.’

The spectator chooses one of the cards and hands it to the performer.

‘What was the secret?’ says the performer.

‘The Five of Diamonds,’ answers the lady. The magician turns the chosen card over; it is the Five of Diamonds.

‘Before any of this happened you chose a number. What was it?’

The first spectator turns the envelope around. It has 23 written on it. He opens the envelope, takes out the cards and deals down to the 23rd card. It too is the Five of Diamonds.

METHOD: The method is very simple and also allows for a lot of variation in the way you play the routine and how you handle the revelation of the two secrets. The two decks of cards are stacked in an identical manner. And you know the position of every card in the stack. You can use a memorised stack like that of Nikola or Tamariz. Or you can use Si Stebbins and calculate the position of the card. You can even have a cue card hidden in the stack of envelopes you are using. It’s up to you. Here are the basic mechanics of the routine.

1: Pick up the envelope, open it and have one of the decks dropped inside. Seal the envelope and then take out a marker pen and hand it to a spectator.

Keep hold of the sealed envelope as you ask the spectator to choose a number between 1 and 52. You want him to choose a number worth counting to. So guide him a little with your instructions, saying, ‘Don’t make it too simple, don’t make it too high. Write it here, but don’t show it to the others just yet.’

This means you get a look at the number but no one else does. Later they might not remember that you saw the number at all. ‘Keep the number a secret for now,’ you say as you hand him the sealed envelope. Let’s assume the number is 23.

2: Pick a female volunteer and quietly whisper to her the name of the card that you know to be at the chosen number, for example the Five of Diamonds. Make sure she has heard what you’ve said. Tell her to keep the information a secret.

3: Take the second deck, open it and as you display the cards face-up to show them ordinary secretly cut the Five of Diamonds to the top of the deck. Turn the deck face-down, cut the Five of Diamonds to the middle and hold a break above it in preparation for a fan force.

4: As the spectator will be asked to choose two cards, this gives you two opportunities to fan force the Five of Diamonds. Any force will do, the fairest looking one in your repertoire. As long as the spectator ends up with two cards and you know which one of them is the Five of Diamonds.

5: Remind the spectator about the secret you whispered to the lady, saying, ‘She only has one secret but you have two cards. Hand me one of the cards please.’

If the spectator hands you the Five of Diamonds, refer to it as the chosen card and then have the lady reveal her secret.

If the spectator keeps the Five of Diamonds, call it the chosen the card and put the one she handed to you back into the deck.

Either way you finish by showing that the chosen card matches the card you whispered to the lady earlier.

6: To finish have the envelope turned around and the number revealed. The spectator opens the envelope, takes out the deck and counts down to the 23rd card to reveal a matching Five of Diamonds. An amazing coincidence.

NOTES: Raynaly didn’t use a force. He palmed two cards from the deck (one of them the force card) and then had two cards freely chosen. He then switched the two chosen cards for the cards he had stolen earlier. Old school skills that contemporary magicians might have trouble with.

What I like about this trick is that there are so many different ways to play it. It reminds me of the work of David Berglas. As long as different objectives are achieved (finding out the number, forcing a card) you can reach your goals in any order and reveal the coincidence in any number of ways.

Al Koran had a good way of sneaking a look at a number in his Headline Countdown (Al Koran’s Legacy). Don’t even look at the envelope while the spectator is writing down the number. But when it’s done, casually hold out your hand and take the envelope back, saying, ‘Sign your initials here.’ You draw a big circle across the flap of the envelope, getting a glance at the number in the process. Leave him signing his initials as you find a lady to tell your secret to. It’s bold but it works.

You don’t need to have two cards selected. One is enough but I think two give it that extra something that suggests freedom of choice on the part of the spectator. A relatively simple force is to cull the force card under the spread as you have a card pointed to. In apparently upjogging the pointed to card you switch it for the culled card. Continue spreading and have a second card pointed to. Genuinely upjog that card. Have the spectator remove both outjogged cards. It looks almost as clean as a fan force but is perhaps easier to do.

For the finale try first having the envelope opened and the card counted down to. Then with both cards face-down on the table have the lady reveal her secret. Turn over both tabled cards to show that they match. If you don’t like the idea of whispering to the lady, hand her a prediction in an envelope (from an index), write something on the palm of her hand or type something into her iPhone. There are many ways of dressing this routine up to suit yourself.

Finally, check out Al Baker’s A Card and a Number from Encyclopedia of Card Tricks (page 232). It’s a very similar method and well worth a try.

Essential Magic Conference

This blog has never been overtly commercial but it would be remiss of me if I did not mention the upcoming Essential Magic Conference, that I think has its heart in the right place. It is being organised by Luis de Matos, Marco Tempest and myself.

It is magic's first digital conference with live broadcasts, on-demand downloads, question and answer sessions and if you register now you'll even get a set of DVDs containing all the conference videos mailed to you when the event is over. It's a non-profit venture and the ticket price is a bargain. It takes place on 15th, 16th and 17th of July.

It's important to note that this is not a skype conference. All the speakers will be there in one location and all lectures broadcast in high quality video and shot on multiple cameras.

You can find out more at the Essential Magic Conference website. And check out the 60 second intro here.

A Joe Berg Mystery

The following trick is from the March 1929 issue of The Sphinx. And the reason it is published here for several reasons. First because it presents something of a mystery. Second because it could be seen as an early version of the Premonition effect. And third because of its relationship to Ben Harris Crossroads effect, which I think is worth documenting.

BERG'S CARD EFFECT

EFFECT: Performer requests a spectator to choose either the red or the black cards, if red to choose Diamonds or Hearts, if black to choose Clubs or Spades. After the suit is selected the spectator is asked to call for any of the thirteen cards of that suit. Performer removes a pack of cards from a case and requests the spectator to shuffle them.

The performer now states that he will cause the selected or called card to vanish from the deck and appear in his pocket, immediately the performer reaches into his trouser pocket and removes the card called for. The pocket is shown to be empty.

THE MYSTERY: The description above is taken directly from The Sphinx. The mystery comes when you read the method because, unfortunately, not all the method is described. The text finishes abruptly leaving some details unrevealed. I presume some copy got lost in the edit. However, here is the method as described.

SECRET:  Remove thirteen cards of any suit you wish from a deck, arrange them in order from Ace to King and place them in your right trouser pocket. Now you may force the suit in the usual way, which I presume you are familiar with. Have spectator call for any card of the suit forced. As soon as the card is called remove remove the balance of the pack from the card case and hand it to be shuffled. While the spectator is shuffling the cards your 

COMMENTS: And there the explanation finishes. I presume that Berg located the card named and extracted it from the packet, perhaps putting it on top. This is done as the spectator shuffles the deck. He then palms the cards from his pocket, leaving the called card behind, and adds them to the deck. The result being that after a little more shuffling (to mix the forced suit into the other cards) he could show that the named card had vanished and then reproduce it from an otherwise empty pocket.

This is pure speculation but it seems to be the best way forward although it does leave some questions unanswered especially when it comes to giving the spectator a deck with thirteen cards missing

I checked a lot of Joe Berg material and found that he was fond of tricks in which several cards had been removed from the deck prior to the effect. And he has other tricks in which he palmed from a stack hidden in the pocket. At Ask Alexander there is an instruction sheet The Card Mysterious - Joe Berg. It is an any card at any number trick in which a spectator is invited to call out any Heart card. And then any number from 1 to 50. Berg already has duplicate suit of Hearts in his pocket. The spectator deals the chosen number of cards into Berg's hand and Berg merely palms out the named card from his pocket and drops it on top of the dealt heap to reveal the card at the chosen number. There are some similarities to Berg's Card Effect  i.e. working with a single suit and having thirteen cards in the pocket.

Berg's magic was usually very practical which is why I'm not inclined to dismiss this particular trick as an unworkable pipedream. Handling a spectator a 39 card deck does seem bold but given that only one person, the shuffler, would notice the discrepancy you might just get away with it. And the clever idea of forcing a suit to narrow down the selection possibilities is worth noting as an early nod in the direction of Ben Harris' Crossroads effect.

One additional idea, and maybe this was in the original text, is to palm the card from the trouser pocket and produce it from the jacket pocket. Or better still load it into a wallet. To prove the card missing from the deck he is asked to remove it. He can't and you produce it from your pocket.

Another idea is to reduce the number of cards that are missing from the deck. If you offer a choice between 1 and 10 when calling for the value of a card, you only need eight cards in the pocket. Add a couple of jokers to the deck and it won't feel quite so light as it did in the original trick.

In another effect Joe Berg had an interesting idea for arranging cards when in the pocket. Instead of stacking them in order, you stack them, with the odd cards on one side of the packet and the even cards on the other side. Both in numerical order. The idea is to make the named card easier to count to.

With only eight cards you might have, say, the 1, 2, 3, 4 of the suit from the top of the packet. And the 5, 6, 7, 8 in numerical order from the bottom of the packet. I think it's a touch worth knowing about.

NOTES: One source I have not checked is David Avadon's The Berg Book.  If anyone out there has a copy I'd be delighted to hear about similar material to Berg's Card Effect.

Chan Canasta Triple Card Coincidence

 

Dave Jones alerted me to another Chan Canasta video on You Tube uploaded by the discerning Gaafman. In this routine Canasta has three cards chosen by the first spectator. It's a free choice of any group of three cards from a stacked deck. In this case 9D, 5H and QS. By the way, this confirms that he is using the Eight Kings set up and a DHSC suit order as discussed in my book Chan Canasta A Remarkable Man. The spectator is invited to distribute the cards among three different pockets.

The idea of the trick is to have each spectator not only select the same three cards but also place them into the same pockets. As you can see it doesn't entirely work out. But the trick is not as risky as it first appears.

Canasta issues specific instructions to the first spectator: 'Don't look at them. Keep them flat on your hand like this. Now will you please take the first one and place it in your right hand pocket. Take one, any one, and put it into your left hand pocket.'  Although the spectator is given a choice here, Canasta still has an opportunity to spot whether he takes the top or bottom card of the two.

He then says, 'Take one, any one, and put it into your breast pocket.' There is actually only one card left. But by repeatedly using the phrase 'any one' it helps convince people that he really doesn't care where any of the cards are place. It gives an illusion of freedom of choice.

Canasta takes a second stacked deck, finds the same group of cards and forces them on to the second spectator. So far this is all standard Canasta strategy. Where it gets truly risky is when he asks the second spectator to mix up his cards and appears to give him complete freedom as to which pockets the cards are placed into.

However, consider these facts. Even if Canasta did nothing and gave the spectators complete freedom over where they placed the cards, the trick would still work one time out of six. There are only six possible combinations that three cards can be arranged in.

Better still, if Canasta can match one of those cards i.e. make the second spectator put the top card in the same pocket as the first spectator, then there is a one in two chance that the trick will work perfectly.

Unfortunately Canasta tells the second spectator to take 'any one you wish,' he does and it soon becomes impossible to follow which card is going into which pocket. I am not sure if, knowing that the top card is not in the right pocket, it is now better for Canasta to encourage the spectators to mix up all the cards. Maybe this reduces his one is six chance of a random miracle to one in four. Someone more mathematically minded might be able to answer this. Canasta certainly seems to realise that all is not well and asks them to mix the cards around, possibly hoping for a one in six miracle.

I think if Canasta had kept his head and clearly told the second spectator to put the top card (not 'any one you wish') into the right hand pocket, then he might have succeeded in bringing about the desired coincidence of identical cards being placed in matching pockets.

Canasta worked several different versions of the Cards and Pockets routine some of which I discussed in the Canasta book. It's a fascinating effect, capable of many variations, and one that I think could be very strong in the hands of the right performer.

Premonition Paradox

EFFECT: A spectator selects a card and then takes the deck. He gives it a couple of cuts and is invited to guess at what position his card lies. If he guesses correctly, a big prize is promised. The performer taps the wallet in his pocket, hinting at the reward.

'But first, just so that there is no cheating, what's the name of your card?' The spectator names the card, the Six of Spades. 'Okay. And what number do you think it lies in the deck.' The spectator is holding the deck face-up. He can see it's not the first card. So he guesses 27. 'Good. Now I'll give you an option. You can't change the number. You can't change your card. But you can cut the deck. Do you want to cut the deck or leave it the way it is?' It's a free choice. The spectator decides to cut the deck.

'So we're looking for the Six of Spades,' says the performer. 'Let's see if it is at position 27.' The spectator deals the cards face-up one at a time onto the table. Alas, the Six of Spades is not at the 27th position. The spectator continues counting and finds that the Six of Spades is not in the deck at all. And there are only 51 cards. The performer takes out his wallet and, of course, inside is the missing Six of Spades.

An advert could honestly claim that it's a free selection, there really are only 51 cards left at the finish, no palming is required to make the selected card disappear and yet the card in the wallet is the very same card that the spectator selected.

HISTORY: I've included this trick on the blog because it follows in the footsteps of the previously discussed The Problem With Premonition. And because I think the method is clever and has other applications. The main idea is Ed Marlo's. I've just tweaked it a bit and svengali-ised his concept. The original version was published, without a title, in Ibidem No 19 (1959). Marlo's idea enables any card to be named and then shown missing from the deck, leaving 51 cards and no duplicates (as found in variations of Premonition).

The trick uses a special deck made up of 51 double-face cards. On one side you have 51 different cards with no 10 of Diamonds. On the reverse side of every card is a 10 of Diamonds. You can see then that if any card is named all you have to do is secretly reverse it and the spectator can deal face-up through the deck and the named card would appear to be missing. Check out Ibidem for several interesting ideas that Marlo has with this deck.

The problem is that in 1959, when Marlo described this trick, a double-face deck made up in this way did not exist. However, since that time Piatnik Cards did put out just such a deck. And you can still get them. I got a deck just the other day from the Bond Agency. They are Piatnik Double Faces Special. Ref No 13061. You can buy matching decks.

Possibly unknown to Marlo is that the idea of a double-face deck constructed in this way is Hofzinser's and was part of his Thought routine described in Hofzinser's Card Conjuring. Maybe more on that in the future because it too is a very clever idea and uses the deck in a different way. But, for now, here is my version of Marlo's trick.

METHOD: The deck in this instance is made up of 26 ordinary cards and 25 of the special double-facers. The ordinary cards are all trimmed short, as with a Svengali Deck, and then alternated with the double-facers.

You now have a deck of 51 cards that on one side shows 51 different faces and no 10 of Diamonds. The other side of the deck alternates regular backs and 10 of Diamonds.

You also need a Le Paul or Kaps style wallet that you can secretly palm a card into. Here is the routine.

1: Spread the deck with the faces towards the spectators. It appears ordinary. Turn it face-down and dribble cards from the right hand into the left, as you would with a Svengali Deck, asking the spectator to call stop. Because of the Svengali Deck principle the cards fall in pairs, the backs of the regular cards hiding the upper sides of the double-facers.

2: When the spectator calls stop, halt the dribble and raise the right hand packet toward him so that he can see the face of the card. He remembers the card.

3: As you bring the hands together, to replace the upper half of the deck on the lower half, secretly reverse the selection. Marlo suggested you use the Buckley Reverse. But you can get away with a less sophisticated method as you patter. As the hands come together the left fingers can press against the face of the selection and slide it to the right. The outer right corner of the selection can now be clipped between the third and fourth finger of the right hand and quickly flipped over. With enough misdirection there are even simpler handlings you can use to turn the card over.

4: Turn the deck face-up and give it several cuts before handing it to the spectator. Make sure he sees that your hands are empty when you give him the deck. By now you have begun to explain your proposition and the reward for him correctly guessing the position of the card.

5: The spectator names his card, cuts the deck if he wishes, and then deals them face-up one at a time onto the table only to discover that the card has disappeared. That's the first part of the effect finished.

6: Pick up the deck and as you talk casually locate the only 10 of Diamonds that is showing. You noted roughly where it was as he dealt through the cards. Now all you have to do is palm out this card and sneak it into your Le Paul wallet. No one is looking for a palm at this point. The card has already cleanly disappeared. Bring out the wallet as if to show the reward he missed out on and then remove the double-facer with the correct side showing to finish. I like the paradox that the palm takes place long after the card has disappeared. It makes for a good dealer advert!

The original idea of Marlo's is great but I didn't like the thought of not showing the backs of the cards before the selection disappeared. Hence the addition of the Svengali Deck principle which I don't think takes away too much from the theoretically any-card-named selection that is part of the original.

NOTES: If you don't want to use Piatnik Cards you can make this trick up with regular double-facers. The deck will still have 51 different faces on one side. However, when the selection is reversed it will leave one duplicate card in the deck. Arrange the deck so that the duplicates are not near each other when the cards are dealt onto the table. Given that there are a couple of dozen duplicates in a regular Premonition, you shouldn't have much trouble getting away with just one.

Locating the selection for the palm after the disappearance will require a little more work. A simple card stack would be one way to go and enable you to pick out the correct duplicate card. Those who really want to baffle their peers might consider a version in which the selected card (a double-facer) is signed by the spectator. I think that would throw magicians off the scent.

Annemann's Nightmares

I was curious about the origin of the gimmicked card used in Paul Curry’s The Joker Knows. (See the November 15th 2009 entry on this blog). With the help of Ask Alexander I found Charles Jordan’s Spook Card (1916). Jordan credited the gimmicked card to Ford Rogers who used it in his 'Ever Ready' Forcing Pack. Jordan used the gimmick in a version of Hardin’s Prince’s Card Trick in which a thought of card vanished from a packet. All the cards in the packet were double cards prepared as in the Ever Ready Forcing Pack (see Greater Magic or Donald Holmes' manuscript Tricks With Prepared Cards.

Annemann acknowledged the Jordan idea in an advert for his Annemann’s Nightmare effect which he advertised in The Sphinx in 1928. Here is the advert. The method is the same as that used in The Problem with Premonition:

NOW BORROW THEIR OWN DECK AFTER THEY SHUFFLE. Have them remove a card which they place in their pocket without glimpsing. Now riffle deck, face up, and stop at their command. TELL THEM TO LOOK AT THE CARD IN SIGHT AND TO REMEMBER. IMMEDIATELY HAND THEM THE DECK WITHOUT A MOVE OR SLEIGHT. They deal the pack through a card at a time and THE CARD THEY SAW IS GONE! AND THIS WITH THEIR OWN DECK IN THEIR OWN HANDS! Ask them what it was. They tell you. Then you prove THEY WERE DREAMING, because UPON LOOKING THEMSELVES THEY FIND THAT VERY CARD WAS THE ONE THEY PLACED IN THEIR POCKET!

There are two key points. One is that the force is made with the deck face-up because the rear card of the pair is the shorter of the two. And the second is that Annemann adds the gimmicked card to a borrowed deck. Since the cards are only handled face up, the different back is never noticed. Oh, and at the beginning of the routine he forces the regular card on the spectator, of course.

Annemann returned to the effect in The Jinx (Issue 7, April 1935). It has a great presentation idea which I think is worth knowing about. Here is Annemann’s description of his New Nightmare:

Writing something on the face of a card from the deck in place of paper, the performer hands it to someone to hold for a few minutes without looking at it. Riffling through the face up pack, another person says, ‘stop’ at any time and looks at the card staring them in the face. They are asked to remember it well.

The deck is closed and without a move placed on the table. Turning, the performer asks the first person to read the writing on the card. ‘The card chosen will be the Three of Clubs.’ The prophecy is correct! Now the performer says he has gone further. The deck is dealt through a card at a time face up and the Three of Clubs is gone. ‘And where is it?’ queries the mystic. ‘I made it change places with the card I originally wrote upon!’ And the first spectator shows the card he has been holding from the start and from which he read the writing AND IT IS THE THREE OF CLUBS!

I’m not keen on the face-up riffle force but Annemann uses it so that the force card of the pair is the shorter of the two and better hidden. I think that the second card is very easy to hide in The Problem with Premonition even though it is the longer card of the gimmicked pair. However, I love the idea of giving the spectator a card at the beginning of the trick on which you’ve written a prediction. And having him first read out prediction but only later revealing that it is actually the card.

It might be better to force a red spot card so that the writing can read more easily. You need to control the assisting spectator so that they don’t reveal the card until you are ready. And I think it would be a good idea to have the spectator who selected the card to try to guess the position of the card in the deck as a reason for dealing through it and delaying the surprise. But other than that, Annemann is a genius!

NOTES: Just found Annemann's A Day-Time Nightmare described in Annemann's Card Miracles (1930) as published by Burling Hull. Also there is The Eye-Popper Card Feat which uses the Rogers' gimmick in an Ambitious Card trick.

The Harbin Effect

Thinking about impossible think-a-card tricks, The Berglas Effect and Premonition, put me in mind of an article I wrote back in 2002 for Stan Allen’s Magic magazine. It was called Tricks of Faith and dealt with tricks that either didn’t exist or didn’t work. In the article I briefly mentioned one trick of Robert Harbin’s as possibly being apocryphal, mainly because I couldn’t remember where I’d heard about it. But thanks to Martin Breese and his work in making digital compilations of magic magazines available I can now tell you that Harbin's trick was published in the Magigram magazine. Vol 12, number 1 for September 1979 to be exact.

By the way, the Magigram dvd is a wonderful resource. I’ve spent hours browsing through it and found the most amazing material. You’ll even find some early contributions from yours truly in those pages. So consider this a plug and well meant advice and pick up a copy of the Magigram dvd direct from Martin Breese or from Lybrary.com where it is available as a volume by volume download.

But back to the Harbin Effect. This is what Stanton Carlisle called Harbin’s technique, if that’s not too clever a word for what seems blind hope, for making a spectator think of a predetermined card. With Martin Breese’s permission, I’ll let Stanton Carlisle tell the story:

Some years ago, Bob Harbin was discussing one of his ingenious Ideas with a group of magicians and the majority present 'pooh - poohed' the very suggestion, but I pricked up my ears for I realised that what Bob was referring to was ‘the mentative thought process’ which anyone acquainted with psychology, metaphysics, mysticism or any other form of mind-science would readily understand.

Although both Arthur Carter and I discussed this separately with Bob when things had quietened down again, I am not sure whether Bob ever published the idea because of the initial reception as mentioned above. Whether or not he did, it is worth perpetuating for not only have I used it for a long while now with great effect but, after a period of time, I came to the conclusion that although his original idea was most practical, it could, by more usual magical means be developed into something even more staggering. Like most good ideas, this did not come to me in a f1ash of inspiration but gradually evolved over several years.

Bob's original idea will be described first and then my addition; but first, read this true story (which arose out of Bob's idea) and then read the secret. Then I feel you will be in a more receptive state of mind to appreciate the real secret behind the effect. In addition to this, the people concerned in the following can all vouch for its authenticity!

A few years ago when still living In London, I was in bed awaiting admission to hospital and about lunchtime the telephone rang stridently and, having an extension by the bed, I picked It up to hear the friendly voice of our editor, Ken de Courcy. After some cheer-up chatter, Ken mentioned an Idea he had had and in his description used the words, " ... supposing, for instance they choose THE' TEN OF DIAMONDS.. ". Before ringing off, he had exacted a promise from me to 'give it some thought' and this is not an unusual thing between Ken and I and it works both ways!

At approximately half-past three the same afternoon, the phone rang again and it was Arthur Carter who had no idea that Ken and I had previously conversed that day but did, like me, use Bob's idea. After saying, hello, etc and enquiring after my health his next words were, ''Does THE TEN OF DIAMONDS mean anything to you?" and I assured him that it did; that Ken had conversed with me earlier and, without telling Arthur what Ken's idea was, mentioned that it was a coincidence that Ken had mentioned THAT VERY CARD. "Good" said Arthur, "but I had an idea that it might because I am trying The Harbin Effect over the phone". After some discussion we ended the chat and that I thought was that.

Somewhere about five o 'clock that day I pulled open the drawer of the headboard which is situated directly under the telephone, and there, laying on top of a book was a playing card I had been using as a book-mark until finishing the book when I dropped it where it now laid ... THE TEN OF DIAMONDS!

Knowing 'The Harbin Effect' and realising that UNWITTINGLY I must have been looking at and sub-consciously registering that card for several days, I rang both Ken and Arthur and checked that they had not been in touch with each other and told both of them the story you have just read. Arthur knew as already explained but Ken did not so I explained it to him.

What I am now revealing for the first time is my version which I have jealously kept to myself and never presented to magicians anywhere or at any time. Now as this is an effect that can only be presented when the occasion is right (as will soon be realised) let us start with ‘The Harbin Effect’ as he devised it and used it.

Take ANY card from your deck and place it in a wallet ... any wallet you normally carry!

For about three days keep taking it out and looking at it and by so doing, 'imprint it indelibly in your conscious mind.' By a sort of osmosis type of action, this will then 'seep down into your subconscious mind' quite automatically. Having done that ... forget about it!

By this is meant that after some three days you need not bother about it and just let it stay in the wallet. Within a day or two of that someone who knows you are a magician is bound to ask you to “Show us a trick" and this is what you wait for. Under NO circumstances must you attempt to demonstrate it ... wait until you are asked!!

The wallet with its card is in the usual pocket, but you take out the deck it came from and toss it on a convenient surface and then ask the spectator to "Please name the first card that comes into your mind" and, truth being stranger than fiction, IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE HE WILL NAME THE CARD IN THE WALLET THEN HE WILL! I don't mean if you merely 'think' or 'wish' him to do so, but HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT HE WILL.

If he does, mention that the deck is already on the table and, letting it be seen that your hands are empty, remove your wallet and toss it on the table beside the deck. He is then asked to open the wallet and finds the card HE HAS JUST NAMED. It gets better because he can check the deck and find it has but 51 cards and that the card in the wallet is the one card needed to complete the deck.

For those who are still sceptical (and there will always be some of those), let me state that the more you do it THE MORE OFTEN IT COMES OFF! Practice really does make perfect and I can see readers like Tony 'Doc' Shiels and E. Leslie May having 'a field day with it'.

I estimate that it is a 90% trick, so what of the other 10% if they don't name THE card? Just do any effective trick you know with the card they name. From presenting this over a long period, I use the card in an 'Ambitious Card Routine' for good effect.

Having a general understanding now of 'The Harbin Effect, and space does not allow me to go into all the reasons why this works, always go out prepared to do it, BUT ONLY IF ASKED!

This is like most Harbinesque ideas a WINNER , but only for those who can understand the basic effect and believe in it.

Stanton then went on to describe his own handling of the Harbin Effect, one in which he has an out so that he can present a decent mental effect even if the spectator fails to name the predicted card. Which I’d have thought would be pretty damn often. Having said that, I think it makes a great story dressing for any trick of this type. If Harbin believed it, then maybe your audience will too.

NOTES: Robert Farrell emailed to say that this effect of Harbin's was also mentioned in Abracadabra magazine and republished in Harbincadabra. He's right, check out page 99 of Harbincadabra for an article by Robert Lund. Lund talks about Harbin's belief in telepathy and his explanation of this trick:

Take any card out of a deck and look at it hard. Put it in your wallet, purse, pocket book or whatever you colonials call it and, at odd times, think about it.

Choose a moment among friends when you have been doing a few tricks and when you have noticed a man or woman who believes you have something extra - you can feel this - turn to the person and say you want to try something. Take out your wallet and place it in full view.

In this wallet (you patter) I have put a card I selected this morning. Now look me in the eye. In a moment I want you to tell me what it is,. We will count down together. Ten, nine, eight, seven.... and then immediately say the name of any playing card that comes into your head. I want you to try to think of nothing a t all. Make your mind a blank. Now count with me - ten, nine, eight...

When you reach one say, 'Now! Name the card.'

It works for me every time, but only among friends and only when we have become serious about the possibility of some sort of mental magic, when the time is opportune and there is a feeling in the air.

Lund goes on to say that Zina Bennett had a similar belief that carrying a card about in his pocket for several days enabled him to do a miracle.

I like the counting down presentation that Harbin employs. It's tempting to think that this could be part of some psychological process of getting the spectator to think of a specific card. I'll leave that thought with you.