The Aronson Approach By Simon Aronson (z-lib.org).pdf

CONTENTS Introduction «It

Preface ANYTIME EFFECTS

....................................... ..................................... ........................................ .......................................... .......................................... ......................................... ............................... ...................................

3

Under Her Spell

Mark-a-Place Mates

10

Paragon Poker

17

Self Control

24

Active Aces

a-v

oY-VA

Simple Simon

36

Lateral Palm Double Change

44

Two Minds and a Mate

50

STACKS AND GAFFS

........................................ ........................................... ........................................ ....................................

Mix and Match

59

Time Out

63

Below the Belt

70

Oh Pity Me Location

75

MEMORIZED MIRACLES Bait and Switch

........................................ ............................... .................................... ............... .......................

Any Card, Then Any Number

Four Part Harmony Memorized Math

€0.49

29

SIMON-EYES

Simon-Eyes

.

.........................................

85

93 101

113

123

172

Postscript

(V)

Simon, Bill Malone, Bob Syrup and Ed Marlo

Dave Solomon, Bill Malone, Steve Draun and Simon (vi)

INTRODUCTION by David Solomon must admit that I am flattered to have been asked by Simon to write an introducfion to Aronson Approach.

1

m

Simon and I have been studying magic together since we met in 1966. Over the years not only have we sessioned together, performed together at the T.A.O.M., and published our book Sessions together, but we are best of friends. Many of the thoughts we share have grown out of our respect for the same types of material and from input by a close group of common friends. Our main influence has been Ed Marlo, and our efforts over the years have benefitted from a certain synergy arising from the Marlo-Draun-Aronson-Solomon combination. It is with this in mind that I write the following observations about Simon’s work. The guidelines that Simon uses to determine what he publishes are very personal, but he and I have talked about and thought about these principles in-depth. I will share these principles with you so you can see what has stimulated Simon’s special approach to magic and mentalism. Simon publishes only strong material to which he feels he has added a significant, original, creative touch that he would like to share. He is a severe self-critic, and he does not want his name on material which he feels is just 30-30 or represents only a minor improvement. Simon has performed mentalism and magic professionally, and all of the effects are effects that he actually performs; there are no fillers. Simon goes into great detail to give inspirational sources and credits as completely as possible. All of the methods are SOphisticated, concise and clever but, at the same time not necessarily difficult. He is not afraid to use mental skills as part of the method, as long as the thinking doesn’t show when performing the effect. When the effect warrants it, he will use procedures that require gaffs and stacks to accomplish the effect. The object of the game is to do good magic in a fooling, natural way. Simon’s methods are clean and have a neat, simple, straightforward look to them. He recognizes and carefully weighs the price one has to pay, i.e., the trade-offs, whether gaff or sleight or mental, to make the effect work. Simon’s material is thought provoking, which leads to principles that can be applied to other effects. In his detailed descriptions he leads you to think of other applications. Simon thinks and writes very thoroughly, with methods that are complete and instructions that are detailed so as to allow the reader every opportunity to learn the magic. If you have ever had the opportunity to see Simon perform his effects, you know they are delightfully baffling. Many professionals have used Simon’s methods with great satisfaction. One last thought, I would like to mention. Simon and l have a special karma between us. The time we spend together thinking about and discussing magic is special in my life. The results are rewarding in so many ways. Simon has been extremely helpful with my material, and I try to help him with his in any way possible. I hope that this material in The Artmson Approach gives you as much pleasure as it has given Simon and me.

(vii)

PREFACE 1:

When I published my first book Qard Ideas in 1978, one well-known cardician mentioned that he liked my "approach" to card magic. Since then, I’ve written three additional books, and each time pe0ple have commented that I approach card effects in a peculiar or special way. recently asked one of my close friends whether he felt there was something distinctive about my approach, as typified in my books. He thought, for about five seconds, and replied, "Definitely. You talk a lot." I

What he meant, of course, (believe me, I inunediately asked him) wasthat I discuss any effect I present in depth. I thought about calling this book Ca_rd §tugie§, to emphasize the point that each separate item isn’t just one single trick, but rather an exploration of the effect and its underlying principles. I’m a strong believer that an integral part of any effect is what precedes and what follows it, so I’ve always been intrigued by how to get into a particular situation, and conversely how you can best use an effect to segue into your next piece. Since performing conditions and performer’s skills will often differ, I also find it useful to offer variations, alternative applications, and tradeoffs for your consideration. These are not discards or padding, but are all viable Options which together show both the potentialities and the limits of the concept under discussion. What is most important to me, and I hope to my readers, is the ideas, the thinking. When I told one of my friends I was writing another book, his initial question was, "How many items will it contain"? If that quantity question refers just to the number of trick entries listed in the table of contents, then this book is somewhat humble. If, however, that question asks about how many ideas are contained that are novel, clever, original, subtle, practical, or promotive of further thought, then I’d like to believe that this volume will amply satisfy the desires of all cardicians. In touting magic books, one often hears that "if you get one usable trick, it’s worth the price of the book". That’s not good enough for me. An individual’s choice of performance material is necessarily limited by his own preferences, skills, time constraints, and the like, but that doesn’t mean we don’t all appreciate and admire the quality of ideas, even if we ourselves might never use them. I’m sure that every cardician will find a large number of items in this book he can and will use. Some of the material is more esoteric, but I hope that, even if a particular effect orprinciple isn’t something you will actually choose to _d_o, you’ll nevertheless conclude that a_l_| of the entries in the Aronson Approach present new and valuable ideas, and you’ll still get a kick out of just reading each effect and imagining its possibilities.

There’s much variety within these covers, and I certainly don’t have one "favorite". Everyone should find a lot of immediately practical and usable material in the first section. For UK)

solid entertainment value, I’d point particularly to Under Her Spell, my Paragon Poker deal, and Active Aces. For those who love "impossible" locations, Self Control should open new vistas. The flexibility of my Simple Simon procedure should appeal to those who want an easy, yet convincing procedure for stacking four of a kind in just gig shuffle. The "mark-a-place" move may slide past a lot of readers, because it’s so simple, but please try it. It’s so natural that it gets by many cardicians who are familiar with similar moves. I never feel guilty about using stacks or gaffs, as long as the ultimate effect is worth it, and there’s a lot of subtle, deceptive material in the middle sections. If pressed, I’d especially q recommend Below the Belt and Bait and Switch. Mix and Match is a two deck effect that is entirely self-working, but its matching climax will boggle the mind of any lay spectator.

Simon-Eyes takes up the entire final section of this book, and it’s a very special item. I don’t want to toot my own horn, but it’s definitely the single creation in this book of which I’m most proud. In Card Ideas and again in Sessions I expressed how grateful I am to have Ed Marlo, Dave Solomon and Steve Draun as my closest friends in magic. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but it’s all still true. My ideas and thinking are what they are because of the inspirations, the suggestions, the criticisms, the experience, the knowledge, and the encouragement of these three individuals. 1 can only thank them again, and dedicate this volume to our continued sessions. My wife Ginny has put up with this project for all too long, and she’s been both a substantive critic, a tireless editor and a photographer who makes me smile. Dave and Steve have both edited various drafts, and Dave has given me invaluable help with the photographs and technical production. John Bannon is a recent addition to Chicago’s magic scene, and his perspective and cements on all of the material have been greatly appreciated. I owe immeasurable thanks to Rita Sella for her admirable and patient performance in typing and proofing numerous drafts of this manuscript, as well as her willingness to put up with my somewhat eccentric priorities. Thanks are also offered to Vicki Zandi and Mary Kay Spatz, who helped with the word processing and technical layout. Ideas are never "frozen". They’re always deveIOping, growing, and hopefully improving as they receive stimuli and input from other sources. I’d be grateful to receive your reactions and comments, whether pro or con, to this material. I hope you’ll enjoy and find value in the Aronson approach to card magic.

Simon Aronson September 13, 1990

2500 Lakeview Chicago, Illinois 60614

(X)

ANYTIME EFFECTS

UNDER HER SPELL

'

Of all the effects in the book, this is the one I perform most frequently. It’s 100% impromptu, is short and snappy, with a lot of visual vanishes, and has an engaging patter

presentation that keeps a lay audience smiling throughout. Fellow cardicians will appreciate its economy, and the fact that it’s one of the few non-ace routines that makes good use of the Stanley Collins vanish. I’ll explainjust the bare bones effect first, but in a separate patter section complete patter script I’ve been using.

[’11

give you the

EFFECT

The performer removes the four Queens from a deck, explaining that each Queen represents one of the various "faces" of woman. A male spectator is asked to pick any one of the four Queens, to be his "blind date". Say, for example, he selects the Queen of Clubs. Three indifferent cards are then dealt onto each of the four Queens, forming four piles. The performer remarks that woman is an elusive creature, and shows that each of the Queens has vanished! All the cards are gathered together, and the performer explains that, since the spectator fell "under the spell" of the Queen of Clubs, he can find the missing Queen by spelling to it. He does so, and produces the Queen of Clubs -- and as an added climax shows that, by this "magic spell", he has found all three of the other Queens as well. WORKING Remove the four Queens from the deck, and hold them in a face down packet in your left hand, as you comment about falling under woman’s spell. Turn each Queen face up, one at a time, as you point out how each Queen represents a particular aspect of a woman’s personality. While no special order is required, I always show the Queens in Clubs-Hearts-Diamonds-Spades order, and the patter (see below) is scripted for that order. 1)

2) Turn all four Queens face down, mix them up so their order is unknown, and deal them left to right in a face down row across the table. 3) Explain that your male helper will now fall "under the spell" of a woman, and ask him to turn any one card face up, as his "blind date". Once the spectator turns up his selection (the Queen of Clubs, in our example), move that chosen Queen to the right end of the row, and turn the other three Queens face up as well, as you announce that he’s fallen under the spell of the Queen of Clubs (or whichever it is).

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0%

You’ll see that, from the outset, the patter introduces the phrase ”under her spell”, and revelation the magical to continuity This a creates times. several repeated words subtly those are at the climax, when you reproduce the selected Queen by spelling to her name. Note that the spectator does in fact have a completely free selection of any of the Queens. If you prefer, the selection could be made with the Queens face up; I think, however, that the face down cards better support the idea of being on a "blind" date. You’re: left hand. in down in face position dealing your 4) Take the balance of the deck but actually you’ll now apparently going to count off three cards to deposit onto each Queen, 3 off 4 secretly count off four cards, as three, each time. Methods for secretly taking cards as the top of the deck are fairly well known. (Two excellent approaches, using a technique of first described in spreading off a fan of three and then adding a fourth card as the fan is closed, are Volume 1 of the Vernon Chronicles, on pages 131 and 135.) I prefer to count off the cards it into singly, using the left thumb to push the top card of the deck to the right, and then taking the palm up right hand with the right thumb. Three cards are thus reverse counted into the right hand, but on the count of "2", the left thumb actually pushes off two cards together, and the right thumb takes this double card as one. Don’t worry about pushing the two cards in perfect them. I will thumb the align help action of right the hitting slightly if apart, they’re alignment; count off the cards "1-2-3" fairly rapidly and casually, with a slight "necktie” action of raising the deck in the left hand. The important point is to keep an even rhythm, with no pause or hesitation on the double card. Most of the spectators’ attention will be on the face up Queens, and on listening to your patter. No particular importance is placed on the cards you’re counting.

When the three (really four) cards have been counted into the right hand, your right hand turns palm down and deposits its cards face up onto the Queen at the left end of the row. The accompanying patter explains that woman surrounds herself with other men, or other distractions. 5) Repeat step 4 three more times, each time counting off 4 cards as 3 and placing them onto one of the Queens, ending with the Queen of Clubs. When finished, casually place the balance of the deck face down, off to the right side of the table.

of the four piles face down, and point out that the Queen is on top of each pile; I casually pick up and flash the Queen of Clubs to confirm that it’s on top, and then replace 6) Turn each

it. 7) You now explain that women are quite elusive, and can slip through your One at a time you show all the cards in each pile, and all of the Queens are seen disappeared. You’ll use the Collins Vanish on each pile, and in order to set up the climax, after each vanish you’ll gather up each packet and toss the cards into a discard

fingers. to have spelling pile in a

particular way. I’m assuming that the basic Collins Vanish is known to most readers; it’s been described in many publications, including Volume 2 of the Vernon Chronicles, p. 225. Very briefly, the left hand picks up the left-most face down packet and holds it in glide position. The right hand removes the bottom face down card, right'thumb above and right fingers below, and turns it end for end placing it face up on the table. Repeat this for the second card, placing it face up onto

UNDER HER SPELL

0!.

the first card. The third card should appear to be taken in the exact same manner, but actually a double card (the Queen on top plus an indifferent card covering its face) is taken. This is accomplished by gliding back the face card (by either the left second and third fingers, or by the right forefinger), as the right fingers and thumb pinch and take the outer ends of the two stillaligned top cards, and turns them end for end, as one, placing the face up double onto the first two tabled cards. You’ve shown three indifferent cards. Now pause, and than snap the remaining single card face up in the left hand, to show another indifferent card, the Queen having vanished. (If you like, you can perform a thru—the-fist flourish on this fourth card, before revealing the vanish). Then, casually use this last face up card in the left hand as a scoop, scooping it under the left long edge of the tabled face up cards, and lift the entire packet up and place it aside, still face up, off to the left. This will be the start of your discard pile. 8) Pick up the next left-most packet, and repeat the handling of step 7 exactly, to show that the second Queen has gone. Again, use the last card as a scoop, placing the scooped up

packet face up onto the discard pile.

9) Repeat the same handling for the vanish of the third Queen, but with one minor difference. Instead of using the fourth card as a scoop, simply drop it face up onto the face of the tabled cards (as in the original Collins handling). Then, with the right hand, pick up the tabled packet from above by the ends, and holding it face up, perform an Ascanio spread, to once again show the faces of four indifferent cards (See Comment 5). At the conclusion of the Ascanio spread, the right hand will be left holding a double card (Queen hidden behind an indifferent card) and the right hand in a continuous action slides this double out of the spread and drops it face up onto the discard pile, apparently as a single card. The right hand at once continues to take each of the three remaining cards and drops them singly face up onto the discard pile. This Ascanio spread and immediate dropping off of four indifferent cards is very strong, and visually reinforces that the Queen really is not there. It also places the third Queen into proper position for the spelling climax.

If you’ll check, you’ll find that because of the two sc00ping actions and the Ascanio, the first three Queens now occupy positions 4, 9 and 11 counting from back to front of the face up

pile.

You’re now going to show that the selected Queen has likewise vanished from its pile. Once again, perform the Collins Vanish, but, depending on which Queen has been selected, the last card shown, i.e., the fourth indifferent card, will be handled in one of three different ways: 10)

if the Queen of Clubs has been selected, handle the packet exactly as you did the third Queen packet, doing the Ascanio spread and then dropping the double card and the rest of the single cards individually onto the discard pile. (a)

if the Queen of Diamonds has been selected, handle the packet exactly as you did (b) the first two Queen'packets, with the sc00ping action, and then place the scooped up packet onto the discard pile.

f THE ARONSON APPROACH

0%

if either the Queen of Hearts or the Queen of Spades has been selected, you’ll do a combination of both the Ascanio and the sc00ping action, as follows: Do the regular (c)

,

Collins Vanish and the Ascanio spread (just as with the third Queen packet), but at the completion of the Ascanio spread, when you drop the cards singly, instead of dropping them directly onto the discard pile, drOp them face up onto the table to form a separate last pile. First drop the double, then the next two cards onto its face, and finally use the single indifferent card as a scoop (just as you did with the first two Queen packets) scooping under and then placing this entire packet face up onto the discard pile.

These three alternative handlings for the fourth packet are the only variants you’ll need to remember in the entire routine; everything else always remains the same, regardless of which Queen is selected. These three Options are needed in order to correctly place the selected Queen and easy to do to All three suit. its are of letter spelled easy last the lands it on that so up remember, and flow quite naturally as part of the routine. With your left hand palm down, pick up the entire discard pile, and turn the left hand palm up, thus turning the cards face down. As you do so, your left thumb pushes the top card to the right a bit, just enough so that your left fourth finger can obtain a break under this single card. As this is done, your right hand picks up the balance of the face down deck (from where it was placed aside at step 5) and drops it face down onto the left hand cards, thus reassembling the entire face down deck. Your left fourth finger maintains its break. 11)

Casually do a triple cut to the table as follows: (i) your right hand cuts off approximately half of the cards above the break and drops them face down to the table; (ii) your right hand returns and cuts off all the cards above the break, and drops them onto the first cut pile; and (iii) your right hand returns, picks up all of the remaining left hand cards, and drops them onto the tabled pile. The right hand then picks up the entire tabled deck, and places it face down into your left hand, squaring it. 12)

This triple cut is done to a quick 1-2-3 count, and is basically part of the overall action of gathering up and reassembling the cards after the Queens have vanished. It is done casually, his as you patter, tongue in cheek, about how distraught the spectator must be, to have lost selected Queen so soon. The result of this gathering up, obtaining a break, and doing the triple in the cut is simply to bring the "discard" pile back to the top of the reassembled pack, while process, getting rid of the top card of the discard pile. Comment about how, since the spectator was "under the spell" of the Queen of Clubs, you can find her with a "magic spell". Holding the deck face down in the left hand, spell THE QUEEN OF CLUBS, dealing one card face down for each letter, forming four piles as follows: 13)

(i) Spell T-H-E dealing cards one at a time into a pile at your left;

(ii) Start another pile, immediately to the right of the first, spelling Q-U-E-E-N; (iii) Continue with a third pile, spelling O-F; and

r UNDER HER SPELL

.1.

(iv) Finish the fourth pile, to the right of the third pile, spelling the suit of the spectator’s selected queen (in this example C-L-U-B-S). On the letter "S", snap the card you’re holding, and flip it face up, to reveal the Queen of Clubs!

Magic has found his missing Queen. Smile and pause, as though the effect is over.

,5

Remind the spectators, woman is a complicated creature and you’ll "always get " more than you bargained for. Turn over the top card of each of the other three piles, to reveal the other three Queens. 14)

PATTER

Much of the entertainment value in this effect comes from the patter lines, which should appeal to all but the most ardent feminist. Here’s the script I follow. The part in brackets indicates the particular action being done, or the particular step in the text above. The lines in the parentheses are used only for certain, more "ribald", audiences; you’ll have to decide as a matter of personal taste whether and when to use them. [Intro; Step

1]

Have you ever been on a blind date? Have you ever fallen under

5;

womanfs spell?

Would you like to see what kind Woman is a complex creature

of a woman you might fall for?

- with many difi’erent faces:

--

[Show QC] Woman is a party girl, she loves a good time, she frequents the "clubs ".

--

[Show QH] Woman is romantic, a lover. She wears her heart on her sleeve.

--

[Show QD] Woman can be greedy, she loves nice things. You know what they say about diamonds and women.

--

[Show 08] Then, of course, there ’s the dark, myszerious side of woman. ” into is -- she’s been "spade "). "safe sex ('Ihis sexual one creature. sensual,

A

Let’s take you on a blind date. [Mix; Step 2]

It’ll be love at first sight [laydown] -- so turn over your choice of girl. [Selection]. ’t as simple as just turning You ’ve fallen under the spell of the Queen of . But love isn her over (although that ’3 fun too). woman doesn’t just stand around alone, waiting company of others. [Step 4] A

- she surrounds herself with the

0'.

THE ARONSON APPROACH [1-2-3] [1-2-3] [1-2-3] [1-2-3]

There may be other men, draw her away. that can interests, other or attention. or other passions, that claim her distracu’ons. other has of Yes, Even your Queen

[Step 5]

I,

But a woman will the piles.) of of one on top [Turn piles face down. Show Queen be fun, too). that can *1 (and situation the of on t0p usually stay the Queen of the of spell ’re under Remember, you [Show selection; Step 6] elusive creature. but she, like every woman, is such an ,

they fingers, through your slip they Just when you think you know where they are, disappear. Look!

[Vanish first queen; Step 7] Gone! Vanished! 8] Step second queen; [Vanish Gone Really 9] Step third queen; [Vanish And what about your true love the Queen of

. . .

Probably gone shopping. ?

unlucky at love. cards, at Lucky go. easy come, [Vanish selected queen; Step 10] Easy so soon. be . . . to lose her, must distraught you how [Gather up; Triple cut] I know love story. to a ending happy a supply But magic can

the Queen of of pile spell under were said we you [Step 13] Remember the Queen ’11 literally spell to your true love, We her. We’ll just cast a magic spell to find back! (and her front). her won you’ve Look, final card] Turn over .

of

[Spell

more than you get always and you’ll complex, is quite But, as I said, every woman bargained for [Step 14]. COMMENTS after a Collins Vanish, to displace Ascanio spreads and The idea of using scoops (1) been used before. Mike has ending, spelling for a certain desired cards into prOper position in Martin Lewis’ Martin’s print has seen which Aces, four Skinner performs such an effect using Aces is spelled to separately. the of each effect, that In 36. Miracles, p.

the full name spell to piles four separate out of spelling idea I first came across the (2) in Karl Fulves, Down", "Fourth entitled Slaight, Allan of one card in a faro shuffle effect by Octet. in his presented Erdnase what to approach The patter idea is sort of a modern (3) as well lines, individual the patter of with some "Elusive Coterie". 1 thank my wife for her help as for her understanding nature.

UNDER HER SPELL

.1.

This effect works quite well as a follow up to any effect in which four of a kind (in this case the four Queens) are magically produced. (4)

The Ascanio Spread has been described in various magic publications, with many (5) variant handlings. For the most complete discussion, see Jon Racherbaumer’s Yod series, (1976); for a more recent, succinct description of the move, see Rdeakemm Ascanig Presean (1989), p. 97.

5pm

m

In its most basic form, as in this trick, the Ascanio Spread is used to show a packet of five face up cards, as containing apparently only four cards; the center card remains hidden. Briefly, its mechanics are as follows: Assume you have a five card face up packet, arranged (back to front) A, 2, Q, 3, 4 (the 4 is at the face). With the right hand, grasp the packet fat—cc; up from above by the ends. You’re now going to spread the packet to show (apparently) four cards, as follows: (i) With the left first finger, press lightly against the back of the lowermost card of the packet (the Ace), as the right hand slides the rest of the packet to the right, for about one inch; the pressure of the left finger causes the Ace to stay behind, so that the Ace will be sidejogged to the right; (ii) with the tip of the left third finger, apply pressure to the exposed portion of the back of the 2, as the right hand continues to slide the balance of the packet (those cards above the 2) to the right for another inch, now creating a spread showing three cards; (iii) continuing, the left thumb lowers onto the left side of the face of the 4, and applies a light pressure, as the right hand continues to slide the remaining two cards of the packet (the 3, with the Queen hidden beneath it), to the right, as one aligned card, for about another inch. The double card is thus sticking out beyond the right edge of the four, and its right index is visible, revealing it to be a 3.

(6) Steve Draun offers a couple of technical tips on the Collins Vanish, which improve its illusion immensely. First, when you initially pick up the packet in glide grip, make sure your left fingertips start in a "curled in" position, touching the face of the bottom card, from the outs_et; don’t let your fingers point straight down, and then suddenly curl in only when you’re about to actually take the double card. Second, when you take the double card, don’t pull back the glided the right fingertips are in contact with the packet to remove the double. That way, the card pull back action will blend into the right hand’s "taking" action.

m

MARK-A-PLACE MATES 1 conditions. This is a quick, practical effect which can be performed under virtually any It also climax. the coincidence" at "double unexpected a and strong, produces It’s easy to do of discuss I’ll some effects. other for possibilities that many up opens introduces a utility move these alternative applications in the Comments section. SET UP the note shuffled deck, In deck. the a of the at card set top two up, This effect requires a cards the two as mates their t0p respective place to be, Whatever happen they bottom two cards. and the bottom card, the of the be will mate card the i.e. top order, , of the pack, in mirror image of For ease bottom. the from card second the of the mate be will the from top second card is the QH and the second card card bottom the that let’s assume this description, in reference and 4C, the QD the cards, two as top therefore would You arrange, 48. is the face from the such a set up). respectively. (See Comment 5 for some quick ways of establishing WORKING

fall first cards bottom the two let sure making riffle shuffles, few you the a Give pack 1) overhand could the prefer, (If set maintain you you to last up. fall as so cards and the top two last two cards singly. shuffle, if you’re careful to run both the top two cards singly, and then the it will still work.) Ribbon in mirror it’s image, since but Set the of order the "reverses" up, This that the cards see the can so for spectators table moment, a the just face across deck the up spread in front of the table, down face deck on shuffled the Place then and up. well-mixed, square are the spectator. the 2) Ask the spectator to cut the deck "about in half". When he complies, pick up the first shuffle, run original top half, and give it two casual overhand shuffles, as follows: on but the top two cards singly, and then shuffle off. Immediately continue with a second shuffle, and then shuffle off the cards and together, bottom the top taking "milk by card peel" first the on the final card singly, so that the 4C shuffle this run of end the that at you certain make but rest, the top, and the QD be should 4C the on these shuffles, after check: A status the to top. comes overhand shuffle, see in on the bottom, of this half. (If you want to accomplish this just one Comment 3).

the cards 3) Hold the shuffled packet face down in your left hand, and start to spread card. Rather, I’d ask to "I’m a pick to going you not handsas explain, between you slowly your " This card. back the one of any like you to mark a place anywhere in this half, by just touching touch one of the cards as they go by; you patter guides the spectator to just use one finger to 10

——————_—___— do

MARK-A-PLACE MATES

don’t want him to actually remove a card from the spread. Don’t rush the spectator. You want him to feel he has a completely free choice.

4) Once he touches a card, stop the spreading at that point. You’re now going to perform a move I call the "mark-a-place" force. It will appear as though you simply flip the touched card face up, to "mark" the particular place in the spread where the spectator wanted you to stop. Actually, you’ll secretly displace the order of the two halves around the "flipped over" card, so that the portion of the spread that was originally below the touched card will wind up on top of it, and vice versa. In essence, the mark-a-place force accomplishes the same result as Bill Simon’s "Business Card Pr0phecy" force, but the handling is simpler and more subtle: there is no outjogging of any card, no wrist revolving, and no flashing of the faces of any cards other than the one being flipped face up. Here’s the handling: (i) When the spectator touches the card, your right hand will be holding a spread, or fan, of the cards which have already gone by. The remaining cards in your left hand will still be roughly squared. Isolate the touched card between the two hands, by pushing its left long side towards the right with your left thumb, so that the card’s left edge is approximately. 3/4" to the right of the left edge of the packet below it. At the same time, your right hand moves its spread of cards (i.e., all the cards above the touched card) to the right, so the left edge of these spread cards is just over, and lightly rests upon, the right edge of the touched card. Your left thumb rests lightly on the left edge of the touched card, to hold it in place. (Figure 1 shows the position of the cards at this point; in the photo, I’ve used an odd backed card as the touched card, to better portray its placement). Note that the right hand cards lie above only the rightmost 1/4", or at most 1/2", of the touched card. Pause for just a moment, as you- display the back of the touched card.

Figure I

(ii) You’re now going to cause the touched card to flip over, face up, bookwise. Your right hand presses its spread of cards down, lightly, onto the sidejogged right edge of the touched card, while at the same time the left thumb releases its hold on the left edge of

11

o?-

THE ARONSON APPROACH

levers the left long card’s edge right the on downward The pressure card. the touched edge upwards. Figure 2 shows the card starting to flip up.

Figure 2

I

\3

.

_

/ ‘

-—

-

g

I

'

‘

.,

mu

'A'JW .

to assist the work hands together both has action begun, the levering Once (iii) hand packet continues to The face right card’s flipping touched up. the of completion the left hand packet lifts up against the underside the left, as to and slightly down, press touched card will of the touched card, with a very slight motion towards the right. The will be just thus flip face up, landing onto the right hand cards. It’s new left long edge slightly beneath the right edge of the left hand packet (Figure 3).

call attention to it, as (iv) As soon as the face of the flipped over card comes into view, will mark the place ", and as you make this comment, Clubs Seven "The of remark, you the cards, trapping the now face up touched to close up hands together, square two your card somewhere in the middle (Figure 4). Don’t worry if the cards aren’t perfectly the table. onto the Place packet is out. still sticking card face the of if up square, or part

Figure 3 12

Figure 4

MARK-A-PLACE MATES

.1.

You may need to practice a bit, just to get the correct "feel" of having the touched card lightly turn over. You definitely do n_o_t want to put any tension into the card, which is what would occur if you continued to hold the left thumb down as the right hand packet presses down. Such tension, if released, would cause the card to quickly flip over, with a "snap”. That’s not the goal here. Rather, this is a slow, easy casual flip, just an up-and-over, and then close up the spread. Here’s a few tips that may help. First, you should experiment with the most comfortable placement for the left fingertips, below the touched card. If you start with the left fingers resting on the face of the touched card, you’ll have more support on the card, but then you’ll need to quickly pull the left fingers out of the way, as the card turns over and the packets coalesce. You may find it easier to just curl your left fingers under the left hand packet, mt touching the touched card at all; it’s a bit more precarious at the outset, but less cumbersome during the flip over. Second, it’s important that, when you display or isolate the touched card at (i) above, the two hands do not separate far apart -- the touched card must at all times be seen to be within the spread, even though the spread has widened a bit. You should never see any "air" or space between the two halves. Part of what makes this move so disarming is that there’s never a sense of two separate ”blocks" of cards, as in the Criss Cross cut force, or Bill Simon’s move. The emphasis is always on a particular "place” within a spread. Third, there’s strong verbal and visual misdirection occurring at the moment of the move. Even though the displacement of the upper and lower portions of the spread occurs right before the spectators’ eyes, at that instant their gaze is attracted towards the flipping card, and they are distracted by your calling out its name as "marking the place". 5) At this point, a spectator has freely "marked" a place within the top half of the pack, and you’ve already secretly set the QD immediately above the face up 7C, and the 4C immediately below it. You’re now going to repeat almost an identical procedure with the remaining half. Pick up the original bottom half and, since it already has the two desired cards at the bottom, you’ll only need to give it overhand shuffle. Milk peel the bottom and top cards together to start (thus retaining the QB at the bottom) and casually overhand shuffle the rest, making certain you run the last card singly, to bring the 48 to the top. (This is identical to the second shuffle you performed at step 2).

w

6) Ask a second spectator to "mark a place" in this half, and repeat the "mark a place" force, using the exact same moves as in steps 3 and 4. When you’re finished, you’ll have two

packets on the table, both of which are "set" for the climax.

7) To build up the final revelation, ribbon spread each half face down across the table. Point out that the two face up cards mark the places designated by the spectator. Carefully remove from each spread the three cards consisting of the face up card plus the face down cards

on either side of it, and isolate these two groups of three cards on the table. Turn the remaining cards in each spread face up, so the spectators can see that all of the cards are well-mixed.

13

THE ARONSON APPROACH

a.

Figure 5 shows the display at this point. As you do this, remind the ”spectators that, "You could have marked any places you desired, anywhere in the shuflled deck.

Figure 5

" 8) Continue, "But you chose th_is place, between these two cards. Here, flip one group of three cards over, to reveal the faces of the two outer cards, as you comment, ”You marked between a red queen and a black four. " So far, nothing magical has happened.

9) Turn over the remaining group of three, to reveal the other two cards to be the matching red queen and black four, for an inexplicable climax.

COMMENTS (1) Bill Simon’s force originally appeared in "Double Prediction", published in Scarne on Card Tricks (1950), and Bill published a variation as the "Business Card Prophecy" in his Effective Card Magic (1952); both versions involve separating the deck into two distinct blocks. I’ve been performing the mark-a-place handling for 30 years, yet I’m hesitant to claim credit for its creation. In 1960, as a teenager in New York, I was involved in a discussion of the Bill " Simon move with some fellows at Tannen’s, and out of that session this "in the spread handling emerged. I honestly cannot remember who was present, or who showed what to whom, or who added which improvement. I’ve since tried to trace the paternity of this move, but none of the sources I’ve checked remembers ever seeing the flip over move used in this way, to secretly displace the halves of the pack.

There are a multitude of uses for the mark-a—place move. If you like the procedure in this effect, where the move is performed twice, you may want to try it as a straightforward method for producing four Aces, at the beginning of an Ace routine. Just start with two Aces secretly on the top of the deck and two Aces at the bottom. Follow the steps of "Mark-A-Place Mates", and when the two sets of three cards are turned face up at the climax, it will be seen that the spectator has located the four Aces. Alternatively, if four selections have (2)

14

_—§‘ of.

MARK-A-PLACE MATES

been secretly controlled two to the top and two to the bottom, you can have the spectators "find" all four cards, by just marking two places in the deck. (My own preference is to stay with the "mates", per the text. There’s something more subtle about the mate climax, because the mates themselves don’t smack of any "pre-planned" or controlling influence).

It’s also very efficient to use the mark-a—place force just once, in routines where‘you want to quickly force two cards. Just position the desired cards one on top and one on the bottom of the deck, and have the spectator mark any place in the spread. Mentalists will find this a very natural way to ”freely” select a "random" two digit page number for a book test, by having the spectator mark between "any two cards in a shuffled pack". I’ve sOmetimes used it as a "quickie" to find two chosen cards: just control one selection to the bottom and the other to the top, and then have one of the spectators locate bog selections together, via mark-a-place. You can also both force a card am control its mate. Start with a pair of mates, one secretly on top and the other on the bottom. Have a spectator "mark a place", and then respread the cards, and give the spectator a choice of either the card above or the card below the "place" he marked. Have him take whichever of the two cards he chooses (it doesn’t matter, since both are mates), as his ”selection". Casually turn the touched card back face down and resquare the pack; as you do, it’s a simple matter to take a break on the remaining mate, which you can then control and produce for a matching effect. I perform a Universal card routine, which uses three selected cards. One of them may be freely chosen, but the other two must be forced (to match a gaff). The mark-a-place move is ideal: I just ask the spectator to "touch any card" in the spread. I flip it face up (performing a

mark-a-place displacement) and then simply remove the face up card the cards on either side ad of it, as I comment that "We ’11 remove three cards fi'om the place you indicated. " The two face down cards are then nonchalantly turned face up, and I proceed to use all three in my Universal effect. The spectator knows that he could have touched any card, and it appears that all three cards were "together" in the spread. (3) At step 2, when you pickup the original top half, you’re starting with the two desired cards (QD,4C) both on top of that packet, and the procedure in the text requires _tw_o shuffles to get one to the bottom while keeping one on t0p.. I find it quite natural, and quick, to do two shuffles in a row, but if you want to accomplish the set up for this half in just overhand shuffle, try this: (i) run the first card (QD) off the top singly; (ii) run the second card (4C) singly, while at the same time stealing the lone QD back onto the bottom of the packet of cards be to shuffled; (iii) continue to shuffle off the rest of the cards onto the 4C, yet making sure that the last card (the QD) singly. you run

w

(4) In the description of how the right and left hand portions of the spread are held just before you perform the mark-a-place move, at step 4(i), I suggested having the right hand cards still spread, while the left hand cards were (roughly) squared up. You may want to experiment with a variant handling, that basically reverses this situation: once the card is touched, the right hand more or less squares up all the cards above the touched card and moves this squared packet the to right edge of the touched card. At the same time, the left thumb spreads the cards in the left hand (the ones below the touched card) to the right, as it thumbs over the touched card into

15

THE ARONSON APPROACH

4o

its sidejogged position. It’s a small point, but some people to whom I’ve taught this move find that this alternative makes it easier to flip the card over. (5) It’s pretty easy to obtain the desired set up at the beginning of the effect impromptu in the course of just running through the cards, or as you clean up from a prior trick. If you start with a shuffled deck, start to run through the cards face up and note the bottom two cards. Continue to spread as you first look for the mate of the second from the bottom card, and when you locate it secretly displace it and run it under the spread to the top of the deck. Now look for the mate of the bottom card and when you find it, just cull it to the top, and you’re set.

Instead of using the bottom two cards, it will sometimes happen that, as you run through a shuffled deck, you’ll find two mates right next to each other. If you do, cut the deck between them so one goes to the bottom and the other goes to the top. Now simply note the second card from the bottom, find its mate as you spread, and displace that mate to a position second from the t0p. On other occasions, you may find two mates separated by just one card between them. This is even better. Just cut the pack so that the lowermost mate (the one closest to the face of the deck) goes to the top, while the other mate will thus be second from the bottom. Now simply note the new bottom card (which was the single card separating the mates), find it_s mate as you spread, and displace that mate to the top of the deck. If, in a prior effect, you’ve used mates (e.g., in a sandwich effect, four of a kind, collectors, or royalty routine) just secretly keep one of the mate pairs at the bottom of the deck " in reserve" for a few tricks. Then position those cards one on top and one on the bottom, for Mark-A-Place Mates. Here’s an approach based on a Marlo idea. Beforehand, set the bottom four cards so they run QH,4S,4C,QD from the face. Hand the deck to the spectator and ask him to give the cards a shuffle. As soon as he’s finished with his first riffle shuffle, reach out to take the deck back, so he doesn’t have a chance to mix them any more. As you run through the deck, you’ll find that all four cards are still in order, at or near the bottom, with perhaps only one or two X cards intervening. Just remove or displace out those few intervening cards (if any), and then cut the pack between the 4C and 48. This sends two mates to the top and two to the bottom, ready to go, and you’ve only had to spread through a very few cards. The spectator will remember (you’ll remind him) that he shuffled the deck. Finally, keep in mind that I’ve suggested using a "mirror image" set up only because I find it more aesthetic at the climax for the two sets of mates to be revealed with symmetry; by using a mirror image set up, you insure that the red queen will be "at the same end" in each of the two groups of three cards. If you don’t care about such symmetry, the set up becomes even more flexible: just one red queen and one black four on the bottom, and (in either order) the two mates on the top. (6) Don’t try to make a flourish out of the mark-a-place move; that’s just the opposite of what’s desired here. You’re not trying to do a "move", or go for speed, or create a cute, pretty look to it. You don’t want to do anything that calls attention to the action. It’s just a slow, natural, somewhat loose flipping of a card face up, and leaving it at the point in the spread where it (supposedly) started. 16

PARAGON POKER This is my variation of the classic Gardner-Marlo poker demonstration. Marlo’s original routine appeared in 92113.52: the Deck (1942), and in a session in 1978 Ed showed me his personal presentation and patter, which was later published in detail in Marlo Without Tegs (1983) p. 206. I developed this present routine in September, 1982, just after Sessions had been sent to the printers. Since then I’ve used this routine extensively in my shows for laymen; it’s a strong closing item. The entire routine owes much, both in handling and in patter, to Mario’s version. The first two phases track Mario’s plot, but on the third round of dealing I wanted to strengthen the climax. Since the second phase produces the four Aces, the third phase takes the next logical step and actually does stack these Aces to the spectator’s hand -- but in addition there is a double climax, as the performer’s hand is revealed to be a straight flush! SET UP The routine is almost impromptu, since it depends on a stack of only eight cards, all near the top of the deck. From the top of the deck down, the t0p ten cards are pre-arranged as follows: A-A-A-A-9S-QS—IOS-X-X-JS; the Aces may be in any order. (Comments 2 and 3 offer some thoughts on achieving the stack quickly.) WORKING

Phasel

2) Openly run through the faces of the deck and remove the four Kings, display them and place them to the face of the deck, making certain that the KS is the fourth card from the face of the deck. Comment, "A card cheat begins by secretly getting his desired hand, for example four of a kind, to the bottom of the deck, where he can control it. " 3) Turn the deck face down, and perform any simple false cut or shuffle, which keeps the top stack secretly intact and also leaves the four Kings still at the bottom. You’re not really trying to hide anything from the spectators at this point, as you explain, "the cheater

cards, but he makes certain that the four Kings still remain at the bottom

"

mixes the Turn the deck face

17

3 0!-

THE ARONSON APPROACH

deck up, spread the face cards to show the four Kings still on the bottom, square up and place the face down on the table in front of the spectator. " the "cut gesturing to indicate that he is to cut off ofir pack, to half the Ask 4) spectator the top portion towards himself. As soon as he cuts off half, with your left hand pick up the original bottom portion, glance at it as though estimating its amount, and comment, '7’m going " As this is cards. said, the right hand need more few I a hands; just be may dealing five poker to casually cuts off a small packet from the top of the tabled original top portion and adds them on top of the left hand cards. This added packet must be a_t Least ten cards. (If this is done nonchalantly, it will later not even be remembered. The spectator will only remember that m: cut the deck -- but in fact, the secret stack is still on top). The rest of the original top portion is left on the table, off to the side.

5) Comment, "Although you ’ve cut the deck, the card cheat uses the bottom portion, so " he still has his four of a kind just where he wants them. As you say this, turn the left hand packet to show the Kings still on the bottom, then turn this packet face down in the left hand, ready for a bottom deal. (The beauty of Marlo’s routining here is that the spectator’s cut in fact makes the bottom deal easier, since you’re bottom dealing with only part of the deck). 6) Deal one round of five cards fairly, face down. For reference, let’s consider the first four cards, from left to right, as piles A to D respectively, with the dealer’s card being pile E (Figure 6).

C

B

Figure 6

Pick up the card dealt to yourself at E, and show its face. (It will be the 98). Comment, "The card cheat secretly glimpses his first card, and remembers it as his ’key’ card. The key card marks the winning hand. " Replace the 9S face down in front of you. 7) Continue to deal the next four rounds of five cards each, but perform your best bottom deal on each card dealt to yourself at pile B, so that you get the four Kings. (If you can get away with it and actually fool the spectators, so much the better; if your bottom deal is obvious, don’t worry since you’re supposed to be only demonstrating, or explaining how it’s done). When you complete the dealing, drop any cards remaining in your left hand back onto the original tabled top portion.

18

m do

PARAGON POKER

Square up the dealer’s hand (pile E) and turn it face up on the table still squared, showing the9S on its face and say, "Remember, the key card marks the winning hand. " Spread this hand on the table to reveal the four Kings. 8)

9) If your bottom deal is any good, the spectator should be surprised, and asithey look and smile at this first climax, casually gather up the cards as follows: The up right hand picks hand E (the dealer’s hand), turns it face down, and slaps it face down up onto pile D, as the left hand picks up the face down pile A and slaps it simultaneously onto pile B; continuing, the left hand picks up the combined A-B pile and slaps it on top of pile C, and the right hand dr0ps its combined E-D pile on top of the tabled A-B-C packet. (This gathering up takes only a moment, as both hands act together, moving from the outside towards the center. The "slapping” of the piles onto one another keeps the action casual, and the two hands acting together makes the pickup seem haphazard.) Finally, the right hand takes this entire combined packet, it dr0ps on top of the remaining tabled half of the deck, and deposits the entire deck into the left hand.

Phasell

10) Following Marlo’s patter theme, mention that "what was just demonstrated was the "old fashioned " method of cheating, using sleight hand. The modern methods use science and of

mathematics to devise special systems to "stack" the desired hand during a shuflle. " Offer to demonstrate, as you casually fan the top four cards of the deck faces towards the spectator, to show the four Kings hand on top. (The KS should be the top card). Re-square, as you explain that you’ll use a precise system of shuffling to stack the Kings to your hand again. Now, perform any false shuffle or series of shuffles that retains the order of the top half of the deck. (I simply undercut the lower half for an overhand shuffle, run one card and and it, injog shuffle off. Obtain a break below the injog, shuffle to the break, and toss the balance of the deck. Repeat the undercut, injog and shuffle off, and place the deck on the table, with the injog, at the inner end of the deck, still marking off the top stack. Mention that the deck needs to be cut, and casually cut the tabled deck at the injog, and complete the cut. The top stacked 25 cards are now back on top.) Since you can legitimately shuffle the lower half of the deck, you should be able to make the shuffle really look free and haphazard. You can get some comic mileage out of this shuffle, because as you patter about how the shuffle must be exact, precise and scientific, the spectators can see the cards being tossed and shuffled in what is clearly a haphazard, unattended manner. This sets them up all the more for the upcoming climax. 11)

Pick up the deck in left hand dealing position, and as you square up the full deck, put a strong corner crimp into the bottom card of the pack. 12)

Now deal out five face down hands again into positions A through E, making it very clear that you’re dealing fairly. When you’re finished, place the balance of the deck aside, the dealer’s square up hand at E, and turn the squared up pile E face up on the table, which shows the 98 on the face. Remind them, "Remember, this key card marks the winning hand. " Then pause, and state, "but stacking is so mathematical and precise, that if the shufi‘le is by of even 91g card, you may not get the four Kings. " As you finish this sentence, spread the dealer’s hand across the table from left to right, to reveal the four Aces! This should come as a total 13)

19

do

THE ARONSON APPROACH

surprise. They see the key card and have been conditioned to expect the Kings. The sudden appearance of a totally new and better hand is a strong climax. When you spread the dealer’s hand, just put one finger on the 9S, and simply lightly spread the cards towards the right. But continue to keep the finger on the face of the 9S and slide it completely off the aces, so that the Aces remain isolated together. Then, as the climax sinks other end of the dealer’s hand, where it is simply in, casually pick up the 9S and transfer it to scooped or slid under the face up Aces, to become the "top" card of the dealer’s hand. 1

m

Once the climax has sunk in, again casually gather up the hands, in the following order: First, pick up the balance of the undealt pack and hold it in left hand dealing position. (The bottom card of this pack is still crimped). Next, with the right hand, pick up the face down hand at A, and drop it on top of the left hand cards. Continue with the right hand to pick up pile D and drop it on top, and then pile C. The right hand picks up the pile at B and, as it carries these five cards toward the left, the right fingers on the bottom or face card of pile B push this face card a bit to the left. Place this pile B onto the left hand cards, with the lowermost card square with the top of the deck, and with your left fourth finger push upwards on the underside of the fourth card in this hand (which is jogged a bit to the right of the deck). Square this pile B on top of the deck, retaining a left fourth finger break beneath the t0p four cards. Now, casually double undercut to the break, thus transferring the topmost four cards to the bottom of the deck, below the crimp. (To check: the top card of the deck should now be a King.) 14)

Phaselfl Explain that "the most sophisticated card cheats use a confederate, and to allay " Offer to demonstrate how the dealer hand. the can winning confederate give suspicion you your stack the Aces so they fall to the confederate’s hand. Scoop up the dealer’s hand at E (which is still face up on the table), and as you pick up this hand, endeavor to slightly injog the Ace which lies immediately below the 98. Flip this Ace hand face down on top of the left hand pack, and at once, with the right thumb at the inner end and the right fingers at the outer end, pick up the top two cards off the deck, as one, and show its face (an Ace) to the spectator. The injogged second card facilitates picking up the double card. Openly transfer this Ace (i.e., the double card) to the bottom of the deck. As you do this, explain, "We’ll Start of with one Ace on the bottom of the deck, and the other three on tap. ” Here casually spread the top three cards, lifting the deck towards the spectator to show the other Aces, and then square up. (To check, at this point from the gage of the deck is an Ace, the 98, four X cards, and then the crimp seventh from the face. From the top down are three Aces, three X cards, 18, three X cards, 108, QS, six X cards, KS, and the rest of the deck). 15)

You now will actually and Openly do exactly what you announced you’d do, namely stack the four Aces, using Marlo’s Lessinout system. Tell the spectators that your confederate always sits next to you, so that you can "work together", and indicate that you’ll stack the Aces to the first hand to your left (position A). Hold the deck in position for an overhand shuffle, and shuffle as follows: (i) run 11 cards singly, and then throw these 11 cards DACJQ on top, (ii) run 4 cards singly, and toss the deck on top of them, (iii) run 5 cards singly, and toss the deck on top, (iv) run one single card, and toss the deck onto it, and (v) finally, run 5 more cards singly, and toss the deck on top. Most cardicians are already familiar with the 16)

20

—\ do

PARAGON POKER

general formula for stacking hands in an overhand shuffle; the above procedure is the standard sequence for stacking five hands. Just remember the key numbers 11-4—5-1-5, and this shuffle will become automatic. Patter to suit yourself: you may just want to do the entire shuffle without calling attention to what you’re doing, or you may want to mumble a running commentary, such "twice the as number of players,“ etc. It depends on how sophisticated your audienge is, and whether you feel you’re adding entertainment value. In any event, make the overhand shuffle sequence as even, continuous and rapid as you can. (Cardicians in your audience may recognize this stacking shuffle -- and will later be doubly surprised at the result it produces!) When you’ve finished shuffling, remind the audience that the deck must be cut, and casually cut the deck below the crimp, so the crimped card goes to the bottom. 17)

Hold the deck in the left hand, and deal the first round of cards 18) positions A through E.

_f_a_ce;

down, into

Pause and say, "Remember, I ’ve stacked the Aces to my confederate " as you turn the over top card of the deck so that it falls face up on to the deck, to reveal the first Ace. Deal this Ace face up onto pile A, and then continue to deal the next four cards face down, onto piles B through B. When you flip the Ace face up on the top of the deck, try to simulate the handling you do for a hit double turnover (which you’ll be doing in just a moment at step 21). 19)

Deal two more rounds of cards, each as in step 19, 20) flipping the Ace face up and dealing it face up onto pile A, followed by face down cards to piles B through E.

For the fifth and final round, smile triumphantly, ‘as 21) you expect to reveal the fourth Ace, but in fact perform a hit double turnover of the top two cards as one, face up onto the deck, to reveal an indifferent card instead of the Ace. Feign surprise, and turn the double face down on t0p of the deck, and immediately deal the top card singly face down onto pile A, as you shake your head, acting somewhat bewildered that the Ace did not show up as expected. (This apparent "miss", and its subsequent magical recovery, is Marlo’s). Continue to deal the rest of the fifth round face down, to B through E. Put the rest of the deck aside. The confederate’s hand at A now has its bottom 22) or hole card still face down, followed by three face up Aces, and on top is a face down card, the apparent mistake or failure (but really the fourth Ace). Say, "It looks like I missed one ~- but remember we still have this card" as you point to the hole card. Triumphantly turn it face up, expecting to reveal the final Ace for the climax -- and look surprised when it is revealed to be yet another indifferent card. The spectator will really feel you’ve missed. 23) Say, "I guess a card cheat would need a magician to help him " as you pick out, the remaining face down card on pile A -- which the spectator is sure he’s up already seen to be an indifferent card -- and make a magical gesture (snap it, blow on it, or do a through-the-flst flourish), and turn it over to reveal the fourth Ace! The spectator will be surprised at this "final" supposed climax. Let it sink in. 24) "But, you know, when you Study cheating, the main lesson you learn is that you never can trust anyone, nor even your own confederate. " Here, casually square up pile E and 21

THE ARONSON APPROACH

do

"Remember, I mentioned that this card shows. the 98, face card, the that only face it so turn up, in poker, there '3 one hand that even beats Well, hand. the winning marks the 98) to (pointing " dealer’s hand, to reveal the 9S-IOS-JS-QS the Flush. ’s Spread -— Straight that and a Aces four and KS. COMMENTS

There are a number of places in the routine which can be modified, according‘fo (1) the taste of the performer. For example, you can, if you wish, expedite the finish a bit, by the double turnover, and eliminate 24. Just 23 and ”miss” at steps the with apparent dispensing deal the fourth Ace directly face up. Different false shuffles or cuts can be substituted throughout the routine, so long as they maintain the desired stack. If you want to vary the kind of shuffles, overhead shuffles; just use any phase II is well-suited for a series of riffle shuffles instead of the extensive form of false riffle shuffle that maintains the top half of the deck in order. For more variations, see comments 3 and 4 below. I’m a strong believer in delayed set ups, i.e., presetting a stack several tricks Poker lends effects. few Paragon the next in order it during maintaining and secretly earlier, itself to this kind of retain'ed'smck, since as a practical matter you only need to preset, and retain control of, a block of six cards. Before you begin your series of card tricks, simply stack six few cards on top of the deck (98, Q8, 108, X, X, 18) and keep them under control during a effects. Then do any effect using the four Aces (you can perform my version of the Christ Aces, the return after casually and done, you’re stack intact), the which leaves top 112, Sessions, p. the Aces to the top of the deck (immediately above the six card stack). Then, for a finale, bring discussion around to card cheating, and proceed with the Paragon Poker. (2)

At one point I experimented with a slightly more streamlined version, which might (3) utilizes the 108 as appeal to some readers. It uses an alternate set up (which is even easier) and the "key card" (instead of the 98). On the last (third) deal, you apparently "miss" giving your confederate the four Aces, since he only gets _t__h_r_e_§ of them. You explain that "to keep the dealer’s cards confederate honest, I dealt one of the Aces to myself", as you reveal that one of the in is an Ace (the AS). You continue, "Never trust anyone. I dealt myself the highest hand poker" -- as you flip over the remaining four cards in the dealer’s hand, to show a Royal Flush, in spades.

For this version, start with the top =s__e_ver_1 cards arranged A, A8, A, A, 108, Q8, 18. (It’s 108 will important that the AS be second). Perform phases I, II and Ill exactly as in the text (the show as the "key" card on each deal) until you get to the Lessinout stacking (step 16). This overhand shuffle procedure is varied just a bit: first, proceed as in (i) - (iii) of step 16 (i.e., 11 cards, then 4,5); then at (iv), instead of running one card, 1111ng the top and bottom cards together, and then run gm mg; card (for a total of three cards), and toss the deck on top of them, and finally, at (v), instead of five cards, run three cards singly, and toss the deck on top. Now, cut at the crimp, and deal as follows: deal the first round face down (the dealer’s card will be the 108). Deal the next three rounds, each time flipping the card dealt to your "confederate" at hand A face up, to reveal three Aces. Continue with the fifth round, but when you deal the confederate’s final card face up, it will not be an Ace. Complete dealing this round, so that the dealer has five cards. Spread your (the dealer’s) hand face down, outjog and remove the center 22

do

PARAGON POKER

card, turning it face up to reveal the AS; put it face up, at the right end of the dealer’s hand, and climax by flipping the remaining four cards face up so they coalesce with the AS, to reveal the Royal Flush in spades. This version plays well for laymen. Magicians, however, might be tipped off by the 108 as to what’s coming. q (4) If you don’t mind elaborate stacks, you can try experimenting with pre-arranging twelve mpg cards (into positions 8 and 9, 11 through 15, and 17 through 21) at the outset. This gives you a set up along the lines of Vemon’s poker demonstration (The Qaj Vernon 3953 g_f Magic, p. 222), allowing you in the final phase to reveal the four Aces in your confederate’s hand, then show the hands at positions B, C and D to contain increasingly better sucker hands, and as a finale, reveal the winning Straight Flush in the dealer’s hand. For example, one such possible arrangement of the t0p 21 cards of the deck, from top down, is: A, A, A, A, 98, Q8, lOS, Heart, Heart, JS, Heart, 8, 7, 8, 7, X, Heart, 8, 5, 5, Heart, and then the rest of the deck (the 5’8, 7’3, and 8’s can be of any suit; the Hearts can be of any value). Proceed exactly as in the text, except that at step 4 you’ll need to keep control of the 2_l_ card packet on top, not just ten cards; you may find it simpler to just dispense with the spectator cut entirely, and proceed directly to do the bottom dealing with the full deck. At the third phase, after you show that your confederate has received all four Aces, comment, "But a great hand won’t win much money unless we entice the other players to stay in and bet. So look . . . " Here, turn hand B face up to reveal two pair (5’s and 7’s), turn hand C over to show a full house (8’s over Kings), and show hand D to contain a flush in Hearts. Now, finish by revealing the Straight Flush in the dealer’s hand. Although the above variations are viable, frankly, I personally prefer the routine as written. The ten card set up is easy to remember, establish and retain; the 98 does not "tip off" the upcoming spade straight flush; and the apparent "miss", then vindication, on the confederate’s hand convinces the spectators that they’ve witnessed the climax -- so they’re totally stunned to see yet another winning hand. (5)

23

SELF CONTROL 1 This is a simple and deceptive location procedure that can be used to locate a spectator’s freely chosen selection, without the magician’s ever having to touch the deck. What’s intriguing is that the spectator himself controls the selection to a position which is known to the magician; yet, paradoxically, the card might wind up "anywhere", and the position of the selection is different each time you use the procedure. The selection and control procedure is based on a mathematical displacement principle that’s as old as the hills, but it’s pretty well disguised here. It’s completely impromptu, and can be done with a fully shuffled, borrowed deck, without any set ups, key cards, forces, crimps or marks. It doesn’t even require that the deck be a full deck. Let me present the basic procedure first, and then suggest some applications. WORKING 1) Have a

spectator shuffle a deck of cards and then place it face down on the table in front of him. Make certain he knows you haven’t glimpsed any of the cards. 2) Ask your spectator to cutoff a packet of cards from the top of the deck, "say, between 5 and 15 cards" and to hold them in his lap, below the table level. Ask him to silently count the number of cards in his packet, and to remember that number. Make sure he realizes that this number has been "randomly determined " and that there is no way you could possibly know this

number.

You have a lot of leeway here. As you’ll see, the limitation of "5 to 15" is arbitrarily chosen, just to keep the trick from taking too long; actually the spectator could cut off any number so long as it’s not more than half the deck. He doesn’t have to cut his packet from the top; it could be a block pulled from the center, or from anywhere. After he’s finished counting the packet in his lap, he can leave it there, or place it aside. If you prefer, this whole procedure can be done behind your back. 3) Tell the spectator that he will use his secret random number to help select a card from the balance of the deck, according to the following instructions. He is to take cards, one at a time, off the top of the deck, peek at each card, and then deal them into a face down pile on the table. He must silently count the cards to himself as he deals and peeks, and when he arrives at the particular card which falls at his secret random number, he is to remember gm; gag. However, he is t_10_t to stop dealing at that point; he should continue dealing cards from the t0p of the deck onto the face down pile, and should continue to peek at the face of each one as he

24

0?.

SELF CONTROL

deals. Explain that, after he has gone at least a few cards past his random number and his remembered card, he can stop dealing whenever he wants. Emphasize that he should maintain "a poker face” and must not give any visible signs when he reaches his random number and notes the card; he is simply to continue dealing and peeking, at the same pace and in the same manner, for a few cards beyond that point, until he desires to stop. Explain that by following this procedure, you will get no information about his selected card. He will have peeked at every single card, so his "remembered card" might be any one of them, and since he continues his dealing and then stops whenever he likes, you will have no idea of what his random number might be. 4) Make certain that the spectator understands the instructions, and when he confirms, have him follow the procedure to select his card. You should watch closely enough to make sure that he’s correctly following the procedure (i.e., that he’s placing the cards one at a time into a face down pile, thus reversing their order), but otherwise you can casually stroll around the room, waiting, apparently indifferent to what he’s doing.

But, in fact, you’re mt indifferent. Out of the corner of your eye, you simply need to keep a silent mental count of how many cards he deals onto the pile, until he decides to stop. That’s all you need to do. Let’s assume that he stops after he’s dealt, say, 18 cards. Just remember that total. 5) When he’s finished dealing, ask him to take the pile of just-dealt cards and put them back on top of the balance of the deck. Now, have him complete the reassembly of the deck by taking the packet of cards that’s still in his lap (the ones he originally cut off to determine his random number) and drop them on top of the deck. He then should square up the pack. (Once he’s finished his dealing and you know the total, you could turn your back, and give these reassembly instructions to him while you’re turned around. It adds something, particularly if he later mis-remembers and thinks your back was turned during his entire counting procedure).

Remind him of the challenge conditions that have been imposed, and that at no time have you even seen the faces of any of the cards, nor could you possibly know his random number. (Both of these statements are true!) 6) Believe it or not, even under those impossible conditions, you can now proceed to directly find his card. How? Because you know exactly where it is in the pack. It’s the 13¢ card from the top. Why 19th? Because, in our example, at step 4, out of the corner of your eye you secretly noted that the spectator dealt 18 cards before he stopped. If the procedure has been followed correctly, the selection will always automatically be controlled to a position which is one mgr; than the total of cards dealt by the spectator.

The location of the selection will be different each time you perform the trick, depending solely on how many cards the spectator happens to deal before he stops. But in every instance, you’ll know its precise location, by simply adding "one" to the total that you counted as he dealt. That’s all there is to it!

25

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0!-

REVELATIONS

You’ve got this incredibly important piece of secret information -- you know exactly where the selection lies. What’s the best way to use it, to find and reveal the spectator’s card in the most magical manner? Well, obviously you just pick up the deck, run through it and remove his card (by secretly counting to, in our example, the 19th card from the top) but this would be unexciting. .. Self Control is a utility procedure that is susceptible to all sorts of alternative approaches to find the card, and I leave it to you to choose the ending that best suits your performance needs. I will offer some suggestions that I believe help generate maximum impact.

gm

You don’t want to be seen engaging in any obvious mathematical or counting activity, so you should disguise the fact that you’re aiming for a specific position in the pack. There are two general approaches. The first approach involves the performer’s handling the deck. After the selection procedure is complete, the performer takes the deck, and gives it a few shuffles. By using a couple overhand shuffles, you can run cards singly, jog and shuffle off, and then repeat the procedure. By shuffling off single cards from the top equal to one less than the position of the selection, you can rapidly bring the selection to the t0p of the deck. From there, virtually anything goes, but it’s pretty strong to simply palm off the selection, and eventually reproduce it from your pocket. Alternatively, you can also use faro placement formulas, to reposition the selection. If you’re going to use a spelling ending, an overhand shuffle or double undercut may be all you need to place the selection into a desired spelling position. The second revelation approach (which I favor) continues the theme of "not touching the cards " at all. You might simply ask the spectator to deal the cards one at a time into a face up pile and mentally think "Stop" when he sees his card; you ”read his mind" and call out "St0p" on his card, by secretly counting as he deals. A more subtle "no touch” approach is to ask the spectator to take the deck and deal the cards into two face up piles, dividing them into reds and blacks. As he deals, just watch and silently count, and note the card that falls on the known position; you now know the actual selection, but you let the spectator continue dealing for a while, until about half the deck has been divided. Stop the spectator, and ask him to tell you whether his card is red or black. When he does, ponder it a bit, and then announce the name of his selection. This entire red/black division is simply a red herring, to disguise the fact that you’re counting the cards, but it leaves your spectator quizzically pondering how you could possibly get the information by the colors of the cards, particularly since he shuffled the deck at the outset.

If you don’t mind thinking on your feet, I think amazing "no touch " revelations can be generated by improvising an appmpriate spelling ending, by working backwards from the known position. I’ve found that the spectator generally deals about 5 or 6 cards beyond his random number before he stOps, and this means that the position of the selection usually winds up somewhere between 10 and, say, 22 cards from the top. If you had memorized, or could improvise on the spot, a series of alternative spelling endings, you can then just choose the 93 that applies to the now-known position, and have the spectator spell one card for each letter. For example, here’s one set of possible phrases to spell: 26

SELF CONTROL

0?-

m

Number of 10

11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

22

Phrase

M11 Find my card What’s my card Simon Aronson (or, "What’s the card”) Here’s your card Your card is here Spell to your card Can you find my card Simon finds the card Simon spells the card Your card is right here I know where your card is Simon says Here’s the card Simon says Here’s your card

i

So, if you know the card is, in our example, at position 19, just tell the spectator to pick up the deck and deal/spell the words "Your card is right here". It’s pretty startling when he tums over the last letter and finds his card. What’s intriguing is that, although you’ve never gone near the deck, nevertheless it’s not really "automatic". It’s impossible to reconstruct. If the spectator tries this whole thing himself again, it won’t work, because he’ll generally wind up controlling his card into a different position. The above set of phrases is offered only as an illustration, and I know you’ll want to work out your own. It’s more entertaining when you can get your own name, or your personal "magic word" into the act, or even utilize the spectator’s name. I don’t try to memorize every possible "out"; as long as you’re familiar with the variables, I find it’s possible to "wing it", and come up with a workable phrase. My favorite “no touch " revelation is a version of a Lie Speller I’ve developed, that carries the improvised spelling process one step further. It’s based on Bruce Cervon’s "Perfect Speller" (The Cervon File, p. 29). Bruce worked out an ingenious set of questions, to which the spectator could either lie or tell the truth. No matter what responses the spectator gives (and spells), by subtly varying the next question, the performer can always guide the answers so that they spell, taken together, with exactly 15 letters. Bruce controlled the card to the 15th position, and the selection can thus always be spelled to, no matter what answers the spectator gives. In my version, I’ve simply expanded the concept, by m); tying it to position #15, or to other position. Whatever position the card occupies (as determined by Self Control), I just ask appropriate questions so that the spectator’s answers, when spelled to, will ultimately wind up at the exact desired location. If you play with the concept, you’ll see what I mean. (See Comment 3 for some help).

m

Whatever revelation ending you choose, I think you’ll find that the Self Control selection procedure can be a valuable location weapon in your arsenal.

27

——___—___ THE ARONSON APPROACH

0'0

COMMENTS

(1) When it comes to mathematical procedures, I’m a bit hesitant to claim credit for originality, because there are so many location procedures that certainly are similar. However, I’ve been unable to find a prior procedure that utilizes all of the components of Self Control. The basic notion of cutting off a packet, and using its number of cards to select a card in a reversecounted deal, is firmly imbedded in hundreds of different tricks scattered throughout our literature. Most of them either have the performer handling the deck, or require reverse counting a specific number of cards, or involve a key or a force (e. g., in a number of clock tricks), or work the mathematics off the face of the deck (and thus require a full deck of 52 cards). Self Control eliminates all of this.

Mike Gallo’s ”Sleightly Impossible" initially sparked my interest, and [was intrigued with the basic selection procedure Mike had developed. However, Mike did not replace the cut-off packet, which forced him to work his calculations from the bottom of the deck; this required a full 52 card deck, plus the performer’s retaking the pack, making some mental calculations, and then cutting a block of cards to adjust the position of the selection. I came up with the Self Control procedure, which eliminates all calculations and adjustments. It is a corollary of Self Control that, as long as you know the number of cards that are contained in the deck (regardless of whether it’s 52 or not), you will know the position of the selection from the me of the deck, as well as from the top. If "D" is the number of cards dealt by the spectator when he stops, and there are 52 cards in use, then the selection will be 52 - D from the face. This is true regardless of whether the spectator does or does not replace his cut off packet back onto the deck. (2) You may find it helpful to demonstrate the selection procedure to the spectator at the very beginning of the effect, by actually taking the deck and showing him exactly how you want him to deal the cards, peek at them, and put them into a reversed face down pile, etc. After you’re done demonstrating, give him the pack to shuffle and then begin. (3) The basic principle of the Lie Speller ending is that the performer keeps track of how many letters the spectator uses in spelling his answers for the first few questions. I just continue to ask about the color, suit, or odd or even, and let the spectator spell until he’s within 7 cards (or less) of the desired position. You then just ask one final question, whose two alternative possible answers will get either exactly to the desired position, or 91E before it (so that you can reveal the next card). Briefly, here’s the alternatives: 7 away - Is your card a PICTURE or a NUMBER card? 6 away - Is your card a NUMBER or a COURT card? 5 away - Are your answers FALSE or TRUE? 4 away - Is your card HIGH or LOW? 3 away - Did you lie -- YES or NO?

Check the cited Cervon source for Bruce’s ideas; you’ll also find helpful Phil Goldstein’s version, "Manhattan Transfer", Linking Ring May 1981, p. 83.

28

ACTIVE ACES This effect owes its genesis to my wife’s criticism -- she prodded me to sort out and combine the best parts from several " lost and found" Ace routines. I’ve long been a fan of versions of Henry Christ’s well-known Ace routine (see my ideas in "Meditations on the Christ Aces", Sessions, p. 112). I’ve also played around with a routine performed by Mike Skinner, in which the four Aces disappear via the Stanley Collins vanish and are then reproduced by successively spelling to each Ace ("The Spelling Collins’ Aces", Martin Lewis, Martin’s Miracles, p. 36). Both are excellent routines, but they’re similar in overall effect, so you wouldn’t want to use them together in the same performance. To help decide which one to use one evening, I ran through both of them for my wife, and asked her opinion. Ginny preferred the beginning of the Collins routine, “because the Aces really do something and disappear, instead of just being put into the deck. " However, she favored the e_n_d of my approach to the Christ Aces, "because each Ace appears in a different way, instead of just repeating the spelling each time. " The happy result of that critique is Active Aces. There’s magic happening from start to finish, and with only a three card set-up, it’s easily performed on just a moment’s notice. Here is the "bare bones" routine, the way I most often perform it. I’ll explore some variations in the Comments section. SET UP

For explanatory purposes, pre-arrange the deck by placing any 3-spot in fifth position (from the top) and any 8 in the seventh position. Take any 7 and secretly turn it face up at the bottom of the deck. Have the card case off to the right side of the table. In practice, you actually have much greater leeway in quickly arranging this slight set up, because you don’t always need to use a 3 and an 8; all that’s really necessary is that the values of two specific cards total 11. There’s great flexibility both in which two cards you can use and on where these two "total" cards can start. (See Comments 1 and 2 for some ideas on how to achieve this set up impromptu).

WORKING

If the Aces are already on the table from a previous effect, arrange them in a face up row, left to right, in S-C-H-D order. If you start with the Aces still in the deck, spread the cards between your hands with the faces towards you (making sure that you push off a double as the first card, to hide the reversed 7), and remove the Aces as you find them, tossing them to the table; then arrange them in the above order. As you spread, if any of the Aces happen to be 1)

29

——————§__‘ THE ARONSON APPROACH

do

among the top seven cards, you’ll need to adjust to compensate for their removal, so that the 3 and 8 still remain at fifth and seventh positions.

Again, in actual practice you’ll have much greater leeway in arranging the Aces —- all that really matters is that the third Ace in the row must be the Heart or the Spade, so that it will spell correctly; the other three Aces can be in any order. However, for explanatory convenience and ease in describing the steps, let’s assume you’ve put them in S-C-H-D order.

“

2) Hold the balance of the deck face down in the left hand. You’re now going to set up for the Stanley Collins Ace Vanish, by apparently counting off three cards face up onto each Ace, but actually secretly taking 4 cards as 3 each time. The actions are exactly the same as in steps 4 and 5 of Under Her Spell (page 4), with one minor change: as you count off each set of 4 as 3, place them face up onto the Aces staging 1'1th to left. Make sure, as you count off each set of 4 as 3, that you first push off a single card, then a double, and then a single card, reversing their order; this is important on the AH pile, so that the pre-set 3 and 8 will become the two cards at the face of that packet. Finally, keep in mind that, in this effect, your left hand can’t lift or necktie the pack, because you don’t want to flash the reversed 7 on the bottom. If you’ve followed the instructions thus far and formed four piles, the pre-set 3 spot should be the face card of the AH pile, and the 8 should be immediately under the 3.

m

After you’ve finished forming the four piles, casually place the balance of the deck face down, cross-wise onto the card case. This will make for an easier pick-up later, so you won’t flash the reversed 7 in the act of picking up that portion. inadvertently 3) Square up each of the four Ace piles, and turn each face down. Remind your audience that there’s an Ace on t0p of each pile. 4) You’re now going to show that all four Aces have vanished, performing the Collins Vanish four times. After each vanish, you’ll deposit the four (really five) cards into a face up discard pile, as follows:

Pick up the leftmost pile (it contains the AS), and perform the Collins Vanish, forming a face up pile on the table. (Refer to step 7 of Under Her Spell for a description of this vanish). The last card is snapped face up and shown not to be the Ace, and is then simply dropped face up onto the face of the first three cards. The right hand then picks the tabled from above by the ends, as you perform a face up packet up Ascanio spread (exactly as in step 9 of Under Her Spell) to again show four indifferent faces. At the conclusion of the Ascanio, the right hand will be holding a double card (Ace hidden behind an indifferent card). Without pausing, the right hand drops the double face up off to the left side of the table, to commence a discard pile, and continues to drop the other three X cards one at a time face up onto it. (i)

(ii) Pick up the second (AC) pile, and perform the Collins Vanish, placing the cards face up directly onto the discard pile; no Ascanio is used on this pile. (iii) Pile up the third (AH) pile, and repeat the vanish exactly as with the second pile, again with no Ascanio.

30

————_‘— 0?-

ACTIVE ACES

(iv) Pick up the last (AD) pile, and repeat the Collins Vanish just as you did with the first pile: first drop each of the cards to form a separate face-up pile on the table; then, reinforce that the Ace has really gone by picking that pile up again, performing an Ascanio, and drOpping the cards from the Ascanio, one at a time starting with the double card, directly onto the discard pile.

1

This sequence is a rapid-fire series of four quite visual vanishes, and as you show the cards in each pile, your patter should point up and accentuate each disappearance. The Ascanio spread, in this context, is done simply as "reinforcement”, to confirm what they’ve just seen; you’ve just shown the four cards singly, and then you spread all four faces at once. Thus, the first and last piles are just the appropriate piles on which to add this confirmation. (After you finish these vanishes, if.you’ll check the discard pile, the Aces should now occupy positions 1, 8, 13 and 16, and the pre-set 3 and 8 will be in positions 11 and 12 respectively, all counting from back to front of the face up pile.) 5) With your left hand palm down, pick up the entire discard pile, and turn the left hand palm up, thus turning the cards face down. As this is done, your right hand picks up the balance of the deck (which is resting face down on the card case) and simply dr0ps it on top of the now face down left hand cards. All you’ve done is to reassemble the deck, and in the process, brought the reversed 7 into the center of the deck, directly on top of the AS. You’re now ready

for the revelations.

6) Announce that you will try to find the Aces, "each in a unique manner. Watch -- the first Ace!" Take the deck and ribbon spread it face down across the table from left to right, revealing a face up 7 in the center. Look disappointed, as though you expected an Ace. With your left hand, start to scoop up the spread, from the left end, until you reach the 7. Put your left thumb onto the 7, 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 rest of the spread face up on the table, in a pile. Square up the cards in the left hand, obtaining a break with the right thumb at the inner end, beneath the second card. During this action you call attention to the 7, as you comment, as though attempting to recover from a mistake, "This card must be an indicator. " 7) With your right hand pick up the face up 7, actually taking the two cards above the break as one, and place these cards, as one, face up onto the face up tabled pile. (Unbeknownst to the audience you’ve just reversed and loaded the AS into position for its later revelation). Say, "It’s a Seven, so it must indicate the seventh card. " Here, deal off six cards from the left portion, one at a time face down to form a separate pile on the table, counting aloud. Triumphantly turn the next card face up and toss it forward onto the table to reveal the AC. As the spectators’ attention is drawn to the AC, the right hand, palm down, casually picks up the pile of tabled face up cards (i.e., the pile with the 7 on the face) and turns palm up, thus turning its packet face down, and then places this packet beneath the face down portion in the left hand. Once these cards are taken by the left hand, your right hand then moves forward, picks up the pile of six face down cards and drops them face down on top of the left hand cards. The deck has thus been fully reassembled. (If you check, the 7 should be the bottom card of the deck, with the AS face up immediately above it; the AH should be the 11th card from the top).

31

THE ARONSON APPROACH a

a"

1

An alternative, and perfectly acceptable, manner of gathering the three packets to reassemble the deck would be to first pick up the face down pile of six counted cards and drop them onto the face down left hand portion; then flip this combined left hand packet face up, bookwise. The right hand then picks up the remaining tabled face up portion, and drops it on top of the left hand cards. Finally, flip the entire deck over, face down. The final order of the three gathered packets will still wind up as described above. 8) Patter, "The next Ace, the Ace of Hearts, is the educated Ace. It 's watched Sesarge Street, and has learned to spell its own name. " Deal cards off the deck one at a time into a face

down pile on the table, reversing their order, as you spell out loud one letter for each card dealt, "A-C—E-O-F-H-E-A-R-T—S ”. Turn over the card at ”8" face up to reveal the AH, and toss it face up next to the face up AC. Casually pick up the pile of face down spelled cards and drop them back on top of the left hand portion. 9) Continuing with your patter that mentioned Sesame Street, say "Today’s show is brought to you by the numbers. . . '. Pause, as you deal the top card of the deck face up onto the table, to display an 8. Look at it, and continue, ". . . eight and . . . ", deal the next card face " up onto the table, revealing a Three, as you glance at it, and conclude ". . . three. All you’ve done so far is to deal the top two cards face up and announce their values -- but your acting should be such as to make it seem that these are two random cards, which you’re seeing for the first time as you turn them over. Continue, "Look, eight plus three makes eleven. Watch. " Leave the 8 and 3 face up on the table, and count cards off the deck one at a time into a face down pile on the table, as you count out loud from 1 to 11. Turn over the 11th card face up, to reveal the AD, and toss it face up next to the two previously discovered Aces. Casually pick up the face up 8 and 3, and drop them face down onto the just counted tabled pile of ten cards. Drop the entire left hand portion on top of the tabled cards, reassembling the deck. The A8 is now face up, 14th from the bottom of the deck, ready for the final revelation. At this point I like to cut about a quarter of the deck from top to bottom, to centralize the AS, but that’s optional. Then, simply ribbon spread the pack across the table, to reveal the AS face up. It’s a quick, clean and quite startling finish. 10)

COMMENTS As mentioned, you have great flexibility in the set up. Any two cards that total (1) 11 may be used, and the Aces may be placed down in any order, so long as the third Ace from the left is the AH (or the AS, which also spells with the same number of letters). With respect to the two "total" cards, the 91m requirement that must be satisfied, once the piles of 4—as-3 have been counted off and placed face up onto the Aces, is that the two spot cards totalling 11 must be the two face cards on the third (AH) pile. _A_ny set up, or displacement, or count, or adjustment, anywhere in the routine that establishes this situation could be used. For instance, I start with the 3 and 8 in the fifth and seventh positions and place the piles down in right to left order; you could, alternatively, start with the 3 and 8 in the ninth and eleventh positions and place the piles face down in left to right order. Either one will ultimately place the two total cards into prOper position on the AH pile. I just find it quicker to arrange the two spot cards in positions closer to the top of the deck. (I happen to prefer the symmetry of 32

ACTIVE ACES

0?-

dealing the piles "in order" starting from one end of the row, but frankly, if you want to simplify the set up to the extreme, you could even start with the two total cards as the very top two cards of the deck. Count off 4-as-3 but take the double first (Double-Single-Single), and put this very first counted pile onto the AH; then just count off the other three piles and put them onto the other Aces in no particular order).

‘

Here are a few ideas on ways of achieving the set up efficiently, so that Active Aces becomes virtually impromptu. There are two parts: getting a 7 reversed on the bottom, and getting the two "total" cards into their correct positions. (2)

(i) To reverse the 7, you could start by cutting a 7 to the face a Braue Reverse, commencing with the deck face up.

of the deck, and then do

A more subtle technique is to reverse the 7 in the act of initially spreading through the cards face up to remove the Aces: i.e., when you reach a 7, stop and catch a left fourth finger break beneath it. Flip all the cards to the right of the 7 face down book-wise, so they fall over onto the seven; then, just lift all the cards above the break and place the pile face down on the table, with the 7 hidden on the bottom. Then continue spreading the rest of the cards (Vernon Chronicles Vol. 3, p. 245, also Aronson Sessions p. 113).

Alternatively, if you precede Active Aces with any effect that leaves you with a secret reversed X card in the deck, you can plan it to be a 7, and thus take advantage of what otherwise might have required additional clean-up. You can, of course, reverse the 7 several tricks earlier in a routine, and leave it at the bottom until needed. (ii) Placing the two total cards into fifth and seventh positions depends on where you’re starting from, but I’ve always found opportunities present themselves. If you remember that you can use either a 9 + 2, or 8 + 3, or 7 + 4, or 6 + 5, you’ll find that if you just run through a shuffled, randomized deck, you’ll virtually always come across at least one instance of such a desired pair, either right next to each other, or separated by only one card. If the desired pair is right next to each other, you’ll need to add a single X card between them; if they’re already separated by a single card between them, leave it there. Just count more cards above the desired pair in the spread, and cut the cards at that point; the desired pair is now 5th and 7th. Or, if you get the desired pair to the tOp, i.e., first and third positions, then just add four X cards above them via a jog shuffle.

m

(iii) If you want a way of getting both the total cards into position and the 7 reversed at the bottom in 93 action, here’s a not-too-difficult riffle shuffle sequence that accomplishes it. Assume, through culling or via a prior trick, you have controlled all three of the necessary cards to the top of the deck, with a 7 being the t0p card, followed immediately by the two total cards. Position the deck on the table for a riffle shuffle, and obtain a right thumb break under the inner right corner of the top card (the 7). The left hand undercuts the lower half of the deck to the top, and the right hand then immediately cuts the lower cards below the break to the right. Both hands riffle shuffle as follows: (1) Left drops a single card (the 7); (ii) Right drops next, then both hands shuffle until the left hand has exactly 5 cards remaining, and the right hand has at least two cards; (iii) Right releases all but one card; (iv) Left releases one card; (v) Right releases its last 33

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?-

single card; and (vi) Left drops its remaining four cards on top. Now, push the two halves together about 2/3 of the way, and then with the right hand holding the cards at the right end only, tilt the telesc0ped deck up forward to a vertical position (you can use your right forefinger to hold the top card of the deck in place). All of the cards except for the lowermost 7 should lift up; because the 7 was on the face of the lefi half, and was dropped first singly, it will be left lying alone face down on the table, screened by the rest of the vertical telescoped deck. Now just perform Marlo’s action reverse technique, using the left thumb on the inner edge of the face down 7, to push or slide it forward on die table, so that it hits, and then "rides up", the face card of the vertical pack. When the 7 is against the face of the deck, just let the entire vertical deck fall or drop backwards, to resume its horizontal plane on the table top. Then complete by pushing the halves together. The 7 is now reversed on the bottom and the two total cards now occupy the desired 5th and 7th positions from the top. (iv) Finally, if you plan your previous effect appropriately, you can accomplish the entire set up while you clean up that previous effect. Here’s what I do. I precede Active Aces with an oil and water effect, and I make sure that there’s a 7, a 3 and an 8 among the various red and black spot cards (actually, just a Seven plus a_ny combination of two total cards). After performing oil and water, I gather up all the spot cards together in a face up pile or fan, but simply pick them up so that the 3 and the 8 occupy the fifth and seventh positions from the top (i.e., from the rear of the fan) and the 7 is the face; card of the pile. Square up the pile, turn it face down, and hold it from above with the right hand; as this is done, obtain a break with the right thumb at the rear, above the now lowermost card (the 7). While holding this packet in the right hand, with my left hand I pick up the balance of the pack and hold it face up in dealing position. The right hand then squares its packet of face down cards against the edge of the left thumb, and as the right hand packet is above the left hand cards, the packets momentarily ”kiss", and the right hand releases the single card below the break onto the packet below. At once, the left hand flips all of its cards (including the stolen reversed 7) face down, and immediately replaces this balance of the deck below the right hand face down packet. The deck is now apparently all assembled face down, but in fact you have your desired condition.

If you want to completely dispense with the two total cards, you can use an (3) alternative revelation for the third Ace: just spell "Ace of Diamonds", and the AD will appear on the final "S" (as long as you’ve used my suggested set up of having the AD in the fourth pile). This makes the trick virtually impromptu, since all you need to prepare is the reversed 7. (It’s not as entertaining, though; this "spelling" is now a "repeat", since you just finished spelling the previous Ace of Hearts). In other efforts to eliminate pre-arranging the two total cards, I’ve experimented with trying to calculate "impromptu" totals. For instance, if you try it without setting up any total cards, when you deal the packet of 4-as-3 cards onto the AH, you’ll _s_e_e the faces of the two X cards at the face of this packet -- these two cards will ultimately "become" the total cards. If they happen to total 10 or 11, you’re in luck; if they total 12, 13, or 14 you can, by judiciously calculating the handling on the vanishes and adding a scoop or Ascanio, properly place the Ace to this new impromptu total. If the impromptu total is other than 10 - 14, forget the "total", and (4)

34

ACTIVE ACES

0!—

just spell the Ace of Diamonds. While these options are workable, I’m not happy with the mental gymnastics required. Candidly, I prefer the method exactly as set forth in the text. It’s interesting (and useful) to note that this entire effect only disturbs the order (5) within the top 20 cards (the four Aces plus the 16 X cards). The entire rest of the deck (above the reversed 7) remains intact, throughout all of the cuts, deal downs, spellings, reassemblings, etc. This allows for subtle delayed set-up effects. For example, you could preset the entire lower half of the deck for a poker deal, and it will be retained throughout this effect. (Memorized deck readers take note: since, in the Aronson Stack, all four Aces are positioned among the top 22 cards, you can retain the entire lower half of the Aronson Stack in order, and still present this routine).

The concept of having the third Ace appear at the total of several cards is an outgrowth of my experiments with variations on the Christ effect, detailed in Sessions (see particularly pp. 117-118). (6)

When I showed an earlier version of Active Aces to Marlo, Ed suggested that I re-order the revelations, so that the direct "punch" of the AS appearing face up occurs last, as the climax. Ed is not only a superb technician and a masterful theoretician, but also has a perceptive aesthetic eye for what actually "plays" best for a lay audience. I followed Ed’s suggestion, and this present routine is the result.

35

SIMPLE SIMON 1 devised this particular stacking sequence to serve as a completely impromptu, quick, and yet powerful response to that frequently raised comment, "0h I’d never play cards with you ". Whenever the conversation turns to poker, or cheating, or skill at playing cards, you’re always ready to demonstrate your ability to stack four Aces to the dealer in a five hand poker game ~in just one overhand shuffle. I

The idea of streamlining a stacking procedure by secretly pre-setting one or more Aces into position during the preliminary "display" steps is not new. (Comment 7 mentions some of the prior sources of which I’m aware). My contribution is simply a new overhand shuffle sequence, which meets particularly stringent conditions. Most of the previous overhand stacks have relied on one or more "milking" actions (a simultaneous peeling of the top and bottom cards together). In my opinion, a "milk" peel can work satisfactorily on the very first card shuffled, but is cumbersome if done in the middle of a. shuffle sequence; in any event, I wanted to eliminate entirely a_ny milking or "double peeling" actions. Further, in doing overhand shuffles, any time you either replace the shuffled off cards back on top of the pack, or you "toss" or "throw" the balance of the cards in your hand onto the shuffled cards, it "interrupts" the rhythm. There is a momentary pause before you continue shuffling that has a ”feel" of ending one shuffle and beginning another shuffle. (The now standard "11-4-5-1—5" stacking procedure involves five such replacement or "throwing" actions). I wanted to avoid, or at least minimize, any such "break" in the flow of the shuffle. My shuffle sequence has the "feel" of simply overhand shuffling cards off the top of the deck, at a calm, even pace, and then tossing the balance on top. The pack is, at that point, ready to be cut and dealt out. In order to keep the basic idea simple, I’ve pared down the main text to its bare‘essentials. Thus, I first describe how to use the basic shuffle to stack four Aces to the dealer’s hand, among five players. Please, however, don’t pass up the extensive comments at the end of this effect. There I show how the same basic "one shuffle" sequence can be used for any number of hands, with the Aces going to whichever hand you desire. The comments also explore a number of variations which expand on, and show the flexibility of, this shuffle sequence.

WORKING

To begin completely impromptu, simply run through a shuffled deck, remove the Aces and toss them onto the table. As you’re looking for the Aces, secretly crimp the fifth card from the bottom (face) of the deck, at one of its inner corners. 1)

If you’ve just finished a previous trick that already leaves the four Aces (or any four of a kind) face up on the table, as you hold the balance of the deck face down, secretly corner crimp 36

“ .1.

SIMPLE SIMON

the bottom card. Now, either obtain a break under the top four cards and double undercut them to the bottom, or simply commence a casual overhand shuffle, running four cards singly off the top of the deck, and toss the rest of the deck on top. In any case, you should obtain this crimp condition before the spectator is even aware that you’re about to do anything. For example, its fairly easy to just crimp the fifth can! from the bottom as you gather up cards to "clean up" at the end of a prior effect.

2) You’re now going to diSplay the four Aces and apparently place three of them on top of the deck and one at the bottom. As you do this, you’ll secretly pre-load one of the top three Aces so that it in fact goes fmh from the top, using a Braue-type add-on. (If you dislike the Braue addition, Comment 3 presents alternative ways of "pre-setting", or loading, the Ace.) Hold the deck face down in the left hand, and obtain a left fourth finger break below the top four cards of the deck. The right hand holds the four Aces from above by the ends, displaying them in a face up spread condition, and then squares them against the top of the deck. In a continuous motion, the right hand from above lifts the squared Aces, simultaneously stealing the block of four face down cards below the Aces; the right thumb at the rear maintains a small break or separation between the face up Aces and the stolen face down block.

3) With the left thumb, peel off or slide the top Ace face up onto the top of the deck, slightly sidejogged to the right, and then use the left edge of the Ace packet to flip, or lever, this Ace face down onto the deck. (I_)on’t try to drop the block beneath the break yet -- let the Ace cleanly flip over as a single card).

4) The right hand again carries its Ace packet over the deck, to allow the left thumb to peel off the second Ace. _A__s_ the second Ace is peeled off, just when the right hand packet is directly over the pack, the right thumb releases its hold on the block, allowing the four face down cards to fall onto the top of the deck, beneath the face up second Ace, which is slightly sidejogged to the right. Now, continue to flip this second Ace face down, as before. 5) Repeat the peeling and flipping face down with the third Ace. Finally; snap the last remaining Ace face down in the right hand, and place it cleanly to the bottom of the deck. Your patter, timed to match the above actions, is "We’ll place three Aces on top of the deck, . . . and one on the bottom " If you wish, you can now casually flash the Ace on the bottom, and show one or two of the Aces on the top to confirm what you’ve just said. At this point, the spectator thinks you’re just about to begin; in fact, two of the four Aces are already stacked. 6) Holding the deck in position for an overhand shuffle. do the following, as you silently "1" count to yourself from to "10": (i) On count "1", run the top card singly into the left hand.

(ii) On count "2", the right hand with the deck descends into the left thumb crotch, to

allow the left thumb to draw or chop off approximately half of the right hand’s cards. Under cover of the packet being drawn off, the first card is secretly stolen back, and is 37

F THE ARONSON APPROACH

do

picked up behind the rest of the right hand packet. The steal is accomplished by the right third (or fourth) finger’s pressing in lightly at the outer end; the right third finger maintains a break between this stolen card and the balance of the pack above it. (iii) Run four more cards singly onto the cards in the left hand, for counts "3"-through

"6".

(iv) On count "7" the left thumb again peels one more card, but as it falls onto the cards in the left hand, the right third finger releases the single card below the break and allows it to fall onto the left hand cards; it falls under, and'thus is covered by, the card being run off by the left thumb. (v) On counts "8", ”9", and "10", run three more single cards.

(vi) Toss or drop the balance of the right hand cards onto the cards in the left hand.

Silently counting from 1 to 10 helps keep an even, more consistent flow to the sequence. Only counts "2" and ”7" involve anything other than running a single card, and the goal is to make these two counts have the same feel and pacing as the rest of the shuffle. Do the shuffle at a calm, not rapid, pace, as though inviting the spectators to pay close attention to the fairness and simplicity of the shuffle. During the shuffle, turn your body and hands so that the backs of the cards are towards, or facing, the spectator. When you complete the shuffle, you may find it plays more "fair" to table the deck. 7) Mention that in poker, the cards are always cut. Casually cut the deck at the crimp and complete the cut. 8) All four Aces are now stacked to fall to the dealer’s hand, if you deal out five poker hands. You can deal out the cards yourself, or you can hand the deck to the spectator and have him deal. (If you’re not following up this stacking demonstration with the surprise "repeat" climax described below, you only need to deal four rounds of cards; if you’re doing the follow up, be certain to deal a fifth round of cards so that each hand has five cards). For the climax, turn over the dealer’s hand to reveal the Aces.

"REPEAT" SURPRISE CLIMAX

The basic stacking demonstration above is completely impromptu. With just a little extra advance preparation, you can add a second phase, in which you offer to immediately repeat the Ace stacking with an even shorter shuffle! You then gather up the five hands dealt in the first phase, placing the dealer’s hand with the Aces on top, give the deck one shuffle, and ask the spectator to deal out five hands again. He does so, but something goes wrong -- in the dealer’s hand is n_ot the expected four Aces, but a Royal Flush! This second phase is completely automatic, and requires n_q additional moves, steps or procedures. All that is required is that, in the initial set up, the bottom four cards, immediately below the crimp, must be the IOS-JS-QS-KS. (You don’t have to have them in order, but if they

38

SIMPLE SIMON

40

are in order, with the 108 immediately below the crimp and the KS at the face, the flush cards will appear in sequence, for a more aesthetic climax). Now, with the deck thus arranged, follow the basic effect outlined above exactly, except that in initially displaying the four Aces and placing them at their appropriate positions on the top and bottom of the deck, just make sure the AS is the last Ace shown, so it is the one that gets placed to the bottom of the deck, i.e. immediately below the KS. At step 8, when the five poker hands are dealt out, the first round will in fact consist of the five key spade cards. Make certain that all five rounds are dealt, so that each hand has five cards. Then continue with the following steps: 9) After you reveal the Aces in the dealer’s hand for the first climax, leave the Ace hand face up on the table, and casually gather up the remaining four hands as follows: pick up the hand at your left (the hand is face down, and the 108 should be its face card) and drop that hand onto the balance of the deck. Pick up each hand successively (moving from left to right) placing it onto the deck, until all four of the face down hands have been gathered up. Table the pack.

Tell the spectator ”Let’s try it again ", as you pick up the dealer’s hand, displaying the Aces, and very cleanly turn it face down and drop it on top of the pack. Just make certain Ace of the dealer’s hand is the AS. that the 10)

m

Ask the spectator to "Bury the Aces, by giving the deck a cut. " He does so, and completes the cut. (Remember, your crimped card is still at the bottom of the deck, and thus after the spectator has cut the cards, the crimp marks off the Ace stack). 11)

Pick up the deck, and offer it to the spectator, commenting, tongue in cheek, "I do the shtgme. Do you remember it "? just showed you how to stack the Aces. This time, He will stare at you, and confess he didn’t fully learn it yet. Come to his aid, saying, "I ’ll do it for you. I ’11 even do a shorter version. Watch! " Now, simply perform false shuffle or false cut that leaves the order of the deck intact. (I feel that the simpler the false shuffle or cut, the more miraculous, and more humorous, the climax is. There’s something comedic about suggesting that you’re stacking four Aces to five hands, in, say, just one apparent cut.) Table the deck. 12)

m

m

Remind the spectator that the cards must be cut, and casually cut the deck at the crimp, and complete the cut. 13)

Ask the spectator to deal out five poker hands, as before. (Watch to make certain he deals correctly). When he’s finished, comment that "If you ’ve been successful, you should have the four Aces ", and as you say this, square up the dealer’s hand, and turn it face up in a squared pile, to reveal the A8 at its face. The spectator will now think that he’s got the Aces. 14)

Continue, "But I think you cheated in the dealing. You didn’t get the Aces afier all. " On this comment, spread the rest of the dealer’s hand in a face up fan, to reveal the royal flush in spades! Give the spectator the appropriate credit for "being a fast learner". 15)

39

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0!-

COMMENTS The Repeat Surprise Climax will be recognized as an application of the GardnerMarlo Poker Deal, and others before me have certainly thought of using it as a "second" phase (see, for example, Marlo’s "Zero Second Stack" noted below). It can easily be applied to any standard Lessinout stacking sequence which starts with four X cards beneath a crimp. (1)

(2) Depending on the circumstances, I occasionally vary the Repeat Surprise Climfix, to render it completely impromptu. To do this, after performing any prior trick using the four Aces, secretly crimp the bottom card, and then gather up the four Aces, replacing them at the bottom of the deck beneath the crimp. Then, begin your stacking demonstration by asking the spectators to name any four of a kind. Once a value is named, for example, the Eights, run through the deck and toss the four Eights to the table. (I will sometimes produce four of a kind magically, or perform another trick using four of a kind, instead of having a value named). Perform the first phase of the stacking demonstration, using the Eights instead of the Aces. For the second phase, offer to repeat stacking the Eights again, and proceed exactly as in the Repeat Surprise Climax. At the blow-off, instead of receiving the expected Eights, the dealer gets the four Aces. While not as impressive. as a five card Royal Flush, it is a strong finish to an impromptu demonstration.

The Braue Add-On, as described, is basically the same as Martin Nash’s "Fast (3) Stack" loading sequence (which Nash applied to a riffle shuffle stack) in Lorayne’s Best of Friends, Vol. 1, p. 74. For those not enamored with a Braue-type handling, the loading techniques in the sources mentioned in comment 7 below could be adapted to the shuffle sequence

presented here.

Dave Solomon pointed out that, instead of loading the Ace fifth from the t0p, my shuffle sequence works equally well if the Ace is pre-set, with four additional X cards, at the bottom of the pack. Based on Dave’s suggestion, I worked out several alternative handlings in which you display the Aces and apparently place mg on top and t_wg to the bottom; in so doing, you secretly load an Ace fifth from the bottom. Here’s the basic procedure: You want to create a situation where the crimp is loCated n_i_r_1__th from the face, and the fourth card from the face is slightly injogged. If you run through the pack to remove the Aces, you should be able to arrange the crimp and the injog as you’re spreading the cards. If you’re starting with the Aces already out on the table from a previous effect, just crimp the original bottom card, shuffle off eight cards singly, injogging the fourth card, and toss the balance on top. (Only this condition is established do you start to call your spectator’s attention to what you’re about to do. You might even want to place the deck aside on the table, with the injog at the rear, and chat for a few moments, and then casually pick up the deck, to give an extra air of nonchalance.) (i)

m

(ii) Hold the deck face down in the left hand, and with the right hand above, the right thumb pushes downand in on the injog, pushing the jogged card flush, while the left

fourth finger obtains a break above the bottom four cards. (Those who prefer thumb counting can eliminate the injog entirely. Just have eight cards below the crimp, and then

40

0!-

SIMPLE SIMON let the bottom four cards riffle off the right thumb at the rear, and obtain the left fourth finger break). (iii) Pick up any one of the tabled Aces in the right hand, holding it face down pinched only at its inner right (non-index) comer, right thumb above and first finger below. Casually flash its face towards the spectator for a moment and then approach the deck from the rear, to apparently slide it face down onto the bottom of the pack. Actually, the left fourth finger does a pull-down move, so the Ace goes into the break. Immediately release the left fourth finger, as the right hand from above squares the deck, to push the first Ace flush, apparently squaring it on the bottom. (iv) Continue by taking a second Ace from the table in the identical grip and, using the identical actions, flash its face and actually place it to the bottom of the deck. As the right hand squares up, this time casually lift the deck to flash the Ace on the bottom, just where it should be. This reinforces the idea that Aces are at the face. All of these actions are performed fairly rapidly, and without much concern, in just the space of time that it takes to mention that, "I ’m going to start with two Aces on the bottom . . . "

M

(v) Continue to finish your sentence, ". . . and two Aces on the tap ", as you pick up the third Ace, and deposit it face down on t0p of the deck, and repeat the same actions with the fourth Ace. You’re now ready to go directly into the shuffle, exactly as described at step 6 of the ten.

If you like this idea of loading the Ace at the bottom, you could eliminate the pull-down move, by handling the first two Aces together. After you’ve obtained the crimp and the injog,

with the right hand pick up my; Aces and hold them both face down between the right thumb and first finger, as in Figure 7. Note that the uppermost Ace is jogged about 1/2" both forward and to the left.

Figure 7

Figure 8

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0!.

Flash the face of both Aces"'together, lower them face down, and apparently slide them onto, the bottom of the deck, approaching the deck from its inner right comer. As the Aces approach the deck, allow the jogged outer left comer of the uppermost Ace to land or onto, the jogged card protruding from the rear of the deck (Figure 7), and as soon as it hits, press downward with the right thumb ole; so slightly, causing the lowermost Ace to ride just mlow the bottom of the deck. (Figure 8, taken from below, shows an exposed (and exaggerated) view of one Ace being loaded above the jog, while the other Ace simultaneously goes onto the bottom of the deck). Immediately continue to push both Aces (and the injogged card) flush, to square the deck. Flash the face to show an Ace, exactly where it should be. The injog has served as a convenient "ledge" to load an Ace fifth from the face.

M,

fl

For "purists" who want to eliminate loading moves, I’ve worked out a variant procedure that stacks all four Aces fairly with no ”loading" -- but the sacrifice is that it takes two shuffles. Very briefly, starting with the crimp fifth from the face, place three Aces on the top and one at the bottom of the deck. For the first shuffle, perform the basic shuffle exactly as set forth in step 6 of the text, with one simple addition: on count "2", after the half of the deck is "chopped off" into the left hand, the left thumb draws the top card of its half back towards the performer, injogging it about 1/2”. (This injogged card will be one of the Aces). Complete the rest of the shuffle as described. Then perform a second overhand shuffle as follows: As the right hand takes the deck to begin the shuffle, the right thumb pushes up from below and obtains a break beneath the injog. Now (i) run four cards singly off the top of the deck, into the waiting left hand, (ii) toss all of the cards lying above the break onto the four cards in the left hand, and (iii) toss the balance of the right hand cards below the cards in the left hand. Now, you’re ready to cut at the crimp, as in the text, and you’ll find all four Aces have been stacked. (4)

If you want maximum flexibility, this shuffle can easily be "generalized" so that it works for any number of hands. This allows you to offer the spectator a choice of how many hands you should deal. Your "key" number is always o_ne Less than the number of hands; in the text, and as I perform it, I use five hands, so my key number is four. This key number applies to all of the following: (a) the number of cards below the crimp, (b) the number of cards comprising the "load” block in the Braue Add-0n, (c) the number of cards you run singly before you drop the Ace at step (iii) in the shuffle, and (d) the number of cards you run on top of, or a_f_te; you drOp, the Ace (steps (iv) and (v) of the shuffle). (5)

For example, if you want to stack to four hands, your key number is "3", so you would start with 3 X cards below the crimp, and would secretly load a block of 3 cards during the Braue Add-On. During the shuffle, after stealing back the Ace at step 6 (ii), you would proceed to run tor_eo more cards singly, then release the Ace as you run glee more. (Thus, for "four" hands, the actual shuffle sequence would be done to a silent count of "8", instead of "10". The shuffle will always have a number of "counts" equal to the number of hands.) When performing for magicians, they may find it more impressive if you stack to six hands.

M

Finally, for those familiar with stacking procedures, it should be obvious that, by simply varying the number of cards below the crimp, you can also control into which of the hands the stacked Aces will fall. The number of cards below the crimp will always be o_ne_ kfi than the position in which you want the winning hand. For example, if you want the Aces to go to, say, the fourth hand, you would start with three cards below the crimp, or, if you wanted them in the (6)

42

————_~— 0?-

SIMPLE SIMON

first hand, there would be no cards below the crimp. This control is independent of how many hands you’re dealing.

The procedures at comments 5 and 6, taken together, give you a powerful demonstration in which you can offer the spectators a choice of both the number of players and which hand should win. You still can accomplish everything in just one simple shuffle. *fi (7) Readers may want to compare other "quick” overhand stacking procedures which also load, or pre-set, one or more of the Aces. See, for example, Mario’s approaches in his Unexpected pp. 20-36, Volume 3 of Marlo’s Magazine, pp. 314-317, and Ed’s "Zero Second Stack” in Powers’ Poweriml Magic, p. 50; Harry Lorayne’s "Overhand Shuffle Stack" in Quantum Leaps, p. 13; "Watch Me Work" in Randy Wakeman Presents, p. 103; or Mike Powers’ "Cardial Infraction”, in El! Secret Stuff, p. 32.

mm,

43

LATERAL PALM DOUBLE CHANGE ‘fi

I’ve long been a fan of the "lateral palm". I consider it a utility move which, given the correct angles, can serve as an efficient side steal or a quite natural bottom palm. My handling of the move generally combines ideas of both Marlo and Steranko (see Cement 1), and I certainly claim no credit for any of the move’s technical aspects. I offer this particular application because it is extremely efficient and surprising: both the bottom and the top cards of the deck are made to instantly change to two different cards. It is thus an interesting alternative to performing a pass, and can be used in situations when you don’t want to actually transpose halves of the deck. EFFECT A spectator selects and notes two cards, both of which are then returned to the deck. The

performer shows that the selections are not on either the top or the bottom of the deck, and then immediately shows that the top and bottom cards have changed to the two selections. WORKING

Have two selections freely made from a shuffled deck, have them replaced, and then secretly control them to the top of the deck (in either 1-2 or 2-1 order). You can use any control method you prefer; I’m partial to Marlo’s "One Cut, Double Control" (Hierophant Vol. 2, p. 72, or Marlo’s Magazine Vol. 1, p. 291). For convenience, let’s assume that the selections happen to be the AC and 2C, and you’ve controlled them so that the Ace is the top card and the Deuce is second. To aid in the description, let’s also assume that the third card (immediately below the 2C) happens to be the 3C, and that the bottom or face card of the pack is the KC. 1)

2) The spectator should be in front of you or to your right, but not to your left side. If necessary, turn your body a bit so that your right side is slightly towards the spectator. Hold the deck face down in your left hand, in normal dealing position, and casually start to spread the cards into the right hand, as you comment, "Your cards are somewhere in the middle of the deck. " As you spread, obtain a left fourth finger break beneath the third card from the top, and then square up the spread cards, retaining the break. 3) The back of the right hand should be towards the spectator. As your left hand holds

the deck, the right hand does a triple turnover, flipping the top three cards face up onto the deck, as one. The break makes this triple instantaneous and effortless. This reveals the supposed top card to be an indifferent card (in this case, a Three).

'

LATERAL PALM DOUBLE CHANGE

oY-

As the triple falls face up, let it fall slightly outjogged beyond the front edge of the pack. As soon as it lands on the deck, the left forefinger reaches up from below, around the front of the deck and curls onto the outer outjogged edge of the face of the 3C. The left forefinger simultaneously pulls down on the triple and pushes it flush with the deck. This slight downward pressure on the outer edge will cause the right comer of the triple to lift up off the deck slightly, thus enabling the left fourth finger pad to once again obtain a break between the now face up triple and the rest of the deck. All of this happens in one smooth, continuous agtion, of apparently just flipping the top card face up, bookwise, as you display the face up 3C and comment, "Your cards are not on the top. . . ". (Steve Draun taught me this technique years ago for handling a double (or a triple). He calls it "Draun’s Break Recovery", and I think you’ll find it very natural, efficient and disarming.)

m;

4) Continue the above action, by once again doing a triple turnover, to turn the card(s) face down onto the deck; the break facilitates the triple. Allow the card(s) to fall flush back onto the deck, this time without retaining a break. So far, you’ve shown the top card to apparently be an indifferent card. 5) You’re now going to turn the entire deck face up, turning it end for end, to show that the bottom card is also an indifferent card. There’s nothing tricky about this action, but it’s important that it be done in a certain manner, to prepare for what is to come. The deck should be held face down in the left hand, with all four of the left fingertips along the right side of the deck. The front end of the deck will protrude about a half inch beyond the edge of the left first finger. The right hand reaches over the front end of the deck and grips the outer edge, with the right first, second and third fingertips going below the deck, touching the face of the King at its outer end, while the right thumb presses onto the top card of the deck, at its outer left corner (Figure 9).

Figure 9

.

Figure 10 45

‘— THE ARONSON APPROACH

or.

The right hand rotates the outer end of the deck up and over, turning its outer end inwards, so that the deck revolves end for end, until it is face up. As the deck is lowered face up into the waiting left hand, the location of the deck in the left hand should be somewhat injogged, or protruding inwards, and extending back about 3/4" over the edge of the left fourth finger (Figure 10). This shift in the deck’s placement in the left hand is partly a result of one end of the deck’s having been rotated up, over and back, while the other end remained relatively stationary, serving as the "pivot", or axis. “

6) Because the deck is now somewhat ”injogged" in the left hand, it’s natural for the right hand to help adjust the deck’s position. The right fingers release the inner end of the deck, and regrip the deck, to grasp it from above, by the ends. The right second and third fingers are at the outer end, towards the right side, while the right thumb is at the inner right comer. The right hand lifts or slides the deck diagonally forward and a bit to the right, so the back of the deck rides over the tip of the left first finger. Simultaneously, the left fingers flex in a bit, and contact the back of the Ace, at about its center. As the deck is moved diagonally forward across the left hand, the left thumb is placed across the face of the King (Figure 11). This completes the turnover of the deck, as you continue your previous statement, ". . . and not on the bottom either. "

Although this has been a rather lengthy description, the actions of steps 3-6 should flow together, as you straightforwardly display first the top card, and then the face, of the deck. 7) You’re now going to slide, or push, the Ace into lateral palm position. The right hand rotates just a bit from its position above the deck, so that the right hand is somewhat more arched over the right si_de of the deck, and not quite directly above it. In this position, the base of the right third finger should be roughly even with the Ace, i.e. , with the top card of the face deck. up The right hand now slides the deck towards the left, into the left thumb crotch, as the left fingertips apply a slight upward pressure on the back of the Ace. This light contact holds this single card in place while the rest of the deck slides to the left, sliding across the face of the Ace. The left fingers, under the deck, extend to the right and actually push or slide the Ace to the right. The Ace slides in a plane that is parallel to the deck, until the right outer corner of the Ace butts up against the base of the right third and fourth finger. Figure 12 shows a view of this action taken from below, looking up; Figure 13 shows this position (exposed) seen from above.

The left fingers help guide the card so that its outer right corner is forced between the right third and fourth fingers, at their base. As this occurs, the outer le_ft corner of the face up Ace will protrude slightly from the front of the deck, where it will be felt by the tip of the right second finger. The right second finger curls, or really just presses, slightly inwards on this corner, so that the Ace is gripped in lateral palm position. The card will be quite secure, held by just a slight tension between the right second finger on the outer left corner and the base of the right third and fourth fingers on its outer right corner. The card is held very lightly. As the Ace slides across into the lateral palm, the left thumb remains immobile, lying flat the face of the deck. across

46

\ ‘

.1.

I

LATERAL PALM DOUBLE CHANGE

n

Figure 11

we. «.9. w";. I.

“

b

'

.

.

g

.1 A.)

.'*‘$."~".‘.‘r

P,u~ *L. y.

.

Figure 12

"

II.

’52"

"

'. 1'".II. ,. ':

.

‘i

'9,

Figure 13

i)‘

'-

7" CF»

w

I

Figure 14

8) You’re now going to turn the deck face down again, repeating the same end-for-end turnover action you used before. As the deck is turned face down,

lateral palmed Ace onto the face of the deck.

you’ll secretly replace the

The pack is basically being held by the left hand, just as it was at the beginning of step 5, only this time the pack is face up. The left thumb is lying lightly across the face of the King. 47

————~‘ THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?-

(In a moment, the Ace is going to be slid under the thumb, onto the King, but the continued presence of the thumb acts as a strong convincer that apparently nothing has happened).

The right thumb releases its grip of the deck, and moves across the face of the King, towards the outer right comer. Simultaneously the right fingers move diagonally forward the to right for about a half an inch, leaving the deck held entirely by the left hand. Because of this motion to the right, the left edge of the palmed Ace will also move to the right, and will clear the right edge of the deck (Figure 14). (This "clearing" action can be aided if both hands turn ‘lh, or downwards just slightly, at the wrists; this rotation also will cause the back of the right hand to provide more cover for the lateral palmed card). ' The moment the Ace clears the pack, the plane of the right hand raises ever so slightly, just enough to raise the left edge of the palmed Ace so that it’s in line with the King. The right hand immediately moves t_o me Le_f_t_, to grasp the outer end of the pack. The right fingers slide across the edge of the deck, and the Ace is slid across the face of the King and under the left thumb. In one continuous action the right thumb and fingers grasp the outer edge of the face up deck, at this outer left corner; the right thumb will be on the index of the Ace, and the right first and second fingers will be curled around and beneath the front of the deck, where they’ll be contacting the back of the deck, at its outer left corner. (Figure 15 shows an exposed view of this position, from the left side; Figure 16 shows this same grip from the front, and you’ll note that the deck is virtually hidden from view).

m

Figure 15

Figure 16

As soon as the right hand grips the outer end of the deck, the right hand lifts the front end upwards and inwards, to turn the deck end for end so that it is once again face down. The deck is then deposited into the left hand.

The position of the right fingers and right thumb at the outer end of the deck is all the cover you should need to completely hide the replacement of the Ace onto the King. The action 48

m 0!.

LATERAL PALM DOUBLE CHANGE

of turning the deck face down further masks the fact that the Ace deck.

is now the new face card

of the

9) At this point the spectator will think that you’ve ”just begun". Indeed, the only patter you’ve used thus far follows the rather standard, cut and dry, lines of many card tricks. opening You’ve simply shown that the selections are not on either the top or the bottom. Bu? in fact, you’re finished. The top and bottom cards, which just a moment ago were shown to be a Three and a King, are now the Ace and the Two. All that’s left is to reveal the change.

The left thumb pushes the top card of the deck off the to right, where it is taken at its inner right corner between the right thumb and forefinger. The right hand thus holds a single face down card (the Deuce) and the left hand holds the rest of the deck. Make your actions open and deliberate. Ask the spectator, "Please name both your cards ". When he names them, say ”Watch! " Simultaneously turn both hands inward at the wrists, to turn the deck and single card face up, revealing the two selections. COMMENTS

(1) For details and finer points of technique for the lateral palm and replacement, the reader is referred both to Marlo’s writings, particularly the "Clip Steal" (Revolutionary Card Technique, Side §teal> and "The Fingertip Steal" (Marlo’s Magazine, Vol. 4, p. 95) and to Steranko o_n Cards, Chapter 4, pp. 20-21.

m

(2) The procedure in the text is 100% impromptu. If you don’t mind a minor set up, the same combination of a triple turnover with the lateral palm can produce a very efficient double change of, say, two cards being used in a sandwich effect. I’ve often used this sequence to change two red aces to two black ones, as follows: Just pre-set the top three cards of the deck in order: black Ace, black Ace, red Ace, and place the remaining red Ace on the face of the deck. To perform, start by doing a triple turnover to show a red Ace on top and turn it face down. Turn the deck face up to show the other red Ace on the bottom. Lateral palm the top black Ace, and replace it onto the face of the deck as you turn the pack face down again. Now reveal that both Aces have changed color to black.

49

TWO MINDS AND A MATE 1 Ever since R. W. Hull’s "Three of Clubs" trick was published in greater Magic, magicians have been utilizing its basic concept to present powerful, direct mindreading effects with cards. There has also been a continued effort to improve the original effect, by establishing a logical reason or excuse for running through the pack after the spectator has named his mentally chosen card. One very successful development has been to expand the original construction by adding multiple selections, so that the procedure for choosing or locating a second selection is itself the rationale for running through the deck to find, control and switch in the named first selection. This approach, in turn, demands a method for dealing with the second selection that is strong and direct enough to stand along with, and indeed strengthen, the original plot. Harry Lorayne’s effect "Triple Mate" (3 e Epitome Location, p. 25) brought this development a major step forward, by utilizing the power of his ”Epitome" location to discover one of the selections. (For those readers unfamiliar with the Epitome concept, it’s the age-old principle of determining the value of a card which has been removed from the deck by adding up the indices of the cards remaining in the pack. Lorayne has made the calculation more rapid, and thus more practical, by narrowing down the removed card to either red or black -- so there are only 26 cards to total). I was intrigued with the application of the Epitome concept to this effect, but felt that Lorayne’s routine relied too heavily on the one ahead principle, rendering it obvious. After much experimentation, I finally settled on this present routine. (Please don’t let mention of the Epitome location dissuade you from reading further -- in Comment 2 1 offer several quite practical alternative approaches to this effect, that don’t require the Epitome method). Pay particular attention to the presentation and patter in this effect, because they are designed to disguise -- and even negate the possibility of -- any one ahead system being used. The impression left on the spectators is that the performer is finding mental selections, and that he commits himself by removing and isolating 12% cards before asking either of the spectators to reveal their thoughts. In addition, the performer also adds a "climax", by finding the mate of an unknown "mystery card. "

m

SET UP

Secretly arrange the deck with all of the red cards on top and all the blacks on the bottom. WORKING

Casually false shuffle the deck, using any shuffle that maintains the red/black set up. Comment, "If I were to straightforwardly ask you to simply think of any card in the deck, and I then invnediately removed a card and it was the one you were thinking of, you’d probably think 1)

50

A of-

TWO MINDS AND A MATE

I was just lucky, and you ’d want me to repeat it.

But if I did it again, and again, the repetition could get boring; it would sort of be an anticlimax and might weaken the entertainment value of my performance. So, I ’m going to do that exact mindreading experiment but with a special ’mystery ’ climax that will hopefitlly keep everyone intrigued. ’m for you I going to prove that luck isn ’t involved by reading my people ’s minds and then ’m I going to go even fiuther than that! " Try to build up the importance of this climax during your opening spiel, and at the same time emphasize that it is something separate from, and ”extra" to, your efforts at mindreading.

-

-

2) Ask for the assistance of two spectators. For convenience, let’s refer to the one sitting to your right as Spectator #1 and the one sitting to your left as Spectator #2. Ribbon spread the deck face down across the table, as you announce, ”Before we begin the mindreading, let ’5 prepare for the special climax. " Ask either one of the spectators to slide card out of the spread, but to leave it face down on the table, or to hide it unseen in his pocket. Explain that this will be the "mystery" card, which no one gets to see until the climax. As the card is removed, note from its location in the set up whether it is red or black. (Assume here, for example, that a black card is removed.)

m

3) Once the mystery card is removed, immediately have the spectator gather and shuffle the rest of the pack. (Emphasize that you’re not touching the cards, so no one will suspect that a stack might have told you the identity of the mystery card). 4) Take back the shuffled pack, and explain to the two spectators that in a moment they will each mentally select a card from the balance of the pack, but since you want them to each have different cards, Spectator #1 (on the right) should choose a red card and Spectator #2 (on the left) should select a black card. (Always arrange it so that Spectato'r“#1’s color is the Opposite color from the mystery card —- this prevents Spectator #1 from inadvertently selecting the mate of the mystery card). Explain that it’s important that their selection be in the deck, so actually show them the rest of the cards. Ask Spectator #1 to think you’ll of any red card, and to look to verify that his card is in fact in the deck. Here, lift up the pack and start to spread the deck, with the backs towards you and the faces towards Spectator #1, and ask him to just touch the face of his thought of card, when he sees it. Run the cards fairly rapidly past him, and turn your head aside to make it clear you’re not looking at the faces of any of the cards. When he touches the face of his card, break the spread at that point so that his touched card is on the face of the upper portion, and casually show it around "so that other people can also know what card you ’re " thinking of. Close the spread, maintaining a left fourth finger break below Spectator #1’s selection, square up the pack, and casually drop your left hand to your side, retaining the break. 5) Approach Spectator #2 (on the left) and explain that you will show him the faces of each and every card in the entire deck, and he is to of any black card he sees. Tell him you’ll go slowly, and won’t try to hide any cards, and he is to look at the full deck to give himself the widest choice. (All of this patter justifies your running through the deck fairly slowly). Hold the deck face down in left hand dealing position, and with the right hand grip it from above at the outer left and inner left corners. The right hand then flips the deck face up by swiveling it bookwise from left to right, with the left fourth finger still pressing on the right edge to maintain the break. This swivel causes the cards to jog at Spectator #1 ’8 selection, and when the deck is face up, the index of Spectator #1 ’3 selection will be clearly visible to you at the lower

M

51

THE ARONSON APRflOACl-l

ol,

right corner. Glimpse andrernember Spectator #l’s selection. Let’s assume that it happens to be the 3D. 6) Immediately continue by squaring the deck, and start to spread the deck, with the faces towards Spectator #2. As he looks over the cards, while you spread the cards you secretly add the indices of all the black cards, performing Lorayne’s "Epitome” location, (or any similar addition method), to secretly determine the value of the missing mystery card. Run through the cards as fast as you can comfortably add. Remember, you need only add half the cards (i.e. , first the black ones), and your patter gives you an excuse to go slowly. When you finish spreading, Spectator #2 will have thought of a black card, and you will already know the value of the mystery card; you don’t need to worry about its suit. Let’s assume that you determine that the mystery card is an Eight. 7) Announce that you will read both spectators’ minds. Run through the faces of the cards and first remove the of the mystery card (you already know the value and color, so there should be only one such card) and place it face down on the table. In our example, you would look for a black Eight. Let’s assume you located, and tabled, the 88. Next remove Spectator #l’s glimpsed card (the 3D), and place it face down, on top of the first tabled card.

m

Emphasize that you’ve now committed yourself to both cards, and request the spectators 'for the first time, to reveal the names of the cards they merely thought of. " When they do, nod confidently, as though you successfully completed the mindreading portion of the experiment. 8)

9) Comment, "I told you that I would not only read your minds, but would also have a special climax. Nobody knows the identity of the mystery card. In a deck of cards, each card has one and only one mate, a unique card which matches it in both color and value. Just as I committed myselfbeforehand to both of your thought of cards, I ’ll also commit myself to the mate of the mystery card. " As you say this, run through the faces of the cards, and remove the card which Spectator #2 has just named as his selection (assume, for example, that he named the 4C), and place it face down on the table, in front of the two other tabled cards (Figure 17; all pictures are from the spectator’s point of view). The impression you want to create is that you’re isolating this card from the other two cards, because it’s part of a "separate climax", and your subsequent use of the sandwich cards to "surround it" (in step 10 below) will continue this impression of keeping the mystery card separate from the two mindreading cards. 10) "Now let’s see how well

I did. "

You’re now going to apparently display the two "thought of" cards, by turning them face up to reveal them, and using them as "sandwich" cards to surround and further isolate the face down supposed "mate" card. In fact, you’re going to perform a variant handling of Brother Hamman’s sandwich switch, which results in the supposed "mate" card (really Spectator #2’3 card) being switched for the lowermost of the two tabled cards (i.e. , the real mate to the mystery card). Here’s how: Pick up the two "thought of" cards, taking the t0p card (the 3D) in the left hand, held by the left long edge, pinched between the left thumb above and left first finger below; the right hand simultaneously takes hold of the lower card, holding it by its right long edge. Both cards are still face down (Figure 18).

52

TWO MINDS AND A MATE

of-

Figure 17

Figure 18

Both hands now simultaneously move forward with their cards towards the face down "mate" card. The left hand scoops or slides the right long edge of its card under the left long the "mate" card, as simultaneously the right hand slides its card on edge of top of the mate card, from the right (Figure 19).

The three cards are squared; for a moment the packet is being held by both hands, on its two long edges. As soon as the three cards are squared, the left fingers below continue to push the bottom card (Spectator #l’s card, the 3D) towards the right. The right hand, fingers below and thumb on top, takes this card and turns it end over end face up and deposits it on top of the other two cards, jogged diagonally forward towards the right (towards Spectator #1) (Figure 20). In one continuous, flowing action, the right hand now grips all three cards by their right edge, to free the left hand, and the left hand takes the new bottom card (Spectator #2’3 card, the 4C) by its left edge, turns it face up, and deposits it back below the other two cards, slightly jogged to the left, towards Spectator #2 (Figure 21). Immediately place the three cards, now in a spread fan, onto the table. As this sandwiching action is performed, patter, "I ’m going to isolate the mate between " -pause, as you look at Spectator #1 and turn over his card on the right -- "yo—w card, the Three of Diamonds, and " -- again pause, as you turn to Spectator #2 and turn his card face up -- "y0_ur " card, the Four of Clubs. Each spectator now sees that you indeed have correctly found the card he was thinking of. The two face up, thought of, cards now surround the face down supposed mate of the mystery card. The two thought of cards appear just as they should, each in front of

53

THE ARONSON APPROACH

#0

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

54

\ .1.

TWO MINDS AND A MATE

their respective spectators; the face down "mate” card has apparently never left sight, and now is even more isolated by the two sandwich cards. 11) For the climax, remind everyone that a mystery card was removed before the

experiment even began, and has been in the spectator’s possession since then. Have the spectator pick it up, or remove it from his pocket, and show its face to everyone. It will be the 8C. Then announce, "For the climax, please take a look at the card I thought would be the perfect match " that card. Have the spectator remove the ”mate" card from the sandwich and for mystery turn it face up, to reveal the SS. COMMENTS

(1) I usually try to divide the deck into red/black order several tricks in advance, and then few effects perform a that do not disturb the set up, before going into this trick. When available, I’ll use a deck with one-way backs, with all the reds secretly set facing one way and the blacks the other. This allows the performer to legitimately shuffle the deck at the outset, and to show the faces as being mixed; if you choose your spectator carefully, and know how he shuffles, you can even let the spectator shuffle the pack. By watching which direction the back of the mystery card points, you’ll know if it’s red or black. I also occasionally use my own specially prepared deck: each of the red cards has one small white dot, scratched on its back directly in the center; the black cards are unmarked. The mark seems to be a part of the back design, but if you know where to look and just glance at the center, it’s instantly obvious. Such a deck has a number of advantages: the cards can be freely shuffled by anyone, and can be used for all previous tricks; it needs no set-up, and can’t accidentally get out of order. Even someone suspecting a marked deck will be fooled, since "going to the movies" will not reveal the mark, because it’s in the the ends -- and 26 cards are the same so nothing "dances around". center, not at (2) The Epitome approach gives you the identity of the mystery card in a subtle and seemingly impossible manner, but if the Epitome calculations aren’t your cup of tea, obviously, other method that any secretly gives you the identity of the mystery card could be substituted. A marked deck (full suit and value) could be used. One could use a stacked deck, but this would necessitate either handling the cards after the mystery card is withdrawn, or having certain known key cards in the stack marked on the back, and "counting" from the nearest key to the place where the mystery card was removed from. If you’re willing to give up the "hands off" condition in exchange for a completely impromptu method requiring m mental exertion, just force the mystery card, using a classic force, or the cleanest, most direct force know. Different presentation circumstances and varying skills will dictate which method is yoube to preferred. I try to build up challenge conditions wherever possible, and thus Opt for the approach in the text. (3) It will occasionally happen (1 out of 25 times) that Spectator #2 will by sheer coincidence think of the mate of the mystery card. You will know this as soon as he announces his card, and you then know you have a real miracle. No further removal of a third card from the deck, or any sandwich switch, is needed. Simply announce that the special climax you planned was that one of the spectators would think of the mate of the card. Have the mystery mystery card shown, and then simply have the two thought of cards turned face up, to reveal that had read both successfully you minds -- and "caused" the spectator himself to "mentally find" the mate!

55

m THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?.

You may, find it helpful to remember that the (4) sides in which the performer the removes cards and places them down onto the table is the same glue; in which they are actually selected, i.e., Mystery Card - #1 - #2.

At the climax, some may prefer to first turn (5) over the tabled ""mate card, and then reveal the mystery card. Either presentation is valid and strong, but the procedure in the text gives more logical justification for sandwiching the mate face down, instead of simply turning it face up at the same time as the two thought of cards. (6) For helpful shortcuts with the Epitome location, which make the adding of the cards rapid and eminently practical, see both Lorayne’s booklet Epimms and Karl Fulves’ pamphlet Pringipls. I use a combination of ideas from both these sources. See also my Oh Pity Me Location, later in this book.

fie my;

m

mm

The Hamman sandwich switch is also described in Ssssions, p. 98, Richard’s Almanac (October, ’83, p. 127), and 111; Secrets of Brother John Hamman, p. 49. Marlo appears to have been the first to use sandwich cards to isolate and switch the tabled card (Hierophant #7, p. 35). Ed’s most recent version of such a switch is included in John Bannon’s "Heart of the City" (1990). (7)

I presented this effect in the Aronson-Solomon (8) Card Workshop at the 1986 TAOM convention, and a preliminary description was included in our Workshop lecture notes. Readers be interested in may comparing Mario’s approach (Marlo Mggazins, Vol. 6, p. 175).

56

STACKS AND GAFFS

MIX AND MATCH This is a two deck effect that’s visually fascinating, because it’s so unusual. A red deck and a blue deck get shuffled together by the spectator, so he’s using a 104 card deck, with a random, colorful assortment of backs, chaotically interspersed. Nevertheless, you’re able to perform an astounding matching miracle. Although it seems impossible, in fact, it’s virtually selfworking. SET UP You’ll need two full decks, one red backed and one blue backed. Make sure that the red one is well shuffled, and then ribbon spread it face up across the table. Now, take the blue deck, and arrange all the cards in the blue deck so that the entire blue deck is in the exact reverse order of the red deck, i.e., if the top card of the red deck is the 18, then the bottom card in the blue deck will be the JS, and so on. When you’re finished, each deck will be the mirror image of the other. Square up both decks and insert them into their respective cases. Make sure you’ve got a spectator who knows how to riffle shuffle fairly well. WORKING

Introduce both decks, remove each from its case, and give each deck a couple of false shuffles. Ribbon spread each across the table face down, as you comment that one is red and one is blue, and then flip each spread face up, so that both decks are seen to be well—mixed. Square up both decks, and put them on the table face down in front of a spectator, with their short ends close to and facing each other, as though they were the two halves of one deck, just about to be riffle shuffled together (which is exactly what the spectator is going to do). 1)

2) Explain, "In a moment I ’m going to try an experiment with two decks cards. But, of ’I I won simply use one red deck and one blue deck; that ’s too easy. Rather, these two decks are just the raw ingredients, and I’m going to let you create your own two decks, out these 104 of cards. What I want you to do is first to rifle these two decks together, to make one giant deck! ” As I say this, I imitate the action of a riffle shuffle with my hands, to make sure the spectator understands what I want him to do. Let the spectator shuffle the two decks together, and push the two decks flush, to make one big 104 card deck. (Make certain that he only shuffles once). 3) When he’s finished, ask him to pick up the combined deck, as you say, "We now want to create two totally new, mixed up decks, so I’d like you to deal of the top 52 cards into a face " down pile right here -- indicate a point on the table -- "and whatever those first 52 cards happen to be, from your shufi‘led, jumbo pile, those will make up one deck. " Have him follow your instructions, and deal the top 52 cards off the deck into a face down pile, their

reversing

order. 59

———\ THE ARONSON APPROACH

*V

As he deals, he’ll see the interspersed red and blue backs, proof that the cards have been ”randomized". Have him place the balance of the jumbo deck (i.e., the remaining 52 cards) on the table as "the second deck”. Square up both decks on the table. 4) Explain, "I’m going to have you choose one single card to act as a prediction, and I want you to have a completely free choice of any one of these 104 cards. So, first, which deck would you like to choose from. Please point to either one. " The spectator really will have an absolutely free choice, so make the most of it. When he points to one of the two decks, pick it up, and explain further, "I told you you ’d have a completely free choice. Do you want to pick a red backed card or a blue backed card .7" Suppose he answers "Red". Continue, "I ’ll spread the cards before you, and you should remove whichever red card strikes your fancy. I’ll go slowly, so you can see every one of them. When you take one look at it. Just put it out, down on the table. " Start to spread the chosen deck between your hands, to give the spectator a completely free choice. As you spread the cards from hand to hand, secretly count the red backed cards as they go by, and keep a running count until the spectator removes the red backed card he wants. Note and remember the number in your silent mental count. Suppose, for instance, that in our example the spectator removed the fourteenth red backed card from the top of the deck. You would simply remember "14". Square up the balance of the deck and place it on the table.

M2

You’ll find that the mixture of red and blue cards allows you to spread the cards fairly rapidly, and yet still keep an accurate count of the red ones, because you’re only counting half the cards. I actually begin spreading the cards a moment before I offer them to the spectator, because I find that the effect looks better if the card is removed from somewhere further down into the pack, instead of close to the top; there’s just less obvious visual symmetry, when you later pick your card at step 6. Once the card has been removed and is isolated on the table, emphasize that it will serve as a prediction and no one knows its identity. 5) You the performer are now going to select a card, which must come from the deck, i.e. , the deck from which the spectator did n_ot choose his prediction card. You could just immediately pick up that deck, but I prefer to make it seem as though I’ll use whichever deck the spectator wants me to use. The spectator has already been lulled into thinking that his choices free are (so far they really were) so this is an apt time to employ a simple "magician’s choice". "I Explain, want you to help me make my selection. I ’m not even going to touch the cards, so " either deck towards me. Depending on which deck the push spectator pushes toward you, you’ll reply differently: if he pushes the deck you Lam to use towards you, say, "Fine, that ’11 be my deck. Since I don ’t want to touch the cards, please pick up my deck. " If instead he pushes the undesired deck towards you, confidently continue, "Fine, please pick up your deck”, gesturing towards the one that’s left in front of him. You act as though he has "pushed aside", or rejected, the deck he pushed away. In either event, the spectator winds up holding the deck you want.

fie;

6) Ask the spectator to start dealing the cards from the t0p of the deck into a face down pile on the table. As he deals, you must secretly count the backed cards (the opposite color PM from the spectator’s prediction card) as they go by. Try not to look like you’re paying close attention to every card, since you don’t want to convey any idea that you’re waiting for a specific

60

-————‘__ of.

V

MIX AND MATCH

card. Since the backs are mixed, red and blue, you’re only counting about half the cards; this gives you some comfortable time to glance around, and yet still keep accurate track of the count. When the spectator deals the 14th blue card on the tabled pile, call out, "Stop '. (You stop at the fourteenth, because in our example that was the number you counted to at step 4, when the spectator chose his prediction card). Explain that your card will be the one he has just‘stopped at, and ask the spectator to turn it face up for you; suppose it’s the King of Diamonds.

7) Recapitulate all of the conditions that have been imposed to make sure that both cards were chosen completely at random: the shuffling, the creation of the two mixed decks, the spectator’s choice of either deck, the spectator’s handling of the cards, etc. Summarize, "After all of that, with your assistance, I ’ve chosen as my card the blue backed King of Diamonds. Earlier, you fieely chose any card you wanted, to act as a prediction. You could have picked a red or a blue card, and you could have chosen from either deck. You finally decided on ,th_is_ card" -- here, point to the spectator’s prediction card, isolated on the table. Ask him to turn it face up. When he does, he should be stunned to find that it is the matching red backed King of Diamonds!

COMMENTS (1) The effect is essentially automatic, because after the two decks are shuffled together and then divided according to the procedure in the text, it is simply a mathematical consequence that the order of all of the red cards in one deck will exactly match, card for card, the order of the blue cards in the opposite deck, and vice versa. Cardicians will recognize this as an application of one of Jordan’s riffle shuffle principles. The visual mixture of the red and blue backs heightens the spectator’s sense of the apparent random, unpredictable nature of the decks, but in fact it is this very feature, the two different colored backs, that allows you to mentally separate the two interlocking chains.

If you’re proficient with the classic force, you can make the trick even more miraculous. Rather than having the performer call out ’stop’ to select the second card, instead involve a second spectator to " freely " choose the second card. Just pick up the correct deck, and classic force the 14th blue card (in our example) on him. If you try this, try to both count to 14 an_d classic force at the same time; the counting requires a certain methodical spreading of the cards as you follow the blues, while the classic force needs a certain freedom, and ability to speed up on a bunch of cards, if necessary. Instead, as you ask for a volunteer to be the second spectator, just start spreading the cards between your hands, and mentally count the blues. When you get to the 14th, take a break and resquare. Now approach your volunteer, and use your normal classic force to the break. (2)

m

If you like this idea of involving a second spectator, but you aren’t comfortable with the

classic force, don’t give up. Just spread and count, take a break at the 14th blue card, and square up. Now, just riffle force to the break. Be careful as you riffle to turn your hand so that when the spectator calls stop, the deck’s Opening either is turned away from the spectator, or is not opened too widely. You don’t want the spectator to inadvertently see a red backed card at the moment you st0p, and then have it suddenly change to blue as the halves are separated.

61

E“— THE ARONSON APPROACH

of-

V

(3) At the end of this trick, you’re left with the two mixed up decks that may appear to be hopelessly intertwined. If you’re devious, you’ll use this to your best advantage. There’s a way of separating the reds from the blues and reassembling the original decks -- and winding up with both decks in a secret stacked order, ready for your next trick!

Assume, for example, that the red deck was originally set up in, say, Si Stebbins order, and the blue deck was the mirror image. When the trick is finished, you’ll first need to complete the reverse counting of the second deck (the one from which you selected your card by calling ’Stop’). The portion the spectator dealt up to the point where you called stop has already b‘éen reverse counted, so just pick up the balance of that deck and deal the balance one at a time onto the pile dealt by the spectator, thus reversing its order. Now, pick up either one of the decks, and separate the reds from the blues by holding the deck in your hands and quickly spreading through the deck, upjogging one color and downjogging the other. When reach the end of the spread, strip out the upjogged cards and place the two piles face down youthe table. Pick up on the remaining deck, and again separate the reds from the blues by upjogging and stripping out, and then place the reds on the tabled red pile and the blues onto the tabled blue pile. As long as you separate both decks in the m5; way, you’ll wind up with two restored decks, one blue and one red, which will be in the same cyclic order you started with (and one will be the mirror the image of other). All that needs to be done to complete the reassembly is to make sure that the two matching selected cards, one red and one blue, are re-inserted into their proper stack positions in their respective decks. (If the stack isn’t cyclic, but has a specific top and bottom, e. g., a memorized deck, or a poker deal, then depending on which deck divided first, you you may need to cut the deck at the proper point to restore the original top card). You can do this entire reassembly in less than a minute, as you patter about your next effect. Since the matching miracle has clearly been finished, the spectator will be listening to you and not paying particularly close attention to the cards. You’ll be left with two decks, each in a secret stack order for further miracles, yet the spectator will subliminally remember both having shuffled the cards and having seen the hopeless jumble of mixed reds and blue cards. The notion that a stack could persist throughout won’t enter his mind. (4) I can only hint at what can be accomplished with this effect, if you begin with the decks in a memorized order. Clearly you can restore both memorized decks at the end, by the following procedure in Comment 3, but there’s much, much more. For example, at step 3 when the spectator divides the 104 card deck in half, as he deals off 52 cards, just silently count the number of gn_e color. With just this one piece of information, you can thereafter very quickly calculate the position of every single card, both red and blue backs, in their respective chains, in either deck! (5) Readers may be interested in comparing Russduck’s suggestion of applying a faro Stay-Stack to two decks with contrasting backs, Cardiste No. 1, p. 15, and Alex Elmsley’s comments, in Cardiste No. S, p. 16.

62

TIME OUT Over the years in our sessions, Ed Marlo, Dave Solomon and I have devised countless variations of the clock trick. At one point several years ago Ed produced a separate packet trick, entitled "The Missing Hour”, in which, as a climax, the spectator’s "chosen” card simply vanished. Thereafter, we all experimented with versions of Ed’s trick, and I came up with this handling. It’s efficient, because the packet of cards never needs to approach the deck to "unload" anything. It’s particularly interesting because Norman Osborn’s Double Count principle (first presented in Marlo and Osborn’s Unlimited manuscript, 1953) usually requires that a double face card start out on top of the packet, so that it can secretly serve double duty as both the first, and later the last, card shown; my variation allows you to use the Double Count concept even though the double facer starts out in the middle of the packet. SET UP One double-face card is used (for purposes of this example, say its the SS/KH, with the KH being the "force" card). Remove the regular KH from the deck, and place it into the card case, for later reproduction at the end of the effect. Make sure the 88 is not among the regular 16 cards of the deck. Place the double facer in 16th t0p position from the t0p of the deck, with the KH side facing down. WORKING

False shuffle the deck, as you ask a spectator to think of a number "between 1 and 10. " No mention is made of "hours" yet, because you don’t want the spectator to choose 11 or 12. You can legitimately shuffle the cards, so long as the double facer stays at position 16. You may find it more comfortable to shuffle the cards face up, so as to avoid any inadvertent revelation of a face among the backs of the cards. 1)

Hand the deck to the spectator and tell her you will turn your back, and she is to silently deal off from the t0p of the deck into a pile on the table the number of cards equal to her mentally chosen number. (I explain that this will silently convey to other members of the audience knowledge of the spectator’s number, so that they can enjoy the effect also). The performer turns his back, and the spectator follows these instructions. Once she’s finished, tell her to take the tabled pile and put it away in her pocket or purse. (As an alternative, I sometimes tell her to replace the pile onto the bottom of the deck; this eliminates the need to regain cards from the spectator after the trick is over). 2)

3) When the spectator acknowledges that she’s done, turn back around, pick up the balance of the deck, and casually undercut ELIE cards from the top of the deck to the bottom. (This adjusts the deck to the equivalent of having set the force card at position #12

originally. 63

x THE ARONSON APPROACH

*V

If you prefer, you could just start with the double facer at position #12 at the outset, and eliminate the undercut, but since the spectator will be handling the deck, it’s safer to start with the gaff a

little deeper down). Make certain you don’t spread the cards as you undercut; you don’t want to tip the presence of the gaff.

4) Now, for the first time, mention that the spectator’s mental number will represent an hour on a clock, and that you will use 12 playing cards to "build a clock ". With the deck face down in the left hand in dealing position, raise the left hand up, turning the pack vertically so the faces of the cards are towards the spectator (necktie position). With the left thumb push oft‘a fan of the top thre_e cards to the right, and take them into the right hand, faces still towards the audience. Immediately repeat this with a second group of three more cards, which are taken by the right hand below the first three, i.e., without changing the order of the cards (Figure 22). Continue this with two more groups of three. This whole action is done casually and fairly rapidly, as you say ”3, 6, 9, and 12 cards ", timing your actions to the words. (Naturally, you’ll see the 88 side of the double facer go by, but the spectators won’t).

Figure 22

As the cards are taken in the right hand they are held in a somewhat haphazard fan, and the fourth as group of three cards is taken, downjog the last card of the right hand packet about 1/2 inch lower than the rest of the cards above it. Now, square up the right hand cards against the left thumb and the top of the deck, lowering the hands so that the right hand pile is squared and face down -- but as you do this squaring action, secretly unload the downjogged lowermost card onto the tOp of the deck. The left hand then places the deck aside. This whole action of apparently thumbing off 12 cards is done casually; you’re not trying to "prove" that there are 12 cards, because in a moment you’ll be counting them individually. The audience should simply feel that you’ve thumbed off four groups of three; in fact, there are only 11 cards, and the force card has now automatically been placed at a position corresponding to the spectator’s chosen hour, counting from the face.

\ of-

V

TIME OUT

5) Turn the packet face up, and hold it in the left hand. Explain that you’ll show the cards one at a time, calling out the numbers from 1 to 12, and the spectator is to remember the particular card which falls at her mentally chosen hour. You’re now going to do a move I call the "Upjog Upset Unlimited Count", which simultaneously will (1) show the 11 cards as 12, and (2) force the KH, by showing it at the Spectator’s hour, and (3) then make the KH "vanish", by conveniently and secretly turning it over. Here’s how. 4

The left thumb pushes or deals the t0p face up card to the right, and the hand takes right it stud fashion at its outer right corner, right thumb below and the right first and second fingers above. The right hand turns its card vertically, face towards the spectator, as you announce ”I ". As the right hand turns its card vertically, the left hand likewise turns a bit inwards at the wrist, flashing the back of its packet towards the spectator. (This gesture is simply to allow the spectator to catch a glimpse of bacfi of cards, whenever possible). The right hand continues to turn its card face down, end over end, and then replaces it face down under the left hand packet, outiogged for a full half of its length. Both hands now lower the cards back to a horizontal plane (Figure 23).

Figure 23

On the count of "2", repeat the same actions to push off, take and display the next card, the right hand first holding it vertically towards the spectator, and then continuing to turn it face down, to replace it face down on the bottom of the left hand packet, below and flush with the first c_ar_d. Note that the bac_k of this second card (and each outiogged subsequently dealt card), will be not seen much. It’s face is first towards the spectator, and then, as it turns face down, it goes beneath, and thus gets hidden by, the outjogged left hand cards. The outjogging is done openly and serves to visually reinforce the separation of the cards into two packets: the face down cards have already been counted and shown, and they are being kept distinct from the face up cards, which have yet to be shown. Since need your right hand you free to take and display each card, it‘s quite natural to hold the two packets in the left hand, separated by the jogged condition.

65

‘0'

THE ARONSON APPROACH

Continue these actions to count, display and replace each subsequent card. As long as you haven’t yet reached the KH, you can continue to lift up the left hand, in a synchronized wrist action with the right hand, which reveals more backs. Gradually you are depleting the face up cards and building up an outjogged packet of face down, already shown, cards. 6) When the KH appears as the next face up card, continue to take it and display it exactly as before, this time making certain that as the KB is held vertically in the right hand (KH side facing the spectator), the left hand is lifted so that its cards are in a fully vertical position, thus revealing the underside of the jogged packets (Figure 24). The double face card, KH side towards the spectator, is now cleanly placed at the bottom of, and flush with, the outjogged, already shown, cards (or, more accurately, since they’re at this point being held vertically, the mogged cards), but the right hand does n_ot release its hold of the card’s lower right hand corner

(Figure 25).

Figure 24

Figure 25 66

Figure 26

————§*__ do V

TIME OUT

You’re now going to secretbi displace the double facer back to the injogged packet so that it can be counted again later as the SS. The left hand simply lowers the jogged packets back down to a horizontal position, but as it does, the right hand, still holding the comer of the double facer, slides backward, secretly sliding the double facer backward to beneath the injogged face up cards. The left fingertips, at the right long side of the packet, Open briefly to allow the single card to slide underneath. (Figure 26 shows an exposed view of this secret sliding action). When the double facer is flush with the end of the remaining face up cards, the right hand releases its grip on the double facer, leaving the card in place, and the right hand then moves to the outer right comer of the face up packet, to be in position to take and display the next card.

m

This action of secretly displacing the double facer from the outjogged packet back onto the bottom of the injogged face up cards only takes a moment, and the right hand’s backward or inward sliding action is completely masked by the left hand’s action of lowering its cards from a vertical, back to a horizontal position. 7) Let’s assume, for example, that the spectator’s chosen hour was "5". This means that the KH Will automatically be shown as the fifth card, and after the sliding/displacement action above, the packet’s condition will now be, from t0p down, six face up injogged cards, then four face down outjogged cards, and then finally the double facer injogged, KH side

gm.

You now continue the counting and display action with the next card as count "",6 but from this point on the left hand does not lift its packet. The right hand simply does a stud turnover after vertically displaying its card, and replaces its card face down, outiogged beneath the rest of the outjogged face down cards. 8) At this point, the double facer will still be separated from the face up outjogged cards above it, by a few intervening outjogged cards. We need to remove these intervening outjogged cards, to allow the double facer to join the injogged cards above it (so it can be counted again, as card #12), so you’ll now perform a very bold and direct action, which I call the "upset move”.

After you’ve continued to count a few more cards, say at about count "7" or "8", "accidentally" leave the card you’ve just placed at the bottom of the outjogged cards a bit "askew", so it’s not quite even with the rest of the outjogged cards above it (Figure 27). Glance down and notice this, and correct this condition, by simply stripping out am of the outjogged cards forward, squaring them, and replacing them back under the face up cards, still outjogged for half their length. This is n_ot really a "move", and you shouldn’t call any attention to it. Your left fingers simply grip or hold the outjogged face down cards by their sides, and pull them forwards, until they strip free of the double facer. Immediately continue to square up the two packets by end-tapping one packet against the Other (Figure 28). The left hand then replaces its now-squared packet, apparently exactly from where it came, face down and still outjogged below the face up right hand packet of not-yet-dealt cards. In fact, the outjogged cards are now al_l below the double facer. The double facer has thus secretly become the bottom card of the injogged, not-yet-dealt, packet. You’ll have more or less leeway on when to do the upset move, depending on what hour the spectator has chosen. You have to wait until after the force card is first shown, but you shouldn’t wait too long, because the more face up cards that remain, the more cover you have. 67

4"

THE ARONSON APPROACH

This whole upset action is done nonchalantly, on the offbeat, and you then immediately continue the counting and display action for the balance of the cards.

Figure 27

Figure 28

9) On count "12", the SS will be face up as the last card. Handle it exactly as you did the KB: the right hand takes the 8S and turns it vertically to face the spectator, as the left hand turns its packet vertically, faces towards the spectator. The right hand simply places the SS onto the face of the left hand packet. This time, however, don_’t lower the left hand back face down again; instead, the right fingers grip the entire packet and place it into the left hand Lace

up.

10) Comment, "I’ve shown you all 12 cards, and you ’re thinking of one of them. I ’d like you to take these 12 cards, and mix them face up, like this. " Here, demonstrate some simple mixing procedure with the packet, either by a series of back and forth cuts, or even spreading the cards on the table and moving them around in a random arrangement. You want to show the spectator a process she can duplicate herself, without her inadvertently turning any of the cards over. Hand the packet face up to the spectator, and have her mix the cards, keeping them face up.

When she’s finished, ask her to "Deal the cards around in a circle, to form a clock dial, one card at each number, but when you get to the position of your mentally chosen hour, instead of dealing a card, put this card case at that chosen hour" -- here, point to the card case that has been on the table throughout the effect -- "and then continue on with the next number. " The spectator does so, and because she’s only got 11 face up cards, her last card will end up finishing the clock dial at 12 o’clock. Curiously, many spectators at this point still don’t realize that one card has physically disappeared! 11)

68

-———\_~ 4- V

TIME OUT

-

Say, "The card case at your hour shows how time flies because chosen your " playing card has disappeared. The spectator will look over the remaining 11 face up cards and will not find the KB. 12)

After pondering this impossibility, have her open the card case, to discover the KH inside. Gather up the cards, casually placing the 88 at the face, and then replace the 12 cards back on the bottom of the rest of the pack. Now, the double facet is the at bottom, ready to be used discarded, or again, when convenient. 13)

COMMENTS You can, of course, also learn the spectator’s mentally chosen (1) hour quite early in the game -- in fact, you can calculate that secret hour at the time first count off the 12 cards you in four groups of three, by just noting the position of the double facer. If you like, you could "reveal" the hour by, say, "reading the spectator’s mind ". I prefer n_ot to reveal it. I think that a magical effect is often stronger if it appears that you know less than you really do; not knowing the hour makes the whole procedure seem less mathematical, less controlled, and more random. It’s impossible to cite all of the sources dealing with previous procedures or variations of the clock effect. Jon Racherbaumer’s me gzlock Effect manuscript contains a fairly complete compilation as of 1971, but since that date there have been many imaginative and subtle approaches. I can strongly recommend Ed Marlo’s and Dave Solomon’s work on this effect, in Ed’s Unexpected ,Cagi and volumes 1 and 3 of the Marlo Magazine. (2)

m

m

Dave Solomon prefers a handling which eliminates the need for (3) the "upset move " at step 8. Dave just leaves the double facer with the intervening cards, where it is, and keep dealing until he gets to the last two cards. After he shows the card at count "10", Dave then just the grips remaining two face up (injogged) cards together, at their outer right corner, and strips them out and back, turnng them vertically to face the spectator. As he does this, the left hand raises its packet to a vertical position, faces towards the spectator. The right fingers push the face card of the two right hand cards to the left, where it is taken onto the face of the left hand packet for count "11". The right hand now is left holding the double facer in a vertical position, 88 towards the spectator, and the right hand deposits the final card onto the face of the vertical left hand packet, for count "12"..

69

BELOW THE BELT 4

When I published gird Ideas, one cardician jokingly chided me for "hitting below the belt", for ringing in a heavily gaffed deck while sessioning with advanced cardmen. (He was referring to my "Spectator Really Cuts the Aces", which uses a deck with multiple duplicate Aces). I replied that for me, basically anything goes, so long as (1) the overall effect is worth the preparation, and (2) the trick is not us; for magicians, but is suitable for laymen also, and (3) you basically "finish clean". (In the above Ace cutting effect, you’re left with a completely ordinary deck). This present effect is another one that’s definitely "worth the price ", and meets the other two conditions as well. There’s also a special "bonus" explained in comment (2), which, paradoxically, has nothing to do with this present effect. When you get there, you’ll realize why I’m particularly fond of this feat. The basic effect is a two deck "matching” experiment, that has strong similarities in procedure (though not in method) to an item entitled "I’ll Go First", which I published in Card Ideas. This present approach has several distinct advantages: both decks can be shuffled by the spectator; both decks handle freely, since there are no roughed cards; and you’re clean at the finish. PREPARATION You’ll need mfg: decks, although the spectator is aware of only two. Get one red backed deck, one blue backed deck, and one matching blue backed force deck, all 52 cards the same. (Please don’t groan at the mention of a force deck -- I promise the handling justifies such an ignominious gaff). Let’s assume that your force deck contains all Jacks of Spades. You and the spectator should both be sitting at a table, close enough to one another so that the two of you can reach under the table to exchange decks. As long as the table is not too wide, it’s satisfactory to be sitting across the table from the Spectator, but I’ve found that it’s more convenient if you and the spectator are sitting at right angles to each other, at one corner of the table. I’ll assume that this is the case, and further that the spectator will be sitting to the performer’s right.

From the regular blue deck, remove the JS and insert it face up in the center of the blue pack. Then, place this entire blue deck on your chair, under your left leg. It will remain hidden there, without interfering with anything, and yet should be close enough to the edge of your leg to be easily removed. From the regular red deck, remove the JS and leave it in your lap, face up.

70

\ 4-9

BELOW THE BELT

The balance of the red deck, and the blue force deck, are both on the table, face down. Make certain that the spectator you’re using is one who is adept with cards, and seems careful. You also want someone who’s good at following instructions, and isn’t the wise guy sort who’ll try to upstage you. You can learn these factors if you’ve seen the spectator in action during earlier tricks. In a moment the spectator will himself be shuffling and handling the force deck, and you don’t want someone who might try to louse you up. 4 WORKING

Shuffle both decks, place them in front of the spectator, and tell him, "Please take either deck, red or blue. " Whichever one he takes, continue, "I’ll take the remaining one and give it a shame ", as you demonstrate a table riffle, "and I ’d like you to likewise shuflle yours. " Hopefully the spectator will follow your example, and give his deck a couple of table riffles. There’s nothing wrong with his shuffling overhand, but I’ve found that there’s less chance of the spectator’s either dropping a card or flashing any faces, if the shuffling is kept close to the table. 1)

2) If the spectator has taken and shuffled the blue (force) deck, go directly to step 3. If the spectator has taken and shuffled the red deck, say "Now, we ’11 exchange decks, so we both know each other ’s cards are mixed. " Do this, so that the spectator has the blue (force) deck, and continue, "And if you ’d like, shuflle that deck also. " 3) Pick up your red deck face down in your left hand, and explain, "In a moment, we ’re each going to select a card from our respective decks, in a particular way. At each step, I ’ll go ’1] first, so you know that I ’m not waiting to see what you do. First, let me show how we ’11 you " selecr a card. Watch. Have the Spectator leave his,,deck on the table, so he can pay full attention to your demonstration (and so that he doesn’t try to follow along yet). Continue, "First, ’11 we cut the deck, and complete the cut, so that no one knows what card is on tap of the deck. " Suit your actions to words, as you cut and complete the cut with the red deck, to demonstrate. Do it slowly and methodically, both so that there’s no doubt about what he is to do, and also so that he gets the sense that moving slowly and deliberately is acceptable, even what you prefer. You dong want him to feel hurried. Continue, " you ’d like, you could cut the deck again [demonstrate, and complete the cut] but that’s entirely up to you. When you’re satisfied, then ’ll you flip just the top card face up on top of the deck, like this. " Flip the t0p card of the red deck face up, bookwise, so that it lands face up on the deck, ”and then we '11 give the deck one more cut, like this [cut the pack and complete the cut] so that the card is buried face up, somewhere in the middle. " Make sure the spectator understands, but then add, "77w reason I’ve demonstrated this for you now is because, in a moment, when we actually select our respective cards, we ’re going to do it below the table top, so that we can ’t possibly see each other ’s card. Don ’t worry, just follow my instructions, and I’ll guide you each step of the way. "

f

Finish your demonstration by casually table spreading the red deck face down across the table, remove the face up card you just used for the example, and return it face down somewhere into the spread. All of this will help reinforce certain images you want to plant in your spectator’s mind. Square up the red deck. 4) Now you both proceed to make your respective selections, but you talk him through it, as follows: "Just do as I do. Hold your deck in your left hand. " Hold the red deck face 71

———\ THE ARONSON APPROACH

{av

down in your left, and make sure the spectator does the same with his blue deck. "Now, keeping your deck face down, like it is now, let 's both put our hands under the table. " Reach under the table, with both hands, and lean forward a bit. As you do, with your empty right hand secretly pick up the red backed 18 which is in your lap, and deposit it face up onto the top of your deck. Do this without looking down into your lap; your eyes should be continually on the spectator. Continue moving your hands forward, so that the deck is held comfortably under the table. Now have the spectator cut his blue deck and complete the cut, and repeat it if he wishes. You apparently do the same with your red deck, but in fact you really do nothing.

When he’s completed the cut (or cuts, if he prefers), ask him to flip the top card of his deck face up on top, as you apparently do the same. Now, here’s the convincer: Say, "I want you to note and remember what card you ’ve selected; so, if you can ’t already see card, just your hands back pull your into your lap so you can see theface of your selected card ’t bring but don -your deck up yet, because I don ’t want to see it. " Demonstrate, by pulling red deck in from your under the table, so it comes into your lap, still well below table level, and look down at your lap. (You’ll be looking at your face up 18 which you just placed there). Wait for the spectator to do the same. (He’ll be looking at a freely selected 18, now face up on the top of his deck). 5) Continue, "Now, still keeping your cards below table level, cut the pack in half and complete the cut, so your selected card is buried in the middle. " Each of do so. Note the you slight change in wording, on this step. Up until now all of your instructions have mentioned simply cutting the pack. On this one instruction, you guide the spectator a bit more, by mentioning that you want the deck cut "in half" so that the selection goes to "the middle ". This subtle hint helps centralize the spectator’s selection, so that it will most likely match the centralized position of the JS in the regular deck at the climax.

Keep your body leaning forward, so that the hands naturally go forward a bit more under the table. (In honest fact, there’s no actual reason why the spectator has to be reaching under the table to do his cutting and selection; he have done it in his lap, below the table edge. QM However, all your emphasis of doing it under the table, and your leaning forward to help keep the decks further under the table, has one simple, psychological motive: it makes the upcoming exchange of decks under the table flow naturally, without suspicion. 6) Ask the spectator to confirm that his card is safely buried. When he confirms, say, "Now, to avoid any suspicion, I’m going to give you my deck, before I take yours. Please reach under with your right hand, and take this . . . Here. " Extend your left hand with its red deck

under the table, towards the spectator’s right side, so that he can easily grasp the deck in his extended right hand. Once he takes it, reach your right hand under the table towards him, as you " ask, "Now, please give me your deck. As soon as the spectator hands you his blue (force) deck under the table, take it in your right hand, and then bring your right hand inwards, towards yourself, to apparently bring the deck across to your left hand. Actually, your right arm simply swings in at the elbow and deposits the spectator’s force deck on your chair, between your legs, as your left hand simultaneously removes the regular blue deck from beneath your left leg. In one continuous motion, lean back, as your left hand brings its (now switched) regular blue deck from up your lap, and places it face down on the table in front of you. 72

————‘_ 40'

BELOW THE BELT

For all intents and purposes you’ve simply taken the blue deck from the spectator and it back brought up to the table. That’s exactly what your actions appear to be. More importantly, there is go suspicion at all in anyone’s mind that you might do anything sneaky with the spectator’s deck. He already knows his card, and he knew it before he handed his deck. you If there’s any suspicion at all, it’s centered on the red deck, the "magician’s deck". Everyone’s still wondering what you might have done with 21.2.11 deck. Note also that ask him to you ”exchange" decks under the table; there’s no logical reason for doing that, so don’t mention it. Rather, the patter is centered on the performer, giving up control of deck, placing it your into the spectator’s custody, so he knows you won’t change anything. You "give up" your deck first. Then, almost as an afterthought, since he’s taken your deck, you take his, and both of you bring the decks up to the table top.

m

m,

If he hasn’t already copied your actions, have the spectator bring the red deck and up it place on the table in front of him. 7) Announce, "As I said before, I ’11 go first at each step. " Turn the blue deck face up in front of you, and give it a wide ribbon spread across the table. All of the cards are seen to be different, and one card is face down in the center (just as it should be). 8) Ask the spectator to do the same with the red deck. He’ll turn it face up and spread the cards across the table, to reveal one face down card in the center. (If the spectator has a little trouble making a ribbon spread, reach across and help him.) Again, there will be a spread of indifferent face up cards, with one face down red card in the center. Everything is, of course, exactly as it should be.

9) Say, "I’ll go first again. Let ’s see what card you ’ve chosen. " Very cleanly, slowly, and without any flourish, remove the single face down blue card from the spread in front of you and turn it face up. It’s the JS, just as it should be. So far, every action has confirmed exactly what the spectator has done, and what he expects should be the case. No

surprises.

Now, for the denouement. Ask the spectator to turn over and reveal your red selection. He removes and turns face up the one face down red card in the deck in front of him. It’s an exact match -- the Jack of Spades. 10)

You’re completely clean. You’ve got two full, completely ordinary decks in play, which you can use for any other two deck effect you’d like. Or just leave the decks for the spectator to play with, and ponder. You’ve performed one of the cleanest "matching miracles" I know. 11)

COMMENTS One of the diabolical things about this effect is the way it frustrates any attempt at reconstruction. There’s absolutely nothing for the spectator to work with, because all of the evidence is gone. Indeed, his mind will play tricks on him, because in any attempt to reconstruct, the spectator will start with what he sees at the climax, and since it confirms everything that went before, he gets nowhere. Or, if he starts at the beginning, he’ll that he had a free choice of any card in his deck (he really did), and he sa_w it before he ever gave you the deck, thus (1)

m

73

——_—_‘_—_ THE ARONSON APPROACH

40V

eliminating any possibility that you could have switched it. I have performed this for some very knowledgeable cardicians, and all were completely taken. (Sorry guys).

a

I’ve saved the best part for last. Because not only can you perform "Below the Belt" exactly as written, but when it’s done, even though the spectator himself has shuffled the cards, you’ve switched in a cold stacked deck that can be used in a later, subsequent effect. (2)

Like

The regular blue deck which you switch in can be in (as long as it’s not obvious when ribbon spread).

M prearranged 9_r stacked order m

As I said in the introduction, this comment really has nothing to do with this effect, and, of course, you certainly don’t need to use "Below the Belt" to accomplish a secret deck switch. If you rifle; use any stacked decks, then (1) forget this cement, and (2) you’re missing a lot. But if you do have a favorite effect that uses a prearranged deck (say, for a grand finale poker deal, or Marlo’s Faro Matching Routine, or any of my memorized deck effects, etc.), this is a great way to secretly bring it into play. This is the "bonus" I hinted at, and the reason I’m so partial to this effect. It’s a dynamite effect in its own right, yet it sets the stage for some blockbuster follow up material.

If you’re going to use this effect to ring in a cold deck for later use, here’s a couple of tips. First, make sure you take account of the replacement of the 18 (or whatever card you’re forcing) in connection with your cold deck. At step 9, when you remove the face down blue card from the spread, you’ll want to later casually replace it wherever it belongs in your cold deck stack. That’s I

why use the 18. It’s stack number 1 in my memorized deck, so when I remove it from the blue deck spread, I eventually clean up by using it as a scoop, to scoop under the end of the ribbon spread. This places it back to its correct position on top of my memorized stack. also (You could remove the force card and then replace it back into the same position from where it came, if that suits your stack better).

Second, make sure that your subsequent effect with the cold deck is subtle and doesn’t "scream" stack to anyone who’s a bit familiar with card tricks. If you do something that’s obviously dependent on prearrangement, then you run the risk of giving someone a hint from which they might be able to reconstruct "Below the Belt". (Once they smell a stack, they’ll wonder where it came from, they’ll think about the prior trick, and they may remember the deck was under the table.) 80, be subtle. (3) While it’s not possible for me to fully research the use of a force deck in card magic, I appreciate that many clever applications have previously seen print. See, for example, Al Baker’s "Impossible Card Discovery", Encyclopedia of Card Tricks, p. 316, for an apparent one-deck effect, (using an in-the-pocket switch twice) that has some similarities to "Below the Belt".

74

OH PITY ME LOCATION A Si Stebbins, Eight Kings, or other similar cyclical stacked deck can be used to produce impressive locations, and many cardmen have their own pet handlings or procedures for such location accomplishing feats.

While such a stacked deck, when used subtly, will get by all but the most sophisticated of laymen, a potential weakness is the inability to have a spectator shuffle the cards before making his selection. Magicians usually try to overcome this problem by either false shuffling the cards, or by instructing the spectator to "cut the cards as many times as you’d like". Indeed, such "cutting" instructions are so customary that it’s sometimes a telltale signal that a stack is in use, whenever you hear a performer ask a spectator to "cut the cards and complete the cut". The only thing that might dispel such a suspicion would be if the performer’s next instruction allowed the spectator to shuffle. It would be a strong finish, after performing a few stack location miracles, if the cardician could perform similar experiment, in which the spectator actually got to shuffle the before he made his selection. It would be a perfect throw-off, and cards might effectively disguise or cancel out the fact that a stack was in use.

flM

Such a climax can be accomplished, by using a little-known feature of such cyclical stacks. Stacks like Si Stebbins or Eight Kings actually lend themselves very easily to a completely different location method, one which doesn’t depend on the stack sequence, and thus allows the cards to be shuffled. hope your curiosity won’t be dampened when I reveal that I’m talking about the application of the Epitome location. I’m not going to re-describe the Epitome principle here, or its for use. I’m not even going to teach a particular trick using it. argue Rather, I want to explore one peculiar feature of cyclical stacks, which will permit the operation of an Epitome type location under seemingly impossible conditions. I

THE HALF DECK PRINCIPLE

assume that each reader already knows, and can comfortably use, the Epitome concept, of adding up the indices of the cards remaining in a packet, to determine the value of a card which has been removed. Lorayne’s breakthrough approach, of limiting the choice to one of only 26 cards (either reds, or blacks), makes the addition procedure rapid and eminently practical, and it is this concept, of totalling only a "half deck", Le, 26 cards, that forms the link between a Si Stebbins (or other cyclical stack) and the Epitome procedure. I

75

THE ARONSON APPROACH

do

V

You’re aware that one can use just the reds (or, alternatively, just the blacks) because one color will always contain exactly half the values of the total deck. This is only logical, because just as in a full deck there are four each of the 13 different values from Ace through King, so in one color there will always be tw_o each of the 13 values. Now, here’s the parallel idea: if you take a__ny 26 consecutive cards in a Si Stebbins stack, those cards will always have exactly half the values of the total deck. Moreover, those 26 cards will always have exactly the identical values (two each of the 13 values) as you’d find in the red half or the black half. (This is simply a logical corollary of the fact that, in a cyclic stack, each card is always 26 cards away from its " mate). The beauty and flexibility of this concept is that, in a cyclical stack, the particular makeup of different groups of 26 consecutive cards may be continually changing, but the total value of the indices of those 26 cards will nevertheless remain constant. To see what I mean, set up a deck in Si Stebbins order, cut it a few times, and then divide the deck in half. (It’s an easy cut: the 26th card is the mate of, and thus is keyed by, the bottom card). If you add up the values in the top 26 cards (applying, for instance, Lorayne’s values of J ack= 1 , Queen=2, and King=3), you’ll get a final total of 182, which is exactly half of the 364 total of a full deck. (Naturally, you’ll be able to speed up this addition process tremendously by using the well-known short cut of "casting out 10’s". This means that, as soon as your running total exceeds 10, you simply drOp all but the last digit. For example, if you’re adding a 7 plus a 6, instead of saying to yourself "13", you simply say "3", and go on from there. This means that at any given time you’ll only have to keep a single digit in your mind, as your running total.) Using the "casting out 10’s" approach, a half deck will have a final total of "2" (which is shorthand for 182). No matter where you cut the deck, if you total any 26 consecutive cards, they’ll always total to that "2". So far, we’re only talking about the values of the cards, because that’s what the Epitome concept concentrates on. We’ll get to the suits later on. The point is, if you cut a Si Stebbins deck in half, then you’ll already know the "clocked" total of that half -- it will always be "2". So, naturally, ‘if one of those 26 cards is removed from the group (and not replaced), you could add up the total of the remaining 25 cards in that half, and subtract that total from 2 (or from 12), and the remainder would be the value of the removed card. This is nothing more than the standard Epitome location -- except that we’ve dispensed with the need for isolating the selection to a particular gol_or. Instead of relying on gol_o_1; (for example, all the reds) as a guarantee that exactly half the values are included in the group, the cyclical stack provides a quick and easy alternative method of isolating exactly half the values of the full deck. Let’s call this principle, that any 26 consecutive cards in a cyclical stack will always "clock" to exactly half the total values of the deck, the "Half Deck" principle. THE BASIC PROCEDURE

Now that you understand the basic Half Deck principle, let’s refine rather restrictive to have to start by dividing the deck exactly in half. It practice, if we didn’t need such an even, precise cut; it would be even cleaner let the spectator cut off his own packet, of an indeterminate number of cards

76

it a bit.

It seems would be nice, in if we could simply -- and still be able

———\ 40'

OH PITY ME LOCATION

to use the Half Deck principle. Well, that’s easy. After you’ve performed few a of your favorite effects using a cyclical stack sequence, try this procedure: Place the deck on the table. If you like, you can allow the spectator to cut the deck and complete the cut. 1)

2) Ask the spectator to cut off a packet of cards, say, "about a third of the deck”. The only limitation is that he should get less than half the deck. If you don’t want to impose any restrictions, just tell him to "cut off a pile”. If he happens to cutoff more than half, continue by telling him to "pick up that pile" as you point to the balangg remaining. In either event, he’ll wind up with less than half. 3) Have him shuffle his packet, and then tell him to remove any one card, remember it, and put it in his pocket. If you want, you could even tell him to look through the faces

of his packet, and select whichever one he likes. Once he’s finished, have him replace his packet (minus the selected card) back onto the balance of the deck on the table. 4) You’re now going to apply the Half Deck principle, to determine the missing card. Pick up the deck, and hold the pack with the faces towards you. Start to spread the cards between your hands, looking at the faces. In fact, simply note the bottom card of the deck, and then quickly spread the cards until you do find the Late of that bottom card. You’ll find that mate in the center of the deck; it has to be, because it’s 26 cards away from the bottom card. (For convenience, I call that mate the ”middle key", because it’s an instant and infallible key to finding the exact middle of the deck, without having to count). That middle key is the bottom " card of the "t0p half (now, the top 25 cards) of the deck. When you get to that middle key, start "clocking" all of the cards in the top half, i.e., start your addition with the key itself, and add the values of all the cards above (to the left of) it until you reach the top of the deck. As Lorayne has pointed out, you should be able to perform your Epitome calculation quite rapidly, because you’re only clocking half the deck.

When you arrive at your total, subtract it from 2 (or 12), to arrive at the value of the missing card. (If it’s a l, 2, or 3, then, as you know, it might be one of two alternatives, and may require a quick scan, to determine which one it is). 5) Once you know the value of the missing card, you still need to determine its suit. Assuming that your stack is in CHaSeD order (or any other regular order in which the suits alternate red-black-red-black) then it will always be true that, within any "Half Deck", there will always be one red and one black of each value. Suppose, by the

Epitome calculation, you’ve determined that the missing card is, say, an Eight. Quickly run through the top 25 cards (i.e., all the cards from the top down to the middle key) to look for an Eight; you should find only one. (This is a helpful "check" on your addition; if you do find two Eights, you’ll know you added wrong). Whichever color Eight you find, you’ll know it was the opposite colored Eight that was removed. For example, if you see just a black Eight in the top half, you’ll know the removed Eight is a red one. Now, just keep vour visual scan going, as you quickly spread through the bottom half of the deck (the cards oelow the middle key). Just look to see which red Eight still is in the deck (it will be in the lower halt), and, whichever one you find, the other red Eight must

77

THE ARONSON APPROACH

40V

be the missing card. Thus, in our example, if you see the Eight of Diamonds in the lower half, you’ll know the spectator’s selection must be the Eight of Hearts. You can then reveal the spectator’s selection as you see fit, or use that information as part of a larger trick. One easy and aesthetic way of showing that you’ve discerned the spectator’s selection is to remove the Eight of Diamonds from the pack and place it face down on the table, to "commit yourself”. Have the spectator remove his selection from his pocket, and reveal it. Turn your tabled card face up, to reveal it as the mate of his card. 4 1k

3k

*

The above five steps constitute what I call the "basic procedure". It’s pretty straightforward, but I think you’ll agree that the Half Deck principle is well disguised. Even though you know where the deck halves meet (by the middle key), and even though you’re adding up exactly half the cards, the spectator is never aware of any "half deck" concept, or any notion of "26 cards". As far as he’s concerned, he simply cut off a packet, a "bunch" of cards, and chose one from that group. This basic procedure, using the Half Deck principle, has several practical advantages when compared to using a red or black grouping. First, because it is cyclical, it allows the deck to be cut, and the packet to be selected ”from anywhere". (With a red/black deck division, one needs to restrict the choice. You could not allow a packet, or group, to be selected which " straddles" the red/black division point). Second, once the spectator has his shuffled packet, he could actually look through its faces, and won’t find anything unusual. (With a packet secretly all of one color, you obviously can’t allow him to view the faces). Third, you’ve isolated together, in one place, all 25 cards that you need to total. (They’re not scattered throughout the entire deck, as they might be with red or black). This keeping all 25 cards together actually can make the calculations go a bit faster, because you can skim through the other half of the deck very quickly, until you reach the middle key. This isolation of all 25 cards together also will enable us to develop some further enhancements later on. HANDLING TIPS

The above "basic procedure" is just a bare bones summary, and you can add your own personal handling or embellishments. One useful throwoff is to apparently shuffle the balance of the deck, while the spectator is handling his cut off packet. You can do this by applying a modified red/black overhand shuffle. For example, suppose you estimate that the spectator has cut off approximately 20 cards in his packet. This would leave approximately 32 cards on the table -- but among that tabled group, all you care about are (1) the cards located near the t_op of the tabled packet (those above the middle key), and (2) the very bottom card (which you’ll glimpse, so you’ll be able to find the middle key, its mate). You don’t really care about the other 25 cards comprising the lower half of the deck, so you don’t mind if they get shuffled. If your estimate of the spectator’s packet is approximately correct, that would still leave about 6 more cards left above the middle key, and you don’t want to lose control of those six. Your estimate might be off a bit, so it’s safest to give yourself some leeway; you could thus round up, to, say, 10 cards that you don’t want to lose control of. That should give you plenty of margin for error. So, while the spectator handles his pile, just pick up the tabled portion, glimpse the bottom card, and then overhand shuffle your 78

m d-V

OH PITY ME LOCATION

cards, making certain that you gu__n singly at Least 10 or more cards off the top to start the shuffle. (This will maintain control of the roughly 6 critical cards plus the middle key). Then, shuffle off the balance. If you now give the cards a second overhand shuffle, this time running the Las_t 10 cards singly, you’ll restore the critical bank of 6 cards to their proper position. Another alternative handling is to apparently shuffle the entire deck, after it’s been reassembled by the spectator. You can do this by doing a normal red/black overhand shuffle (running just the few central cards singly), which will keep the Half Deck division intact. missing card. When you scan the upper half to look for the missing color, a few cards immediately above the middle key will still be in stack sequence; these are the cards that were below the spectator’s cut off packet and thus were not shuffled. If you find the one remaining value within that non-shuffled group, you can use the stack sequence to give you further information -- and you’ll be able to deduce the suit of the missing card without any further scanning. You won’t even have to spread into the bottom half of the deck at all. Here’s an illustration. Suppose, in our earlier example, you calculated that the missing value was an Eight. Now, you quickly scan the upper half, and find that the one remaining Eight is a black one. If that black one happens to be in the unshuffled portion (the part right above the middle key), then its suit will tell you the suit of the removed Eight. For instance, if you find, say, the Eight of Spades located in the unshuffled portion above the middle key, then the removed card must be the Eight of Hearts (because Hearts is the suit immediately before, or above, Spades in CHaSeD order). your The more you play around with the basic procedure, the more things you’ll come up with to help expedite it and to make it seem more casual. COMBINATIONS I’m not recommending that you should set up a deck in cyclical stack order, just so that you can present this one location. If you just wanted to do an Epitome-type location alone, the standard red/black division is perfectly adequate and probably more flexible. My point is that, if you’re already using a cyclical stack for series a of other miracles, you should be aware of the ability to add this climax, which, in turn, will help cancel out the suspicion of a stack from the spectator’s thought processes.

Perhaps the main selling point for using this idea is the way it can combine with Lite; locations, for a double-barreled effect. Remember, one feature of the Half Deck principle and the basic procedure is that the 25 cards that get totalled all remain isolated together, at the top half of the‘deck. This leaves the lower half of the deck free to use for other purposes. And those other purposes could be a second location, with a second spectator’s selection. This can be especially powerful, because the lower half of the deck has not been shuffled and thus still remains in its stacked order. You could use this stack to help determine the name of a second card selected from within that group, by applying any of your regular stacked deck location principles (e. g., glimpsing a key card above or below a selection; or counting in the sequence from a known key to the selection; or noting the one card which has been replaced and is now out of stack sequence, etc.).

79

THE ARONSON APPROACH

a. V

You could also use the lower half to perform a second location, using the Half Deck principle and the basic procedure again, this time just working from the bottom half. For instance, try this sequence. Secretly glimpse the bottom card of the deck, as you place the pack on the table. Now have a spectator cut the deck into thirds. Ask one spectator to pick up the top third, and a second spectator to pick up the bottom third. Each spectator is told to shuffle his cards and then remove and retain one card from his respective packet. (In the meantime, you could, if you desire, pick up the remaining middle third and give it a couple overhand shuffles, making sure you run the center cards singly to maintain the middle key). Once both selections have been removed, have the deck reassembled, making sure the packets are replaced in their original order. Now, if you pick up the deck, you can clock each half separately (first all the cards below the middle key, then all the cards from the middle key up to the top) to determine both of the removed selections.

These are just a few suggestions for building upon the Half Deck principle. If you’ve stayed with me thus far, I’m sure your own mental wheels are turning, and that you’ll come up with your own interesting combinations. COMMENTS (1) For more information on the Epitome location, and particularly the short cuts and improvements which Harry Lorayne and Karl Fulves have developed to make the calculations quick and practical, see my comments in "Two Minds and a Mate” elsewhere in this volume.

The Half Deck principle can also be applied to decks arranged in faro stay-stack (2) order. Even though stay-stacks are non-cyclical (and thus can’t be cut), the top 26 cards will always be one half the value of the deck, and thus could be used for the same kind of location as described above. Moreover, you can find the middle key in a stay-stack without first knowing the bottom card, because in stay-stack, the middle key will indicate itself, by being the upper card of the double-mate pair. (3) Here’s a unique twist, that can’t be done with a red/black division. Because of the "isolation" feature, (i.e., the 25 cards to be totalled are all located together), it’s possible to do an Epitome location to determine the " removed " card, even i_f the selection has been replaced mic_k into the deck! Just contrive to have the spectator select the card from the shuffled top half, but replace it back within the shuffled bottom half. Now, if you follow the basic procedure, you can clock the top half to determine the missing value, and then "find" that selection among the lower 26 cards. (You may need to fish for the suit, between the two possible "same color" candidates). This should fool even magicians who know the standard Epitome sequence. (4) If you try combining two different location methods, you may want to play with the

notion of using the one ahead principle. Here’s just one possibility. The first spectator removes his selection, per the basic procedure. Meanwhile, you spread the faces of the balance of the stacked deck in front of a second spectator, asking her to merely think of one (just be sure you don’t spread past the middle key). Have the deck reassembled. Tell spectator #2 you’ll read her mind, and that you’ll remove the mate of her mental selection. In fact, use the basic procedure to determine spectator #l’s card, and place its mate face down on the table. Now that you’ve "committed” yourself, fan the cards before her again and ask spectator #2 to remove her thought 80

a 40'

OH PITY ME LOCATION

of card -- but not show it to anyone. Keep a break at the place of removal, and the card glimpse above it. Because of your stack, this glimpsed key will tell you spectator #2’s card. Now, turn #1 to spectator and supposedly find the mate of his removed card (which in fact you’ve previously placed on the table). This time, remove the mate of spectator 2’s now-known card, and place it

with the first card. Turn over both (displacing their order) to reveal you were correct on both. As mentioned in "Two Minds and a Mate", Harry Lorayne deserves credit for combining the Epitome location with the one—ahead principle.

81

MEMORIZED MIRACLES

oYoVA

BAIT AND SWITCH

'

Most memorized deck effects seem to fall under one of two categories: mentalism or locations. This present effect is a happy departure from both; indeed, I’ve used it as an apparent display of great dexterous ability. While it is a very solid piece of entertainment in its own right, it also has an ulterior motive: it is used to switch in a "cold" memorized deck for use in subsequent effects. As you’ll see in the Comments section, the switch is a utility item that can be used in connection with many other memorized deck applications. My presentation about a "one-handed" magician is completely optional, but since you’ll be doing a one-handed deck switch behind your back, I thought I’d make the most of the "onehanded" theme. It also allows you to introduce a few puns or one-liners into the patter. EFFECT A spectator names any number between I and 52, shuffles the cards, and selects a card. The card is returned to the pack, which is again shuffled by the spectator. The performer retakes the pack with one hand, holds the deck behind his back for a moment, and announces that, using only one hand, he has not only found the selection but has also cut it to the exact numbered position named by the spectator. The cards are counted to the spectator’s number, revealing that the performer has succeeded.

SET-UP You’ll need two identical decks. One is set up in a memorized deck order, and is secretly tucked into the waistband of your pants behind your back, faces of the deck outward. The deck should protrude about halfway above your waistband, for easy removal, and is held firmly in place by a fairly tight belt. (See Comment 4 for alternative methods of holding the deck in waiting). I’ve found that a sports jacket can be worn, which completely hides this deck, and yet still offers quick and easy access. Empty your left rear pants pocket, and then puff it Open by placing a wadded handkerchief into it, pushed down deeply. If the pocket has cloth a flap, make sure the flap is tucked into the pocket, so it doesn’t interfere with, or slow down, anything’s being dropped in. WORKING 1) You

should be standing, facing the Spectators, with a table nearby. Hand the duplicate pack to a Spectator, as you ask him to shuffle it. While he’s shuffling, ask, "I’d like you to name any number you ’d like, between I and 52 the higher the number you name, the longer the trick

-

8S

E THE ARONSON APPROACH

of-

V 45

takes. " (This line seems to regularly insure that the number won’t be too high; it’s usually in the teens or the twenties).

2) Assume that the number named is, say, 21. Whatever it is, instantly translate that number into the appropriate playing card that lies at that numbered position in your memorized stack. (Let’s assume you’re using the Aronson Stack. In that case, the card is the Queen of Diamonds). Don’t repeat aloud the named number at this point, or do anything that calls attention to it. You’ve got your desired information early, but the effect will appear even more impossible later if the spectators don’t remember exactly w_hen you learned that numberq

let

When the spectator is finished shuffling, reach out and take the deck, and start to spread it face up between your hands, apparently to show your audience that the cards are well mixed. Glance at the faces of the cards casually as you comment, "It looks like you ’ve shuflled them " pretty well. Quickly scan the Spread of cards and look for the Queen of Diamonds. As soon as you see it, obtain a left fourth finger break below the Queen, and square up the spread, maintaining the break. The moment you have control of the Queen, look up at the spectators, as you continue to patter. The entire spreading and resquaring takes just a moment, and, depending on where the Queen happens to fall, may not even require spreading many of the cards. Naturally, you should make your glance as nonchalant as possible. Casually cut the cards at the break as you flip the deck face down. Diamonds is now the t0p card of the face down deck.

The Queen of

If you prefer, instead of the break and cut, you could use a displacement action and run

the Queen under the spread, to the top.

3) Comment, "I want to show you an incredibly dtfi‘icult feat of dexterity, that was shown to me by a one-handed magician. I ’ll tty to do the entire trick just as he did it, using only one " ’11 hand, so at times you have to help me out. As you say this, stick your right hand into your right trousers pocket, where you’ll leave it for most of the trick. Joke, "This leaves me ’slight’

of hand.

"

You’re now going to perform Bruce Cervon’s "Flip Over Force" (see Comment 2) to force the Queen of Diamonds. Actually, any force could be used to force the top card, but the Cervon move is particularly well-suited here, because it’s done entirely with one hand (and the table top). The handling is a subtle variation on the standard slip force. Tell the spectator, ”From this shuflled deck I want you to select just one card. As I rtfile through the cards, just call out ’Stop’ anywhere you ’d like, ”and then proceed as follows: (i) The deck is held face down in the palm up left hand, with the left second, third and fourth fingers extended up and around the right side of the pack, so that their tips curl over and lightly touch the right edge of the back of the Queen. The left thumb is at the outer left corner, and riffles the cards, from the t0p of the deck down, at that corner. The left first finger is curled under the deck, and applies a light pressure on the bottom card.

86

1 ob

VA

BAIT AND SWITCH

(ii) When the spectator calls "Stop", cease the riffle and pull down on the balance of the cards with the thumb, widening the opening at the point indicated by the spectator (Figure 29).

(iii) Rotate the left hand 180° at the wrist, turning the hand palm down over the table, thus turning the deck face up. The pack will fall open at the break, so that the right long edge of the original top half of the deck drops onto the table; the left still are fingertips in contact with the force card, and are now under the left side of the deck (Figure 30).

Figure 29

Figure 3]

.

Figure 32 87

———_—_——_ THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?-

VA

(iv) The lefi hand, holding the original lower half of the deck, moves upward just a bit, as a continued, light pressure of the left fingertips draws the force card free from the upper half. The force card slides about 1/2 " to the left, but most of it is still beneath the original upper half (Figure 31).

Q

Raise the left hand upward an_d a bit to right, (still palm down), as the left fingertips close towards the deck, thus causing the force card to be pulled onto the top of the left hand packet. Because of the upward and rightward action, the right edge of the force card will lever up the original top half (Figure 32), causing that half to be flipped over to the right, face down onto the table. (v)

(vi) Turn the left hand, with its half, palm up, so that the left hand cards are face down. The top card of the left hand packet appears to be the card the spectator called "Stop" on. (vii) With the left thumb, push the force card to the right and outwards, sidejogging and outjogging it off the left hand packet. At the same time, lift the left hand up to a vertical position, to clearly display the face of the Queen to the spectator (Figure 33). Comment, "Please remember your card. " As the spectator looks at the card you’re displaying, turn your head away, to "prove" you’re not looking. I f

;

-.

4.

«I rd

l

J

. _

Figure 33 As far as the spectator knows, he’s had a free choice and you apparently don’t know his card.

While I’ve broken down each of the above steps analytically, in performance they should all flow together in one smooth, continuous action. 4) You’re now going to lose the selection, in a manner that "teases" magicians. Once the spectator indicates that he’s noted his card, cleanly thumb off the selection and drop it, face 88

v?-

VA

BAIT AND SWITCH

down, on top of the tabled packet (i.e., onto the original top half of the deck). Then, just as cleanly, drop the balance of the left hand packet onto the tabled packet, burying the selection. All of this is done still with just the left hand. Then, pick up the pack with the left hand, squaring it as you do. Demonstrate a Charlier cut, or any other one-handed cut you know, as you say, "I’ll give the deck a cut, to further lose your card." Magicians may think that you crimped the original bottom card of the deck as a key, and are now cutting to that crimp, theyre in for a surprise. 5) Immediately continue, "It would be best if we shujfled the cards, but I haven ’t yet mastered that with just one hand, so here, you give them a shufi‘le. " Hand the deck to the spectator to shuffle. (If you can do a one-handed shuffle, so much the better. Do one, and then hand the deck to the spectator for further shuffling). Tell your helper, "You can use both hands. " I sometimes ad-lib, "I’d give my right arm to be ambidextrous. "

-

6) When the spectator finishes, retake the deck face down in your left hand, as you explain, "Not only will I use only one hand, but I ’m going to do this entire feat behind my back. Now, what number did you choose?" Here, the spectator again announces his number, and you repeat it aloud, for emphasis. "Nenty-one. Watch. " You’re now going to perform the simplest deck switch imaginable: (i) The left hand reaches behind your back, and as soon as it’s out deck into the left rear pocket; then

of sight,

it dumps its

(ii) without stopping, the left hand moves up a few inches and grasps the cold deck out from the waistband; and then (iii) the left hand comes back in front, with the deck -- but as the left hand comes into view, the left thumb at the left long edge of the pack lifts up approximately half the deck,

the left thumb simply releases the upper half so that it drops back down into place. M, (This move is 100% ruse, to convince the that "done"

you’ve actually spectators something behind your back. The little "dropping" action, of the top half coalescing onto the lower half, looks like the tail end of some kind of one-handed cut.)

7) Announce, ”Not only have I found your selection, but I’ve also placed it at the exact numbered position you named -- all with just one hand! Look. " You’re now going to count and show the cards very fairly, still using just one hand.

Your left hand holds the pack in dealing position face down, as your left thumb pushes the top card off to the left. When it’s sidejogged about halfway, turn your left hand palm down " and drop the card face up onto the table, as you count "1. Turn your left hand palm up again, and deal off the next card1n the same fashion, as you count aloud. Each card1s dealt singly into a face up pile on the table. The spectators see a sequence of completely random cards. Stop when you’ve dealt 20 cards (one less than the number named), and ask, "For the first time, please tell everyone the name of your selected card." When the spectator replies, repeat, "The Queen of D1amonds,as though this is the first time you’ve learned it, and dramatically deal the next card face up onto the pile, counting "21 ", to reveal the spectator’s selection. 89

THE ARONSON APPROACH

n!-

VA

8) The effect is finished. Casually turn the balance of the left hand cards face up, and dribble release them face up onto the face up tabled pile. All of the cards are thus subliminally seen to be different and randomized. Pick up the pack, square it, turn it face down, and place it aside until your next miracle. You’re way ahead of the spectators, because they’re convinced it’s a deck they’ve just shuffled; in fact, the entire deck is in your known memorized order. Make the most of it.

COMMENTS

I’m always on the lookout for subtle deck switches, to ring in a memorized deck. The inspiration for this method came after reading D,erek Dingle’s ”Deluxe Anytime Color Triumphant" , gomplete Werks ef Derek Dingle, p. 196, in which Derek does a two-handed deck switch behind the back, for a subsequent color change climax. I felt that two hands operating behind the back might be a little suspicious, and I particularly wanted an effect in which it wasn’t apparent at the end that anything had "changed". (1)

Bruce Cervon’s "Flip Over Force" first appeared in Genii (May, 1972, p. 229) (2) and was later reprinted in Bruce’s Cervon F_il_e_, p. 193. It’s a practical handling of the slip force, because the position of the hands and the face-up deck completely hide the top card at the crucial moment. At step 7, you may prefer to have the spectator himself deal and count the cards (just be sure he deals correctly, so the order isn’t disturbed). (3)

me

Depending on you perform this effect during a routine, and on how " active " you are during your previous effects, you may want to experiment with other methods of holding the cold deck in waiting until it’s needed. I’ve found that the tight belt is quite sufficient, so long as you remain seated during your previous effects. Naturally, you don’t want to risk having the deck fall, or having any individual cards slip out. If you move around a lot, or if you don’t wear a belt, you could experiment with using any kind of deck dropper, or large spring clip, pinned to the back of your shirt or the underside of your jacket, to hold the deck in place. I’ve used a large 5-1/2" banker’s clip (obtainable at any stationery store), clipped over my waistband, and I just jam the deck under the prong on the outside of my pants. The clip is quite secure, but since there’s an audible snap when the deck is pulled out, I lined the inside of the metal clip with sound-deadening felt over sponge. This allows the deck to come out smoothly and quietly. (4)

Recently I acquired a Murray Card Dropper, and find that it suits this effect perfectly. It holds a deck securely in place for as long as you want, but just a slight lift of one finger drops the deck silently into your hand. I heartily recommend one.

Depending on your arm length, you may find it satisfactory to actually use beg; rear pockets (per Dingle’s handling) but still only use one hand to accomplish the switch. To do this, the cold deck is inserted into the Light rear pocket, on top of a wadded handkerchief or something that boosts the deck up close to the top of the pocket, for easy removal. To perform the switch, the left hand moves behind the back and drops the first deck into the left rear pocket, and then continues to reach across to the right to remove the cold deck. Beware of letting any upper arm

90

1 of. V

O

BAIT AND SWITCH

movement telegraph what you’re doing. Once you drop the first deck into the left pocket, the rest the action in retrieving the cold deck should only be from the elbow down. of

As mentioned, you certainly aren’t tied to the "one handed" (5) and if you patter, chose to omit it, then any alternative force could be used instead of the Flip Over Farce. If you use a classic force, then you may not even need to cut or displace the selection to the top; depending on where it happens to lie, you may be able to just take a break, turn the deck face down, and force it from its initial position.

want to emphasize that the basic premise underlying Bait and Switch is tied not to this specific effect. The concept of switching in a memorized deck a spectator’s selection has been replaced is of wide utility, and is useful in creating all sorts of miraculous location or control procedures. For example, here’s an alternative procedure that dispenses with the spectator’s having to name a number, and also eliminates any force. Start with the regular deck in use, and have a card freely peeked at. Secretly glimpse the selection, and immediately hand the deck out to be shuffled. (Steve Draun’s "Peek Glimpse" in Magic pf fleLe Draun, p. e 35, or Appgalypse, June, 1987, is one of the most subtle methods available).- Retake the deck and place it behind your back, as you announce, "I’ll try to find your card behind my back. " Perform the switch and bring the deck back out. Because the new pack is in memorized deck order, you no__v_v the exact pos_itj9p of the spectator’s glimpsed selection, which you can then reveal or control as you see fit (e.g., stabbing, cutting, Spelling, naming its position, etc.). You’ve performed a very strong location, ~- and at the end are set to devastate your audience with favorite memorized deck effect. your (6)

I

m

m

(7) This effect is particularly powerful if you can start With a borrowed deck. When you know beforehand what kind of deck your host at a private party or card game, or your fellow magicians in a card session, will be using, then you can secretly obtain and stack a duplicate of that kind of deck. Since no color change or other physical change in the condition of the deck ever takes place, no one will be the wiser that the deck they loan you is not the same deck they end up with. A borrowed deck makes available even more effects. I’ve performed an impressive "feeling the colors with the fingertips" using this method. Just have a borrowed deck well—shuffled, place it behind your back, and explain you’ll try to discern the colors of the cards by touch alone. Reach behind your back with both hands, as though trying to feel or sense in the cards, perform the deck switch for your duplicate memorized something deck, and announce the color of the first card in your memorized order (e. g., in the Aronson Stack, it’s "black", the Jack of Spades). Bring out just the first card still face down, with your fingertips on its face (as though feeling the face of the card). Turn the card face up on the table, to reveal you’re correct. Now repeat the same thing with the next card (stack number 2) and so on, for about 6 or 7 cards. (Don’t give in to temptation and think it’s "clever" to also feel the suit, or " the value, or even that "it’s a picture card. You don’t want to give away how much you know). As you remove each card, it’s dealt into a face up pile. Once you’ve sufficiently demonstrated your ability, bring out the rest of the pack, reassemble the deck, and you’re secretly ready to blow them away with a memorized deck effect, this time using (apparently) meg deck. Don’t " try this “colors by touch with your own deck. If you do, people may assume that you’ve got

91

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0%

VA

"work" in the cards, and you don’t want someone to immediately grab to examine the cards, because they may upset your memorized order. (8)

If you habitually keep Jokers in your regular deck, you could try this alternative

at steps 1 and 2. Begin by asking the spectator to name any number. Start to spread the cards to look for and remove the Joker(s). As soon as he names his number, translate it to the appropriate card, and scan for that card during your search for the Jokers. When you spot the correct card, give it a comer crimp, and then complete the removal of the Jokers, tossing them to the table. Now hand out the deck for shuffling. When it’s returned, you can force the crimped card by whatever method you like, without having to spread the cards face up after the spectator’s shuffle.

There’s something very devilish in deceiving magicians with this effect. Their (9) minds immediately begin working, “He somehow crimped the selection, brought it to the top, then quickly thumb counted . . ." One of my most pleasurable memories in magic is the first time I performed this effect for the Chicago session group, including Marlo. Everyone seemed to be totally taken. Ed asked me a question about the effect, and I replied, looking straight at him with a tongue-in-cheek tone: "Oh, I simply did a one-handed deck switch very rapidly behind my back." Ed chuckled, and then said, "Sure, sure. No, really . . It made my day.

92

ANY CARD, THEN ANY NUMBER I’ve never before put a trick in print that requires a stooge, and I’m cognizant that, in breaking precedent here, I’m probably losing a number of my readers, with this very sentence.

don’t want to get into the pros and cons of whether or when the use of a stooge is justified; everyone will apply his own tradeoffs, his own standards of when the magical end will justify "any" means. Rather, I’m making this exception because I M worry, long and hard, about using a secret accomplice, an apparent audience member, as the modus operandi to create a blockbuster miracle. By worry, I don’t mean feel guilty about "stooping so low". I mean that, in creating quality magic, illusions that actually work to fool people, there’s a real analytical dilemma that arises in the construction of an effect that depends on a stooge. I

Let me explain. Perhaps the main reason one will resort to using a stooge is because it may seem the only way to produce that perfectly fair, incredibly clean, meeting-all-challenges type of presentation that magicians wish for. Yet, paradoxically, if the presentation is so strong that it seems absolutely impossible, then one of the paths of least resistance an audience may quickly take is to simply assume, "Oh, that guy must be in cahoots." (When I was a teenager relatively new to magic, and saw the incredible Dunninger mindreading programs on television, I initially dismissed a number of his feats as just "stooge" tricks -- because I was s_ur_e_ there was no other possible way. Later I realized how wrong and naive I had been). The point is, the average spectator (and the average magician) doesn’t know how really clever our methods are; he isn’t aware of all the subtleties, the sophisticated intricate cancelling out multiple methods we employ to put him into that situation which be perceives as "impossible". So, when confronted with it, he’ll frequently take the easy, lazy way out. The facile cry, "He’s a stooge" is like the youngster’s "It’s up your sleeve. " Both satisfy the impulse for a quick answer, so one doesn’t have to be perplexed any longer.

Therefore, if I’m going to try to achieve that impossible set of conditions that only the use of a stooge can achieve, I’ve got to work doubly hard not to throw out the baby with the bath water: I must construct the effect in a way that defeats the assumption that a stooge is involved. For me, perhaps the main priority when I’m using a stooge is to convince people that I’m not. The "any card at any number" effect now associated with David Berglas has become almost a "classic" challenge to cardicians and mentalists. The incredible variety of methods that has seen print, both stooge and one-man versions (See Comment 1), is testimony to both the devilish ingenuity of our art and the formidable nature of the problem. The plot is simple enough. Any playing card is named, any number between 1 and 52 is named, and sure enough, that named card is found to occupy that named position in a deck of cards.

93

-————_—_‘_ THE ARONSON APPROACH

do V

Q

Let’s add some challenge conditions. The deck is on the table from the start. The card and number are Openly announced, without any restrictions or limitations on the spectators’ choice. The performer doesn’t handle the deck, or if he does, his handling is above-board. (Indeed, it’s best if the spectator himself does the dealing). At the climax, the spectators are left with just the ordinary deck to ponder. The use of a memorized deck, plus a stooge as the second spectator who "names the number", is a sophisticated and direct method that meets all of these conditions. But if nothihg more is done, suspicious eyes may look askance at the spectator who "went second". Others in the audience may ask, could it have been done if someone gls_e had named the number, or could you repeat it, with someone else? The first spectator might wonder, "Could we have switched roles, so that I might have gone second?" This is where my approach begins. In essence, I try to respond to the additional questions just posed by repeating the effect -- but the second time, the spectators’ roles are reversed. While the overt procedures used in each phase are identical, the underlying method changes radically. Each method has features which "cancels out" the other, and the result is that no single spectator ever seems to be in a position to be playing a confederate’s role. I’ve devised two quite different methods, both of which build upon the "memorized deck plus stooge" procedure. The first utilizes a gaffed deck with a deck switch; the second uses only deck. Both methods meet all the conditions posed thus far. one regular

The effect can be presented either for a large audience, or just for two people (one of whom is your secret stooge). The procedures are designed so that the strongest impact of sheer impossibility will be felt by your innocent spectator. FIRST METHOD PREPARATION You’ll need two decks, although the audience is aware of only one. The first deck is a special force deck consisting of 25 duplicates (let’s assume they’re all Ten of Hearts), 26 indifferent cards, and 2 Jokers. Alternate the force cards between each of the indifferent cards, so you’ve got a deck of 51 cards, of which the top and bottom cards are both indifferent. Then put one Joker on top, and one at the face, and place the deck into its case, with the face of the deck towards the oval cut-out. Have that case in your pocket. The second deck is an ordinary deck whose back matches the first deck. This second deck is stacked in a memorized order, and is secretly hidden on your chair, under your left leg. You have a secret stooge in the audience, who knows both the force card and the memorized deck order. (If yo_u use a memorized deck, but don’t have any friends who know it, don’t despair; see Comment 3 for a quick and effective aid that can overcome your friend’s failing).

94

m 4w 4

'

ANY CARD, THEN ANY NUMBER

WORKING

1) Ask for the assistance of two spectators, and invite them to sit at either end table. One of them is your secret accomplice, who hopefully has

of your

some degree of acting ability. For mnemonic convenience, let’s call our two spectators Stan the Stooge and Victor the Victim.

Remove the cased pack from your pocket and place it in the center of? the table. Explain to your two spectators that in this experiment you’ll use "any card, and then any number" they respectively choose. Turn first to Stan the‘Stooge and ask him to name any playing card. After pondering his choices, he names the force card, the Ten of Hearts. 2)

3) Turn to Victor the Victim, and ask, "Please name any number between I and 52. " After deliberating, Victor names, for instance, number 18. He has a completely free choice. Once the number is stated, mentally note whether it is even or odd.

4) Remind the spectators that the pack was placed on the table before either of them named their card or their number. Slowly and cleanly open the flap of the case and remove the pack, placing the case aside. The deck will be face up, with the Joker showing on the face. Hold the deck face up with your right hand, from above by the ends, and without comment, with your left hand remove the face Joker from the deck and it place aside with the card case. As the Joker is removed, an indifferent card is revealed at the face. Without pause, still holding the pack face up, with your left fingers reach below the deck and slide out the other Joker from the deck and toss it aside with the first Joker. Turn the deck face down, and place it on the table in front of Stan. So far, all you’ve done is to remove the two Jokers, but in doing so, you’ve "set" the force deck so that the Ten of Hearts will be at every even numbered position. (If the number named by Victor had been odd, then you would have removed first the face Joker from the deck (but mt the top card), and then placed the deck face down in front of Stan. That would set the force cards at every odd numbered position). The spectators have no preconceived expectation about how many Jokers there might be in the deck, and either 1 or 2 is a quite natural number to find. As soon as the deck is removed from the case, the face Joker comes into view, and thus subliminally suggests the naturalness of "removing it" from the pack. The mnemonics are convenient: number named, remove pm Joker; number named, remove Jokers.

M

m

M

5) Ask Stan to pick up the deck, and to deal off 17 cards into a face down pile, and to deal the 18th card (the number named by Victor) separately in front of him, face down. Stan complies, thus isolating the 18th card, and places the balance of the deck on the table. 6) Look at Victor, and say "You chose number 18. had chosen one less, 17, you If you would have got this card, the " As . you say this, pick up the indifferent card from the top of the pile of 17 cards that Stan has dealt, and display its face as you state its name. Continue, "Or, if you had named one more, 19, you would have landed on the " Here, pick up and show the face of the indifferent card from . the top of the balance of the deck. "But instead, you chose flLS card, the 18th card in the deck ", as you point to the single isolated card in front of Stan. This subtle "proving" that the deck contains

95

——______—.___—_ THE ARONSON APPROACH

0!-

different cards works well here -- it’s completely natural to point up one before and the one after.

_tw_o

VA

other possibilities, the

7) Turn to Stan, and ask him to repeat the card he "freely" named. When he says "Ten of Hearts", have him turn over the 18th card face up, to reveal the miraculous climax. 8) The audience will assume you’re finished. As they gasp, casually pick up the pile of 17 cards Stan dealt, and, as long as they’re square, you can flash the bottom card of this pile (another indifferent card), thus giving the spectators one more subliminal proof that the pack is varied. Reassemble the deck, hold it in your left hand and, smiling at your well-deserved applause, lean back in your chair and casually drop your left hand into your lap. Still looking at your spectators, and even talking to them, immediately deposit the gaffed pack between

your legs, and with your left hand remove the memorized deck from beneath your left leg. Just as casually, raise your hand to table level, and place the deck aside, next to the case with the Jokers. The misdirection for this deck switch is very strong, because, as far as the spectators are concerned, the trick is over. It comes on the offbeat, just as the tension is released when the first climax is revealed. Don’t pay attention to the deck. should be the center of attention; you’ve just performed a miracle.

m

9) Joke, "There’s only one possible explanation for that phenomena that I can think of -- chance. It could have been one of those amazing coincidences that sometimes occur. So, to make sure it ’s really magic, I ’m going to stretch my luck and try it again. " Pick up the deck and place it face down in front of Victor. Remind him that the experiment is called "any card, then any number ", and say "This time, I’ll let you go first. Victor, you name any card. " Victor deliberates, and names any playing card, say, the Six of Spades. 10) Turn to Stan and say, "Now it’s your turn. Name any number between

I and 52.

"

Stan the Stooge takes this opportunity to mentally review the memorized deck order, and names the particular number whose position is occupied by the card which Victor just named. (If you’re using the Aronson Stack, the Six of Spades is at position 44, so Stan would ”freely" name "Fortyfour"). 11) Turn to Victor, ask him to pick up the deck and to deal off cards in a face down pile, exactly as Stan did before. When he gets to the 44th card, he isolates it on the table. (If you want to preserve your stack for further effects, and don’t mind an asymmetry with the first deal, you can have Victor deal the cards face up this time, thus maintaining their order).

You then can milk this second climax for all it’s worth (including, if you wish, casually showing all of the rest of the cards to be different). Then, turn over the 44th card, to reveal it to be the Six of Spades.

You’re left perfectly clean, and could proceed with any other card effect you desire, if you can think of one that could follow this.

96

a!" A

I

ANY CARD, THEN ANY NUMBER

The beauty of this "repeat procedure" is that when it’s done, the spectators (including Victor) have seen a devastating piece of magic performed twice -- and yet, there’s nothing to point the guilty finger towards Stan. SECOND METHOD I have performed the above gaffed deck method in programs for laymen, and you from practical experience that it works. Amazingly well.

[can assure

I’ve recently worked out a different approach that is far simpler, and uses only SM regular deck. Yet it follows the exact same procedure with the repeat, and meets virtually all of the same conditions. In this second method you’ll again use the memorized deck and a stooge who knows its order. But this time, the "price" you must pay for eliminating the gaffed deck is the addition of a move -- one bottom deal.

You’ll follow the exact same steps as are detailed above for the gaffed method, except that there’s only one deck in play, with no jokers involved. In the first phase, when you ask Stan to name "any card", he simply names the card that occupies position #52 in the memorized deck order, i.e. , the bottom card of the deck. (If you’re using the Aronson Stack, that will be the Nine of Diamonds).

After Stan names the "force" card, ask Victor to name any number. Once he does, remove the pack from its case, making sure that when you remove the cards, the deck is face down; you don’t want to flash the bottom card. In this method, instead

of handing the deck to Stan to deal, you’ll do the dealing. Begin

dealing the cards one at a time into a fag up pile on the table. (This preserves the memorized order when the deck is reassembled, and has the happy result of proving that the cards are all different). Simply do a stud deal of single cards until you’ve counted one less than Victor’s chosen number. At that point, turn to Victor and ask, "You did say 18, didn’t you"? As you ask this question, secretly perform your best bottom deal, dealing the Nine of Diamonds asfie _fa_ce down. The fact that you deal that card face down, after the others have been dealt face up, provides a convenient change in procedure which can cover any possible break in rhythm caused by the single bottom deal. From here on, you’re home free. Ask Stan to turn up the card you’ve just dealt aside, to reveal the first climax; the card at Victor’s named number is indeed Stan’s named Nine of Diamonds. Casually replace the dealt face up cards back on top of the deck (thus restoring your memorized order), and replace the Nine of Diamonds back to the bottom of the deck. Now, withdut any deck switch, you’re ready to go directly into phase II, with the spectators’ roles reversed. Proceed as in the first method, allowing Victor to name any card, and then having Stan name any number. Stan, of course, cooperates by using the memorized order to give the correct numbered position. This time, however, you can put the deck in front of 97

THE ARONSON APPROACH

n?-

VA

Victor, and have him deal the cards. Have him imitate your previous example, by dealing the cards one at a time into a face up pile, and stopping at Stan’s named number. Have Victor turn over the last card, to reveal the second climax.

(If you’re feeling particularly devilish, and you have a talented magician friend playing the role of Stan, you might want to try one more variation. You could completely eliminate the performer’s having to do the bottom deal at the end of phase I -- by instead having your stooge do it! As long as Stan can do a passable bottom deal, there’s a lot less heat on him than there will be on you. Just give the deck to Stan for the dealing, and have him do the dirty work for you!) Regardless of whether you prefer the gaffed deck approach or the bottom deal method, try to visualize how this effect, with its repeat, will be viewed by the spectators. I think you’ll agree that, if one is going to use a stooge, this is an effective way to disguise it. COMMENTS (1) The "any card at any number" problem has recently been tackled by Ken Krenzel, Close-Up Impact, p. 71, with an ingenious one-man solution. The Krenzel text cites a venerable history of other attempts, both one-man and stooge versions. T. A. Waters offers two quite different solutions -- "Imposition", a stooge version, in Deckalogue, p. 11, and "Disposition", a one person version, in Cardiact, p. 13. David Regal tried his hand, in Sta; Qualig, p. 37.

Marlo is reported to have used a "memorized deck plus stooge" method with Carmen D’Amico, during the forties, "On The Berglas Effect", Jon Racherbaumer, A; m Table, p. 67. (2) You’ll note that in the gaffed deck I have a Joker on top, followed by an indifferent card, with the first 10H being the third card. You could, of course, have the force cards start immediately after the Joker, and alternate thereafter. I prefer the extra indifferent card second, because it provides one more "show" of an indifferent face when you pick up the pile of dealt

cards.

The "price" you pay for having the force card third is the possible (theoretical) difficulty if Victor happens to name #1. I consider this extremely unlikely, since your instructions ask for a number "between 1 and 52". Nevertheless, if #1 is ever named, there are a number of easy outs (e. g., scoop displacements) to remove the one indifferent card. (3) One interesting and ironic feature of this effect is that the performer himself does not need to know the memorized deck order; only the stooge does. But, what if you, the performer, know and use a memorized deck, and you want to present this effect -- but you don’t have any friend who knows a memorized deck well enough to play the stooge? Well, you could substitute a stack that uses a formula to calculate the position of any card, and teach your stooge how to use that formula. But, formulas take time and effort, and your stooge may not have the patience.

m

As long as you know the memorized order, there’s an easy way around that obstacle: can use a simple code to secretly tell your stooge what number to say. (My wife and I have long presented a two-person mental act, and we have our own verbal signals. Ginny, unfortunately, 98

—______~_ Mt a

'

ANY CARD, THEN ANY NUMBER

does not perform a passable bottom deal.) But, you (1in need to have a pre-established code to be able to secretly convey a number between 1 and 52. Here’s a quick and practical way to code it. All you nwd to be able to do is mentally subtract the number you want to code, from 53. Whatever the "remainder" is, you’ll actually say alo_ud as 9_f patter, so your stooge will hear it! Your stooge can then simply mentally subtract remainder from 53, so that he arrives back at the number you want him to name. The trick, of course, is to be able toqwork a "number" into your patter in a way that’s casual, natural and not strained.

m m m

Let me give you a few examples. Remember, you’re in the "repeat” phase, and Victor has just named a playing card, say the KH. You, the performer, calculate that this is #30 in your stack (assuming you’re using the Aronson Stack) so you want your ignorant stooge to name #30. You turn to Stan the Stooge, and say something like "Stan, I want you to call out any number between I and 52. It could be high, or low, or in between, say like, 23. Any number you’d " like. Stan, having been taught this impromptu Complement Code (it’s the "complement" needed to add up to 53), mentally subtracts 23 (the number you just mentioned) from 53, and quickly arrives at 30, which he names. Depending on what number you need to convey, different patter lines will suggest themselves; e.g., to code position 46 (5346=7), you might say ”Name any number between I and 52. It might be your lucky number, like 7, or any other number that has " some special meaning to you. Or, to code position 28 (53—28=25) try, "Name a number between I and 52. Don ’t just pick the first, obvious number that comes to mind, like 25. Give yourself a chance, think about it, and make it a really random number. " If you play with this of notion, working an "off the cuff" number into your patter lines by way of offering an example to Stan, you’ll see how easy it is. This simple Complement Code will enable you to teach a willing spouse or partner to stooge with you. But, for a truly professional presentation, give your partner a copy of A Stack Remember for his or her birthday.

_t_o_

(Dave Solomon and I have for years used a Complement Code as an impromptu way to secretly code and convey playing we just use the "complement" card that each card is paired with in a Brainwave or Invisible Deck. By one of us casually mentioning the complement of a pair, in idle conversation, the other receives the message, and translates it back to the intended card it’s paired with. We’ve used this to secretly code key cards, glimpsed selections, forced cards to one another). or

m;

(4) If you want to get Stan the Stooge more into the act, in the first method you could have him remove the gaffed deck from its case, and remove the Joker(s). You could even have him occasionally "accidentally" flash a few of the faces of the indifferent cards, as he deals. (5) The concept of either removing or not removing one or more Jokers, as needed, when the deck is removed from the case, can be applied to other effects, whenever you want to " move " the sequence of cards up or down by one or two positions. For instance, in a regular deck, it can be used to force an alternating set up of cards, e. g., a red one. It can be used to add or subtract a position, e. g., in certain spelling effects. (6) I appreciate that the conditions required for this effect preclude its use in the "everyday" regular routines of most performers. It is a program piece, reserved for those special

99

E THE ARONSON APPROACH

0%

VQ

appearances, the newspaper publicity stunts, or those unique performances where reputations can be made.

Notwithstanding its performance limitations, I h0pe you’ll indulge its inclusion here. This classic plot poses an intellectual and practical challenge, and if a solution is to be true to the conditions imposed, it needs _to be different, radical and not open to the easy layman’s cry of "he’s a stooge". While I definitely do not want to encourage the frequent or wanton use of stooges in card magic, I think that perhaps the disdain we feel towards such secret accomplices stems at least in part from the fact that confederates have in the past been used in rather obvious, simplistic, or non-subtle ways. An occasional, discriminating use of a Stooge, when coupled with methods and conditions that appear to dispel and nullify his existence, may be justified for that special miracle.

100

FOUR PART HARMONY This is an impressive mental display with cards, in which the performer successively "reads the minds" of four different spectators, each time under increasingly more difficult "challenge" conditions. Although only a deck of cards is used, this effect plays "big“ and can be utilized for stage or platform work. The underlying principle is an application of my "Center Cut Location” (Cm p. 117), expanded to four people.

m,

If you’ve never worked with a memorized deck, I urge you not to pass this up and skip over to the next trick. There’s a wealth of incredibly subtle, very powerful effects that can be accomplished only with a memorized deck, and this is one of them. Even if you don’t use this, the principles involved. You may find a lot of information and ideas that can be applied to other types of effects. SET UP A memorized deck, in order, is used. For the most mystifying results, it should be secretly switched in during a previous effect (see, for example, Bait and Switch, or Below the Belt elsewhere in this book) so that the spectators have the feeling that the cards have been in use, and have been shuffled already. The performer should be standing behind a table or bar, with four spectators having easy access to the table. For convenience of reference, let’s mentally refer to the spectators as A through D, going across from your left to your right. (Don’t get concerned if my instructions seem to jump back and forth between the spectators; once you read through the entire effect, you’ll see how this mental "labelling" of the spectators will help you proceed more swiftly at the climax). 1) False

shuffle the deck, as you ask your four spectators to help you. Take advantage of the fact that a memorized deck looks (because it really is) random, and casually spread or fan the cards, to show the faces. Place the pack face down on the table, and tell Spectator D (at your far right) that you want him to "pull a good size block of cards, say about half of the deck, out " from the center of the pack. As you say this, demonstrate what you mean by starting to pull out a center block, but only withdraw it halfway out. once the spectator understands what he is to do, push your block back flush (so the deck is still in memorized order), and step back. 2) Watch to see that Spectator D complies with your instructions correctly, and as soon he as removes the center block, have him hold it in his hand face down, cautioning him not to let anyone see any of the cards. Tell him, "Now, I’d like you to cut of approximately half of ” your pile, and hand that half to that gentleman -- here, gesture across towards Spectator B --

101

THE ARONSON APPROACH "but still make sure that no one catches even a glimpse of any of the cards. off the ten half of his packet, and passes it over to Spectator B.

0!"

V6

Spectator D cuts

3) Address both D and B, "Now each of you has a packet of cards out from somewhere in the center of the deck. I ’d like each of you to look at the card that’s been cut to, the one on the face, or bottom, of your own pile, and commit it to memory. " After each spectator has done so, continue "and to make certain no one accidentally sees your card, once you ’ve memorized it, I want you to remove it from the bottom of the pack, and insert it back somewhere into the of your packet, where it will be lost forever. " Make sure each spectator understands, and acts accordingly, thus burying his respective selection.

Me

4) Continue, "To make things even more challenging, let’s get a few more people into the act. Will you (talking to Spectator B) now pass your pile over to this person (pointing to Spectator A), and will you (talking to Spectator D) please pass your pile over to this gentleman next to you (point to Spectator C)." Both spectators comply. Again caution these two new spectators A and C not to let anyone see any of the cards. 5) Once Spectators A and C each have received the packets in their hands, ask them to "look at the tea card of your pile, and commit it to memory. " When they’ve done so, ask them to likewise remove the selection from the top of their respective packet, and bury it into the center of their packet. (If you prefer, you could ask each to simply cut his packet, thus effectively losing his selection). At this point, magicians in your audience may, if they are sophisticated, be thinking about "stacks", and whether portions of the cards may still be "in order". You’ll destroy this line of thought in a moment, when you have both spectators shuffle their packets. 6) Address Spectator A, and ask him to shuffle his packet, to his heart’s content. When he’s finished, explain "Since there are 1ng mentally thought of cards somewhere in your packet, deal the shufi‘led cards back and forth onto the table, into two face down piles. " Make sure that Spectator A understands what to do; I reinforce these instructions by " gesturing " back and forth with my hand, so the spectator gets an idea of where I want the two piles to be dealt, and that the cards are to be dealt back and forth. Once Spectator A starts to deal his cards into the two piles, turn towards Spectator C and ask C to also give his packet a good shuffle. Here’s where some acting will help: you’ve apparently finished with Spectator A, and so you turn away and start to talk to Spectator C. In fact, you keep your eye on A as he deals, because you must secretly Spectator A’e cards _a_s he sleek me_m l_)_a_c_k Ed fo_rth, gn_d remember Log] number of cards he has dealt. (This isn’t very difficult, since he’s dealing them one at a time, visibly and audibly onto the table; if you feel more comfortable, you can "wait" until he’s finished before you turn to Spectator C. The whole point is simply to appear that his dealing is itself not particularly important, and that you’re not paying much attention to it.)

M

m

7) You now make the same request of Spectator C, to deal his shuffled packet back and forth into two piles. You can again emphasize that, because there are four mentally thought of cards, there will be four piles. Again, try not to pay too much attention to Spectator C as he deals -- but you must again secretly count his cards as he deals them back and forth. Remember the total number of cards he has dealt.

102

.t. v a

'

FOUR PART HARMONY

8) Once Spectator C has finished his dealing, explain that there are four piles on the table, each one shuffled and randomized, and that somewhere in those four piles are four "mentally selected" cards. Ask all of the spectators to quickly pick up and fan through the four piles, so that each one can see in which pile his respective mentally noted card has fallen, but caution the spectators not to reveal anything yet. 9) Many mental feats suffer from lengthy build ups, since almost by definitioh, there’s no magic happening along the way, until the final "mindreading" at the climax. So far all that’s happened in this effect is a lot of cutting, shuffling and dealing, and you’ve got to present this as though you’re trying to do everything you can to make the selection procedure as truly free and random as could possibly occur. You may want to point out that you’ve never touched any of the cards, including the rest of the deck that isn’t even being used (i.e., the original top and bottom portions). You may want to emphasize how all four of the selections came from random places within the center of the deck, and all four have been buried again in the center of their piles. However, once you get to this point, you’re ready for one of the most straightforward sequences in mental card magic, because from here on, you’re going to "mentally" find each of the four selections, each time quicker and more directly than the preceding one.

At this point, although the cards have been quite well mixed, let’s recapitulate on what the true situation is with respect to all four selections. Remember back to the original condition of the deck, at the time the center block was pulled out; Figure 34 will help you visualize where each of the four selections came from, and their relationships to each other:

A

CENTER

Bx

}

X

D

Figure 34 You can think of the entire block that was pulled out from the center of the deck as having been divided into two portions, X the upper half, and Y the lower half. Spectator A’s selection was the top card of portion X, and Spectator B’s selection was the bottom card of portion X. Likewise, C’s selection was the top card of portion Y and D’s selection was the bottom card of portion Y. You already know the number of cards comprising portion X -- that’s the total 103

————__—__— THE ARONSON APPROACH

4- V A

number of cards you secretly counted in the two piles dealt by Spectator A; and you also know the nummr of cards comprising portion Y that’s the total number of cards you secretly counted in the two piles dealt by Spectator C. Since the entire center block (and thus portions X and Y) started out in memorized order at the time the selections were made, just a simple moment’s reflection will reveal a very interesting mathematical relation: by using your secret knowledge of the number of cards in X and Y, as soon as you know my gn_e of the four selections, you can immediately calculate to, and thus will know, a_l_l of m remaining selections!

-

m;

I’ll show you in a moment, with some specific examples, how direct and easy such calculations are, but at this point I just want to establish the underlying general relationship among the four selections. In memorized deck parlance, each card has a unique "stack number", which is simply another name for its position in the memorized stack order, counting from the top of the deck. Thus, for example, the top card of a memorized deck has stack number 1, the second card in the memorized stack has stack number 2, and so on. Each of the four selections (call them A, B, C and D, to correspond to their respective Spectators) has its own particular stack number in your memorized order, and you now know (from X and Y) the number of cards between, or separating, each of the four selections. Moreover, while you don’t yet know the specific stack number of any of the selections, you d_o know a very valuable mathematical characteristic about all four of the selections. If you think of that original center block as being stacked in its normal order (i.e., ascending stack numbers), you’ll see that selection A, because it was on the very top of the selection block, has the lowest stack number of all of the cards then in use; likewise, selection D, because it was on the very bottom of the center block, has the highest stack number of all of the cards on the table. But in fact, you know even more than that. Because of the division of the center block into X and Y, and selection B’s original location at the bottom of X, and selection C’s original location at the top of Y, you know something quite specific about each one of the selections, as follows: A has the LOWEST stack number of all the cards comprising X B has the HIGHEST stack number of all the cards comprising X C has the LOWEST stack number of all the cards comprising Y D has the HIGHEST stack number of all the cards comprising Y.

Your knowledge of these four "rules" will allow you to instantly find any one of the selections.

If you’ve worked with a memorized deck before, and particularly if you’ve previously played with any of my memorized deck effects from C_arg1dia_s_, you’ll already see what’s coming and the you’ll sense up, diabolically simple pattern that still underlies all the spectator’s shuffling and mixing and dealing. If this is your first encounter with a memorized deck, and all of this talk about mathematical relations seems quite confusing, don’t despair. The more you work with a memorized deck, the greater facility and greater comfort you’ll develOp with the principles involved. As long as you can add or subtract two numbers, you can accomplish miracles. The point to constantly keep in mind is that the logical, memorized sub-stratum that underlies the apparent randomized deck, and the mathematical arrangements that persist despite the shuffles, are completely unknown to the spectator. As far as the spectators are concerned, they’ve looked in at cards the middle of a shuffled deck. In fact, however, all of the mixing, displacing and shuffling of each selection occurred only am each selection was looked at and remembered, and 104

# do V

FOUR PART HARMONY

Q

it is this subtle distinction that allows you to determine all four selections. Let’s now proceed to do just that.

10) The four dealt piles are on the table face down, and each of the spectators has looked through them and now knows in which pile his own selection lies. Announce, "I will read the mind of any one of the four of you. Which one shall it be?" Whichever of the four: spectators volunteers, ask him to hand you the packet in which his selection is located. (If you want, you could ask him to shuffle that packet once more, before he hands it to you.) Explain, "I want you " As value. its Just and concentrate. its its suit, color, card mental picture of your to form a say this, take the pile he hands you, and fan it in front of you, faces towards you. As soon

-

you as you begin to spread the cards, just silently recite to yourself the particular stack number of each card you see; there will only be about 6 or 7 cards in total, and if you have a facility with a memorized deck, it should take you no more time than it takes to physically spread the cards. Depending on which spectator you’re working with, you’ll be looking for either the highest or lowest stack number in the pile. (See the four "rules" above.) If you’re dealing with either A or C, you look for the lowest stack number in the fanned group; conversely, if you’re dealing with either B or D, you’ll look for the card with the highest stack number). As soon as you know the particular card, let your eyes move from the cards to the particular spectator, and give him your best mindreading Svengali-like penetrating stare. Smile, look triumphant, and slowly withdraw one card, the selection, from the fan and hold it up in your hand -- but with its back thinking still towards the spectators. Ask your spectator to "name the card you’ve merefi of", and when he does, turn it around to reveal you are correct.

m

It’s a pretty strong point in the routine, but in fact, from here on, you’re home free! All three of the other revelations will be even stronger -- because, believe it or not, you now know all three of the remaining selections. 11) Continue, "I feel like we’re working well, so let’s try another person. Who else would like his or her mind read .7" Turn to whichever one of the three remaining spectators volunteers, and hold out one of your hands palm up (in the style of a maitre’d), and request "I want you to simply put the pile that contains your thought of card onto my hand. I won’t look at the cards. Just holding them should sufi‘ice. " When the spectator places the pile onto your " vibrations the in the him look "get just from having the cards on apparently straight hand, eye, your palm, and confidently announce the name of his card. I’ll leave the drama and acting part of it up to you, as to how best to receive the mental "impression", but here’s how you’ll know

that spectator’s card.

You’ll use the knowledge you have about the relative positions of the four selections, and the "distances" they lie from each other (measured by their respective stack numbers), to quickly calculate the new stack number of the next card you want to know. Once you get the hang of it, the calculation is extremely simple, and does not require you to memorize any formulae or to get involved in complex mental gymnastics; so don’t get frightened if the next few paragraphs sound, at first reading, Overwhelming. I’m going to try to give you an overview, a sort of "picture", of how best to learn to calculate each card instantly, and like most mathematical concepts, until you "get it" it seems complex and confusing, but once you’ve done it a few times, it becomes automatic and second-nature.

105

THE ARONSON APPROACH

l+

do V

fi

X

l+ .<

D..__.. Figure 35 The diagram in Figure 35 sets forth everything you need to know, to calculate any of the four cards starting from any of the other selections. Let me explain how it works. As you already know, the selections came from your memorized stack i_n relative reading from the top of the deck down. Thus, A has the lowest stack number (because it was closest to the tOp of the deck), B has the next lowest stack number, and then comes C; selection D will always have the highest stack number, because it is always the one that was furthest down in the deck. B and C will always be right next to each other in your memorized stack, with C’s stack number being "1" higher than 8’3 (because B is the bottom card of the t0p half, and C is the t0p card of the bottom half). Since X is the known number of cards in the upper portion, and Y is the known number of cards in the lower portion, you can see that there are really only three mathematical relations needed to unite all four selections with each other. These three "relations" are as follows:

M

(1)

A and C are "X" cards away from each other.

(2)

B

(3)

B and C are

m,

and D are "Y" cards away from each other. 1

card away from each other.

Review the above three statements again, slowly, while consulting Figure 35, and you’ll get the hang of it. All three of these relations are statements about the stack number of each of the cards in your memorized order, and so, as long as you know the stack number of any one selection, you can get to the stack number (and thus the identity) of any of the other three selections, by either adding or subtracting X, Y or 1, as appropriate. If you’re moving loin. in the deck, you know you want to get from a lower stack number to a higher stack number, so you’ll a_dd_; and, obviously, if you’re moving up in the deck, you’re going to a lesser stack number so you’ll subtract. (That’s the beauty of a memorized deck -- once you have the basics under your belt, and can picture quickly a deck as being 52 numbered items stacked on top of each other in order, 106

_____________‘ oi-V

a

"

FOUR PART HARMONY

with #1 on top and #52 on the bottom, all the mathematical relations become instantly "visual" and logical).

So, what does all of this mean specifically? How exactly do we use it to accomplish the rest of the trick? The three mathematical relations stated above mean, concretely, that: (1)

To go from A to C, just add X to A’s stack number; or, conversely, to find out A, given C, just subtract X from C’s stack number.

(2)

The exact same relation holds between B and D. Thus, if you know B and want to find out D, just add Y to B’s stack number, or, if you know D and want to determine B, just subtract Y from D’s stack number.

(3)

To go from B’s stack number to C’s, just add 1 to 8’8 stack number, and to go from C’s stack number to B’s, just subtract 1 from C’s stack number.

That’s really all you need to know, because, taken together, these three simple rules or procedures cover gfl of the possible combinations you can encounter. Let’s work through a specific example, to see how it would operate. Assume that when Spectator A dealt out his portion, you secretly counted a total of, say, 16 cards. Assume further that, when Spectator C dealt out the cards comprising the lower portion, you counted a total of, say 11 cards. (You would, of course, at that point know that the entire center block that was pulled out included a total of 27 cards, but, at that point in the routine, you would not yet know from exactly what point in the stack that center block came from. But once you learn any 9_n_e of the selections, you’ve got a fixed point to work from, and the rest of the mathematics follows from that focus point). In our example, let’s further assume that, in step 10 (when you read the first spectator’s mind), it’s, say, Spectator C, and he points to the pile with his selection in it. You fan through those cards rapidly, and see that the lowest stack number contained in that packet is, say, stack number 33. (In the Aronson Stack (cf. A Stack t_o Remember), that’s the Jack of Clubs, but obviously the principles here will work with any memorized stack). You do your mindreading for Spectator C, and reveal the card he’s thinking of, but you now also can quickly calculate to all of the other spectators’ cards as well, as follows: (i) Spectator A’s card is C - X, or 33 - 16, i.e., stack number 17; (ii) Spectator B’s card is C - 1, or 33 - 1, i.e., 'stack number 32; and (iii) Spectator D’s card needs a two step calculation, since our three basic "relationships" don’t "directly" connect C to D. To go from C to D, first go from C to B (i.e, subtract 1), and then you can go directly from B to D, i.e., B + Y. So starting with C at 33, we get to B at stack number 32, and then add Y, i.e., 32 + ll, or D is stack number 43. If you’re using the Aronson Stack, you thus would know that A is the Three of Spades (#17), B is the Ten of Diamonds (#32) and D is the King of Spades (#43). This has been a lengthy explanation for what, in practice, takes just a few seconds. On the one hand, I’m trying to be as detailed and thorough as possible, so that no one will have any doubt of just how to proceed. On the other hand, I’m fearful that the length of this description will frighten some readers, or make you think that there’s a lot of complex math going on. There’s mt.

107

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0!-

V4

One more example, just to illustrate a couple more of the situations that might arise. Let’s assume, for simplicity’s sake, that all of the same cards were selected as in the first example above, and you counted the same numbers (X = 16, Y = 11), but this time Spectator D was your first victim. Because it’s D, you would look for the highest stack number in the fan, and of all the cards you see in the packet handed to you, the highest stack number you would see would be 43, so you remove it (the King of Spades), and successfully read Spectator D’s mind. Now, let’s assume that the second spectator who volunteers is Spectator A. How do you determine card A, starting with card D? Again, take another look at Figure 35. This will need a three step calculation, but again, don’t worry, because each step is a snap, and occurs instantly. First, go from D up to B, i.e., D - Y, or 43 ~11, = 32. Second, go from B to C, i.e., 32 + 1, = 33. Third, go from C to A, 33 - 16 = 17. You would thus read the mind of A and tell him his card (i.e., whatever card in your memorized order has stack number 17). There are only two instances where you’ll ever encounter such a three step calculation, namely, going from A to D, or in reverse, going from D to A. Keep in mind that, as you do these calculations to determine the second spectator’s thought of card, you’re quite likely also automatically determining the other remaining selections as well. This saves time later on, and allows you to proceed with greater confidence, and to put more attention towards your presentation. So, at this point you’ve read two peOple’s minds. With the first volunteer, you actually looked through his packet of cards. For the second volunteer, you merely held his packet on your palm. You’ll now do even stronger miracles with the last two spectators. 12) Say, "Well, that ’5 two down. I’m going to stretch my luck, and try for three in a row. Which of the two of you [point to the remaining two spectators] would like to try?" Whichever of the two volunteers, have him "merely point" at the pile in which his selection resides. Tell him, "I won’t even touch the cards. " Gaze at him, and then at the pile, and gradually receive impressions of the color, suit and value of the third spectator’s card. You, of

course, determine the appropriate card for that spectator using the calculations explained at length in step 11 above.

Turn to the final remaining spectator, and use this opportunity to summarize the challenge conditions under which you’ve been operating: you never touched the deck (or, at least, most of it], the cards were all cut from the center of the pack, the cards were shuffled, and throughout all of this, this one remaining spectator has been merely thinking of his card. Emphasize, "1 M2 want you to tell me in which pile your card lies. Don’t tell me anything, don ’t give me any hints at all. Ju3t think of your card. " Read his mind (while doing the last calculation needed), and triumphantly announce the fourth spectator’s card. 13)

COMMENTS

cannot emphasize too strongly that this is an easy memorized deck effect to do. The three mathematical relations which you need to know are all logical and intuitive; you don’t even need to memorize them, since if you have a mental picture of where the four selections came (1)

108

I

I

M! a

FOUR PART HARMONY

from, you can create the chart in Figure 35 in your mind, and that chart generates all the information you need. The strength of this effect comes from the presentation "build up" , of making each of the revelations seem more difficult than the previous one. You’re only limited by your imagination and acting abilities, since you already know the cards. (2)

have a special ending that I usually use for the fourth spectator. On the last card, you tell the spectator, "Instead of your telling me which pile has your card, let me read your mind about that too! " You then point at one of the four face down piles and authoritatively announce, "Your thought of card is in th_g_t pile! " The spectator will be flabbergasted that you have correctly discerned the pile. You then go on, still without touching the cards, to read his mind and reveal his selection. So, how can you know in which pile his card will be? Very simple: you discover the necessary information while you locate the fist spectator’s selection. Keep in mind that cards A and B are ”paired" together, in the sense that they both came from portion X; C and D are also paired together, in that they both came from portion Y. Thus A and B can only be in _tw_o_ of the four piles (namely the two dealt piles that formed X), and C and D must be in the mo piles that formed Y. As soon as I determine the first spectator’s selection, by looking at the stack numbers in the first packet handed to me, I quickly calculate what the "paired" selection _f_ro_m half will be. Then, as I remove the first selection from the fan, I scan the rest of the fanned cards to see if that paired selection happens to be located in that same pile. If I see it, I remember pile; if I don’t see it, then the paired selection must be in the pile that was dealt with it, the one that formed the balance of its respective X or Y portion. In either case, I now know in which pile the paired selection lies. I then simply save the appropriate spectator (the one who selected this "paired" selection) for last, so that I can present this additional climax. I

(3)

M

m

m

m

am

If you don’t mind mixing mindreading with "magic", here’s a variation of the climax described in Comment 3 that I’ve occasionally used. When you look through the initial packet to find the first spectator’s card (Step 10), there’s a 50/50 chance that another selection will also be contained in that packet. (Remember, cards A and B are both located somewhere in group X, and about half the time they’ll get shuffled and dealt into the same pile, as opposed to going into different piles; this is likewise true for cards C and D, since they’re both somewhere in group Y). As explained in Comment 3, I calculate what the other paired selection is, and if I see it among the rest of the fanned cards in the first packet, l casually cut that other selection to the t_op of the packet. Then, as I replace the packet on the table, I top palm this other selection from the packet, and casually put my hands into my pants pockets. When this situation occurs, I save this now-pocketed selection for last, and at the climax ask that spectator to point to the packet in which his card supposedly lies. When he does, I waive my hand over that pile, and tell him his mentally chosen card has vanished. He looks through the pile, and indeed it’s gone. I then remove it from my pocket, or my wallet. Half the time, you’ll be able to do this extra miracle; the other half, when you don’t see the other selection among the fanned cards, you can reveal in which pile that "paired" selection is, per Comment 3. (4)

This admittedly changes the flavor of the effect, from "pure" mindreading to "card magic", but unless you’re trying to prove you’re for real, it is an entertaining, and quite unexpected, finish.

109

THE ARONSON APPROACH

of-

VA

When you get to the last card, you might want to vary the effect a bit. Instead (5) of reading the fourth spectator’s mind, you could act as if you don’t know his card yet, but announce that, before you began the experiment, you made a ”prediction". Then, by using a card index, or a brainwave deck, or a nail writer, reveal your "prediction" -- and have the fourth spectator verify that it is correct. Any other strong revelation could also be used as a finale; my wife and I present a two-person mind reading act, and on occasion I have had her, while blindfolded, announce the fourth spectator’s card. .

You may want to experiment with different ways of eliminating the initial center (6) block pull out. Here are a couple of variations I sometimes use. Instead of demonstrating a center block pull out, you could ask the spectator to first "lift up a small packet of cards from the t0p of the deck", and then, while he’s holding them, ask him, with his other hand, to "cut off a big block of cards", as you point to the balance of the tabled cards. He does so, and you use the large block of cards he’s just cut to perform the rest of the effect. Just have him drop his initially cut small packet back onto what’s still left of the tabled packet, and push these cards aside. Your patter explains, "I want to use some cards that are well-buried deep down in the deck. " This procedure may be an easier, and more natural, way of getting the spectator to cut a block from the center.

Another variation is to start by having the spectator cut the deck and complete the cut, and then table the deck. Then have Spectator B cutoff a packet ("about a quarter of the deck ") from the now top of the deck and look at "the card cut to", i.e., the face card of his packet. Repeat the same thing with Spectator D, having him cut off another packet from the remaining tabled deck, and have him also look at the card he cut to. These procedures bring you to the same position you’d be at step 3 (after the pulled out center block is divided in half) and from there on, just proceed as in the text.

If you use this idea of having the spectator cut the deck and complete the cut, try to get him to just cut a small packet. If he cuts too deeply, it’s possible that when the next two packets are cut off, they’ll be "around the horn" and break into the original top of the deck again. There’s nothing wrong with this, and the effect will still work, but it would take a bit more mental maneuvering to adjust for when the stack numbers go from 52 and start over again at #1. There’s one final selection variation I want to mention, that works a bit speedier. It’s more radical than the other variations noted above, because this selection procedure doesn’t use "cutting of packets" at all. Instead, begin by having someone cut the deck and complete the out. Then have a spectator pick up the deck and "deal the cards into a face down pile and stop whenever you like. " This spectator will become Spectator B. Don’t pay much attention to him as he deals, but in fact secretly count the cards until he stops. (The total you count will become "X"). Have him look at the card he’s stopped at (the top card of the just dealt face down pile), remember it, and then bury it into the middle of his pile. Have him hand the balance of the deck to another spectator (Spectator D) and have that spectator repeat the same procedure of dealing off some more cards, stopping and noting the card stopped at and burying it. Again, secretly count the cards as the spectator deals them (that number will become "Y") (7)

110

—-—_—__‘— 4. V A

FOUR PART HARMONY

After selections B and D have thus been made, ask two more spectators, A and C, to help, by looking at and remembering the bottom cards of each of the two dealt piles. Tl'len have each pile cut and shuffled.

You now can proceed essentially as in the text at step 6, except that you £1911; need to have the piles ”dealt" back and forth (because you already know X and Y); you can just ask both spectators (A and C) to simply c_ut their shuffled piles into "approximately equal portions", and table them. This is quicker and more casual. One nice thing about this variation is that, if you keep your eyes open, the spectator may on occasion inadvertently flash the bottom card of the deck. (You can increase the odds of this happening by asking him to replace all the unused cards back into the card case; he may turn the deck face up as he inserts it). If you can thus learn the identity of the bottom card, you’ve got a virtual miracle on your hands, because you won’t need to look through anJ of the piles at all, not even for the first spectator’s card; indeed, you could dispense entirely with the dividing into four piles, and just read all four minds directly. How? Because the glimpsed bottom card becomes the fixed point, and all mathematical calculations can be made directly from it!

There’s a trade off with this "dealing" procedure for arriving at the selections, both in presentation and in subtlety. Some performers might prefer this version to the one in the text. In my opinion, the choice revolves around which procedure is the subtler, less obvious, excuse or justification for having cards dealt out. I think that, for laymen, this variation is quite acceptable. For SOphisticated audiences, or for magic session work, however, it’s a bit obvious, and "hints" of a stack, when cards are just dealt directly from a c_ut, but not yet shuffled, deck. The power of the version in the main text is that the dealing occurs later, and only after the selections have been made and the cards have been shuffled; it thus appears more innocent, and less connected to the modus operandi.

For explanatory purposes, I’ve assumed that your spectators A to D are standing in front of you, left to right. Obviously, once you understand the relationships among the selections, you can use any four spectators, located wherever they are. All that’s needed is for to remember which spectators got which selections, so that you can mentally label them A, B, C and D for purposes of your calculations. I do find it easier, however, if you maneuver or the selection procedure in the way that’s described in the text, so that at the arrange revelation, you can "automatically" consider the leftmost spectator as A, and so on across. (8)

m

(9)

Obviously in this effect it’s essential that the spectators follow your directions You’ve carefully. got to explain things in detail, and watch to make sure they understand. If possible. select spectators with whom you’ve already worked in previous effects, so you have seen them in action and judged whether they are careful, intelligent and basically obedient. (10) Readers should consult the Comments to my "Center Cut Location" in fleas Cid for 118-119, pp. more thoughts on the underlying principles. In particular, find the you may ideas of what can be done with the deck both as a preceding effect and as a follow-up trick, of some interest, since this present effect does not completely destroy all of the memorized order relationships. Many of the separate piles still retain their retained relative

groupings.

111

THE ARONSON APPROACH

of.

9Q

Believe it or not, when you finish Four Part Harmony, if you gather the cards up correctly, you can actually follow this effect with my Shuffle-Bored (1981). Remember that the of the deck (i.e., the part that was alloy; the top portion (probably 10-15 cards) of the original pulled out center block) is still in memorized stack order, beginning with #1 on top. When you finish this present effect, just gather up the two piles that comprised X, and drop them together on t0p of the balance of the deck; then drop this assembled deck on top of the two portions that comprised Y. For those of you who know Shuffle-Bored, you now have your partial deck stack located approximately in the center, starting at a known number of cards, i.e., X, down. You can work Shuffle-Bored from that point. If X is too shallow, you can adjust the position of the partial stack and centralize it, by simply moving a few cards from the bottom of the deck to the top, as long as you know how many cards you move. (Or, make this adjustment as you gather up cards from the Y pile) by placing a few extra cards (a known amount) on top. It seems inconceivable that you could perform Shuffle-Bored with a deck that’s apparently been fully shuffled by _tl_1_§ If you perform Four Part Harmony, and follow it with Shuffle— Bored, you’ll have two blockbuster effects.

balm

m.

112

MEMORIZED MATH

'

I’ve been publishing material on memorized deck magic for the past eighteen years, and to judge by the number of cardicians who have purchased my Stack to Remember, or who’ve told me they’re learning a stack, it’s gratifying to know that memorized deck magic is on the rise. One of the standard excuses proffered for not memorizing a stack is the naive belief that a formula might be used to accomplish the same thing. While there are a few simple memorized deck effects (e.g., weighing the cards) that could be accomplished by a formula, for the most part, it simply does not work in actual practice.

Trying to use a formula as a crutch is a bit like suggesting that you don’t have to learn a double lift, because you could always use magician’s wax to hold two cards together. Sure, you can say it, and you can even use it occasionally » when there’s nothing else in the trick that will be affected by it. But no one could seriously fool himself into thinking that one is the equivalent of the other. One of the main reasons that formulas aren’t practical as a substitute for memory is that formulas take a quantum of time to compute. The most important reason you don’t want to waste that valuable quantum of time in just calculating the connection between a particular playing card and a particular numbered position in the deck, is that in advanced memorized deck effects you need that precious quantum of time to make may calculations. This brings us to the main topic I want to explore: the use of a memorized deck in relation to mathematical principles in card magic.

m

M

I’m assuming (hoping) that most of my readers are familiar with my essay "General Observations on the Memorized Deck" (Card 1de_as_, p. 88), where I explained the idea of using the stack numbers of cards in a memorized deck as an "organizing principle" in arranging secret stacks, or secret "groupings" of cards. I pointed out that some of the mathematical features of a card’s stack number (e. g., whether it was odd or even, high or low) lend themselves to certain instantly recognizable groupings, pairings or sequences, which are immediately apparent to anyone who knows the memorized order but are completely invisible to one who is unaware of the underlying memorized stack. I also touched upon some of the simpler uses of a memorized deck in connection with other mathematical concepts, e.g., instantly calculating "key" cards at any position, faro shuffle formulas, and estimation techniques. I

want to expand on those ideas here, by discussing some subtle connections between the memorized deck and a few more mathematical principles that are frequently used in card magic. All of these ideas are "practical", _i_f you know a memorized deck _c_olg. But you’ll see that they all depend on using math, counting or formulas $61 you get to the point of knowing what card 113

h THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?-

VA

occupies what numbered position (or vice versa), and so you certainly would not want to add the additional complication of needing yet another formula just to find out a card’s stack number, or what card lies at a given position. If you’re going to use the material in this section, you’ll need the "instant start” that only a truly memorized stack can supply. STAY STACKS

Quite apart from its use for certain "matching" effects (e. g., Marlo’s classic "Matching Routine" in Em Controlled Miracles), the faro stay-stack is an extremely powerful location tool, because it is one of the few stacks that can survive repeated shuffles (albeit faro shuffles). It is not commonly recognized, however, that stay-stacks are not limited just to the use of mates. My "paired" relation between sets of two cards can be used, and as long as each pair is originally set in mirror image order in the deck (i.e., top card and bottom card, and so on), the pairings will be maintained through successive faro shuffles. A memorized stack is itself already a stay-stack, which uses each card’s "stack number complement" for its pairing. Let me explain. I call two cards "complementary" in memorized a deck if their stack numbers together total 53. Thus the two cards which 1 and positions occupy 52 in a memorized stack are "complements", because 1 +52 =53. Likewise the two specific cards that occupy positions 2 and 51 in a memorized order are complements, and so on. In a memorized deck, each card has one and only one complement, which can be instantly determined by subtracting that card’s stack number from 53. The remainder is the stack number of its complement.

This has a direct practical application. If a memorized deck is given repeated faro shuffles (either out or in), it will nevertheless remain in complete stay-stack order (by complements). This means that, after such shuffles, the top half of the deck will give complete information as to the make up of the bottom half of the deck, and vice versa. Thus, for location effects, you could faro shuffle and ask a spectator to cutoff a packet (less than half) and look at the card he cut to (the face card of his packet). Pick up the balance of the deck, glimpse the now top card, and then find its complement in the lower half. The card just below that complement in the lower half is the complement of the spectator’s selection. Likewise, if you glance at all the cards below that complement, you’ll learn the make up of the entire packet which the spectator cut. Cardicians will recognize that this is an application of faro principles previously explored by Marlo, Elmsley and others, and l have simply translated them from "mates" to "complements". One intriguing point of using memorized "complements" is that there’s nothing visible to be seen; even fellow cardicians will be fooled, since there are no telltale mates either in mirror image position, or together at the center. Using a memorized deck as a stay stack permits you to segue directly into your stay stack locations from another memorized deck effect, without having to switch in a separate deck which is set up with mates. COUNTING

Many subtle memorized deck effects depend on secretly counting the cards as they are dealt or otherwise handled (for example, my "Group Shuffle", Kabbala, Vol. 2, No. 8). If the effect requires that you count more than once, e. g., multiple piles, several poker hands, or two 114

___________ .t- v

‘

a

MEMORIZED MATH

interlocking chains, then you’ll need your mental wits about you to do this counting. Formulas would be a severe distraction and impediment to rapid counting.

Here’s an example. Sometimes if a layman shows me the "21 Card Trick” (3 piles of 7 cards dealt 3 times, etc.), I’ll retaliate with a "comedy" version, that secretly introduces a memorized deck. I false shuffle, and then let the spectator cut the deck. I then take the pack and deal out three cards in a row, and then continue to deal cards onto the original three, until I’ve dealt a total of 21 cards, in the customary three overlapping columns, 1 $11 al_l 2_l Engé Lace; down. I then ask the spectator to "think of one", which gets a laugh since none of the faces are showing. I go on and say, "I’ll read your mind. You were thinking of a blue backed card! Show everyone which card you thought of. Just point to it. " The spectator plays along and points to any one of the face down cards. I casually note this card, and mentally "count" to its location, starting with the first card originally dealt. (Example: if the spectator points at the fifth card in the second row, this would be the 14th card dealt). This count happens very quickly as Ijoke "See, I was right, it is blue backed! Now, if you like, you also can do it the old fashioned way, and look at the face of your card. Go ahead, I won ’t peek. " I turn my back, while the spectator looks at the face of the card he just pointed to. I use this moment to glimpse the bottom card of the balance of the deck, add 14 to its stack number, and now know the card which the spectator is peeking at! With this knowledge, I let the spectator shuffle all 21 cards together, and have him " deal out the three columns again, "in the old fashioned way, face up. After a bit of by-play, 1 then tell which column contains his card, and then I gradually hone in on his "mental" selection.

m

m

offer the above in only a bare bones version, because my point is not to teach this particular trick. Rather, [just want to illustrate how secretly counting cards quickly can be a valuable aid in memorized deck magic. Yet, even though this 21 card trick is pretty simple, if you were to rely on formulas instead of memory, you would find it extremely cumbersome and impractical. You would have to use formulas tw_ice (first, to translate from the glimpsed bottom card to its stack number, and then again, to translate from the 14th stack number to the spectator’s card). I

INTERLOCKING CHAINS

The foregoing counting concept is magnified in complexity once you deal with two intertwined chains, each a separate sequence from a memorized deck order. Such an added dimension arises when a memorized deck is given one riffle shuffle. It’s worth the effort, however, because no one suspects that a stack is present, after the deck has been shuffled.

Again, to illustrate with a simple example, consider the combination of a memorized stack with a deck having one-way backs. You could cut the pack approximately in half using a twirl cut, which subtly rotates one half of the deck 180°; as you cut, glimpse the bottom card of the top half. The two halves can now be given a riffle shuffle and pushed flush. (Alternatively, you can delay the glimpse, by making sure you release a card from the upper half first (so it goes to the bottom) and then glimpse the bottom card after the shuffle.) If the card you glimpsed was stack number 23, this means that your shuffled deck is now made say, up of two sequential, intertwined stacks. The first stack runs from 1-23, and the other runs from 24-52. Because you secretly turned one half of the deck end for end before you shuffled, the backs of the cards now 115

\‘x THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?-

VA

point in opposite directions for each of the two interlocking stacks. You therefore can visually spot and count the cards separately in either chain, from the backs. Any card removed from the shuffled deck can be quickly determined, just by counting from the top, in it_s respective chain.

Elsewhere in this book you’ll find a two deck effect entitled "Mix and Match ", which doesn’t use a memorized stack. However, if you add a memorized stack to that effect, you’ll find that these principles concerning interlocking chains can be easily applied to the red and blue backs. This may sound like pretty heady stuff, but I h0pe you can appreciate the "power" that will persist after one riffle shuffle, if you’re willing to add some further mental agility, on top of knowing your memorized stack. DUCK AND DEAL In an effect entitled "Donald Duck and Deal " (published in M-U-M, February, 1983, and

—““~~

total number of cards he desired. At the end of that effect, I hinted at what could be accomplished, by applying the mathematics of "deal and duck" formulas to a memorized deck.

For any packet containing a total number of "N " cards, there will always be some position "P" (counting from the top of the packet of N cards) which will be the final card remaining after a deal/duck procedure of that entire packet of N cards. As long as you know N, you can quickly calculate position P (see Comment for a description of the formula). A memorized deck can actually shortcut or eliminate a lot of counting, by instantly and secretly informing you how many cards (N) are contained in a packet. 1

Here’s an example. Place a deck, secretly arranged in memorized deck order, on the table, and have the spectator cut off a good sized packet. You retake the remainder of the deck, to demonstrate what you mean by the "deal and duck" procedure' in demonstrating, you’ll deal the top card of the remainder to the table, and then duck the next card to the bottom of your

“‘ do V

0

MEMORIZED MATH

know that card, and can reveal it or later find it as you deem appropriate. (Or, use the procedure I suggested in M-U-M, to show that you had previously "predicted" it). As an alternative, you can even eliminate the glimpse, by simply watching the spectator, and counting the total number of cards in his packet, as he deals and ducks. Let’s carry this a step further. You can also use the memorized deck’s own. internal mathematical relations to calculate where to place specific card, so that it comes out as the fly final remaining card after a deal/duck procedure. For instance, if an entire deck of 52 cards is subjected to the deal/duck procedure, then (by application of the formula) P would be 40. This that simply means the 40th card from the top will be the last remaining card. However, with one simple calculation based on your stack order, and one cut, you could place a_ny card you want at position 40. You could thus cause any named card to be the final card, after the entire deck is "dealed and ducked". This placement application to an entire deck is intriguing in theory, but boring in practice. However, it can be made more interesting, and more amazing, if instead of using a full 52 card deck, you allowed the spectator to use any number of cards he wants. In essence, you can create version a of "Any Card, then Any Number" using a deal/duck procedure. Here’s the bare bones. The first spectator names any playing card and a second spectator names any number, from 1-52. You casually (perhaps secretly) give the deck one cut, and hand it the to second spectator. That spectator counts off a pile of cards (reversing their order) onto the table equal to the number he and named, places the rest of the deck aside. The first spectator now takes the counted pile and gives it a deal/duck procedure, until he is left with only one card. You recapitulate the challenge conditions, and then ask the spectator to turn over that final card. It is the very one he freely named at the outset of the effect. (In the classic "any card, and any number" procedure, an open cut would be unacceptable, since it obviously might be used to place a card at the desired position. However, in this deal and duck variation, I’ve found that the cut by unquestioned. goes The fact that you do a deal/duck procedure, which apparently recycles and mixes the cards, makes it seem like you couldn’t know or control any such outcome.) The underlying mathematics for such an effect are fairly complex, because they have to take account of calculating the correct deal/duck position, adjusting for the reverse count, and determining the correct card to cut to in your memorized order. Nevertheless, it’s possible to combine all of these factors into one formula. Remember, the performer simply wants to cut a particular card to the bottom of the deck, so that the mm of the effect will work automatically from that point. All the performer needs to do is to figure out what card to cut to the bottom. If X is the unknown "stack number" of the card you need to cut to the bottom, then it will always be true that X = S + N - 1 - B, where S is the stack number of the card named by the first spectator, N is the number named by the second spectator, and B is the applicable binary key. (In this case, the applicable binary key is the lowest possible power of "2" which is either equal to, or greater than, N. See Comment 2 for more detailed explanations and examples). To present the above version, as soon as the two spectators name their freely chosen card and number, you must cgefully do the above calculation in your head, to determine X. Once you know X, you must cut it to the bottom. You could fan through the faces to locate it and give the pack a casual cut, but since the deck is in a memorized order, it’s pretty easy, and a lot more subtle, to use estimation plus an adjustment. Just estimate as best you can the approximate 117

———_—_‘ THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?.

VA

location of X in the pack, and cut at that point. Then glimpse the new bottom card. If you’re lucky, you will have hit X on the nose; more often, you’ll be off by one or two cards, but the stack number of the glimpsed card will tell you exactly how much you’re off, and in which direction. Then it’s a simple matter to adjust, by cutting the few necessary cards from the top to the bottom, or vice versa. (You can then check again, to make certain you’re correct, by is X glimpsing to see that now at the face of the deck). Hand the deck to the second spectator to deal off his named number, and then give that pile to the first spectator to deal and duck, for the climax. CONCLUSION

I

The material in this section clearly will not appeal to everyone. It requires a solid grounding in memorized deck effects, plus a comfortable facility with mental calculations. I do want to emphasize, however, that although a trick may depend on mathematical principles, its "look" to the spectator need not appear to be a "puzzle" or an arithmetical exercise. Indeed, mathematics is best used as a secret component in magic, something of which the spectators should not be aware. To this end, if you’re secretly using formulas to achieve a magical climax, you want to make certain that your mental processes are hidden, and not obvious. As I mentioned in Cid 151%, if your "thinking" shows, it’s the same as if your "breaks" show -- in either case, the spectator sees the method. Part of the solution is to plan your routines to expressly provide for the right moment in which to do the necessary calculations. For example, if you give the spectator some task to do (deal, shuffle, separate cards, etc.), then attention will turn to him, and you will have adequate opportunity in which to calculate your next step. The other part of the solution is, of course, not to compound your difficulties by avoiding memorizing a stack in the first place.

These effects require that one keep in practice. If you’re rusty, then your thinking will be hesitant, and your timing in performance will be off. But if you’re willing to make the effort needed to learn this stuff, I think you’ll have some unique tools with which to fool audience. your You’ll also find that once your mind is attuned to the potentialities of the memorized deck, you’ll read the thoughts and ideas of some of magic’s great mathematical inventors (Hummer, Elmsley, Marlo, Jordan, Gardner, etc.) with an added sense of richness, which in turn will help spark your own creativity. COMMENTS (1) To calculate which position P, in a packet containing a total of N cards, will produce the final card remaining after a deal and duck procedure, you need to start by remembering the following sequence of five numbers: 2-4—8-16-32. (These are easily remembered as successive I powers of "2", and thus call them the "binary keys"). For any given packet of N cards, you’ll only use one of these binary keys, and the particular one depends on what N is. You want to use the highest of the five binary keys which, when subtracted from P, still leaves a positive remainder. Let’s call that particular binary key ""B. Position P is calculated as follows: (1) Subtract B from N, and then (2) double the remainder. The result is P, the position you’re looking for. For example, for a packet of 25 cards, B would be 16 (the highest of the five binary keys you can subtract from 25 and still have a positive remainder). So, 25 - 16 = 9, then double the remainder (9 x 2) to get 18 -- thus, the 18th card will be the last remaining card after a 118

—————______.—— 0!-

VA

MEMORIZED MATH

deal/duck procedure in a 25 card packet. In a packet of 5 cards (5 minus 4, double the remainder, = 2) the second card is the desired position. In the five instances where N is in fact one of the five binary keys 2-4—8-16—32, then no formula is even nwded, since the bottom or last card is automatically the correct position. Note that, if you want to reverse the procedure so that the first card is ducked instead of dealt (i.e., a "duck and deal") then P will simply be one card further down in the packet.

Here’s a bit more detail on the formula X = S + N - 1 - B (page 117) which is used to determine which particular card to cut to the bottom of the deck. First, remember that, for this particular formula I’ve changed the applicable B (binary key) somewhat, from that used in Comment 1 above. In m_is formula, there are six powers of "2": 2-4-8-16-32-64, and you’ll be using the next one up, for any particular N. B will always be the lowest power of "2" which is either equal to, or greater than, N. Let’s try some examples. Suppose the first spectator names the 9H (in the Aronson Stack, stack number 42) and the second spectator names the number 19, as the size of his desired packet. For this example, S = 42, N = 19, and B = 32 (the lowest of the binary keys which is equal to or greater than 19). Substituting in this formula, we get X = 42 + 19 - 1 - 32, or X = 28. This means that you must cut the card with stack number 28 in your memorized deck to the bottom (in the Aronson Stack, 28 = 7C). With the 7C cut to the face of a memorized deck, if you deal off a packet of 19 cards (reversing their order) and then ”deal and duck" that entire packet, your final remaining card will be the 9H. (2)

Let’s try another example. Assume the card named is the AC (which, in the Aronson Stack, occupies stack number 10), and the packet size chosen is, coincidentally, 10. Here S = N 10, = 10, and B will be 16. The formula thus gives us X = 10 + 10 - 1 - 16, or X = 3. This is a fortunate occurrence, because it means that we need only cut three cards from the t0p to the bottom, to place stack number 3 (the SC in the Aronson Stack) to the face of the deck. You will occasionally be lucky this way, and if the result is just a small number of cards to cut, you can do it without any glimpsing at all.

'

You may need to occasionally work with negative numbers. If X turns out to be negative, think of 52 - X, and the result will be the correct card to cut to the bottom. For just example, the card named happens to have a fairly low stack number (for instance, the Ace suppose of in which the Aronson Stack is at #6) and a large number happens to be named for the Spades, packet size, say 40. Now, S- = 6, N = 40 and B = 64, so the formula becomes X = 6 + 40 1 - 64, or X = ~19. In such a case, convert -19 to a positive number by simply subtracting 52 - 19, which leaves 33. Thus, if you cut the card at stack number 33 to the face, you’ll be set.

If the second Spectator happens to name one of the binary keys as his chosen number, the formula shortens to simply X = S - 1. Thus, if one of the binary keys is named as the number, you’ll simply be cutting the named card to the top of the deck. For further information on faro stay-stacks, see Marlo’s Faro Notes and his manuscript Faro Controlled Miracles; also, J. Russell Duck’s (Russduck) series in the Cardiste, particularly Nos. 1 and 5. (3)

119

SIMON—EYES

SIMON-EYES This is, in my opinion, the best trick in the book. I expect, however, that it will be one of the least performed, and perhaps even the least read.

The effect is, quite simply, the closest thing to pure mindreading with a deck of cards that I’ve ever devised, performed, seen, heard of, or read about. The proverbial dealer’s advertisement might read something like this: EFFECT

The performer takes a shuffled, ordinary deck of cards and spreads the cards, faces towards a spectator, and has him think of any one. The spectator sees each and every card, all of which are different, and really does have a completely free choice of thinking of any of the 52 cards. The deck is again shuffled, and the same process is repeated with a second spectator, so that she is thinking of a different card. The performer asks the two spectators to merely concentrate on their respective cards. The performer looks at the spectators and starts to receive impressions, which he announces: the values, the colors, the suits, etc. Every impression the performer receives is absolutely correct and is acknowledged to be so. The performer straightforwardly divines and reveals both cards precisely. This dealer’s "dream advertisement" might then go on to emphasize that the deck is a completely ordinary deck of cards which may be immediately used for any other effect; there are no gaffs or props of any kind needed; the mentally chosen cards are not forced in any manner, and are not written down or told to anyone else; no questions are asked, nor do any of the impressions announced by the performer ever elicit a "no" response; the effect can be done anywhere, at any time in a routine, under any conditions, and is immediately repeatable. (And no, it doesn’t use a memorized deck). I’ve felt quite ambivalent about including this item in the book. It is everything the above dealer’s description says it is, and the spectators will remember it afterwards exactly as I’ve portrayed it. It’s worth its weight in gold to any performing mentalist, and can seriously be (has been, by me) used to convince quite skeptical spectators that this is "the real thing". But it’s going to be lengthy, difficult, and involved to explain, and it’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. In performance it does take some time, and would be out of place if done in connection with a series of rapid-fire, flashy visual card effects. It takes some mental agility on the performer’s part to put it over in a direct and convincing fashion, and demands some patience in learning it, until you see how the entire scheme fits together. I’m hesitant to take up a lot of space with material that will have only limited appeal, so I considered putting it out as a separate "exclusive" manuscript.

123

E“— THE ARONSON APPROACH

4- V Q Q

I finally decided to include Simon-Eyes in this volume, for several reasons. First and foremost, although it’s disguised as a sober presentation of true mindreading, it is in fact one hell of a card trick, and this is a book of my card magic. Second, I’m quite proud of this creation, and do want it to be known by and among my peers comprising the community of cardicians. I’ve found that single-effect manuscripts have a very limited circulation, and are easily overlooked, while material in larger, hardbound volumes gets a broader reading and continues sell to and circulate on a more permanent basis. (My Shuffle-Bored (1980) was largely neglected until its recent re-incarnation in Harry Lorayne’s latest book). Third, the principles and concepts underlying Simon-Eyes are intriguing in their own right, and are of quite general utility. Even if you never perform Simon-Eyes, you still may get an intellectual kick just reading it through to appreciate the diabolical interplay of what’s going on, and I’m sure you’ll get inspirations and ideas that you can apply to many other areas of magic. REALITY

Whenever one reads the kind of idealized dealer’s advertisement set forth above, if one then gets to see the actual effect performed in a specific, real life situation, there’s invariably some component of disappointment that sinks in. It’s not that the description was wrong or unfair; rather, a dealer’s advertisement usually is correct as far as it goes, but it conveniently omits mention of one or more elements that, in performance, are obviously detriments, or limitations, or at least complicating factors. All in all, Simon-Eyes does faithfully live up to the "thus delivered puffery far. However, no one really walks on water, and I want to candidly admit at the outset three points not yet mentioned, which, when you read them, may initially cause that sinking feeling of disappointment. But please don’t give up yet. If you’ll read through to the end, you’ll see how each of these three factors is presented and handled in a way that is accepted as natural and in keeping with the context of this effect. I assure you, they do not significantly detract from the impact or miracle nature of the effect as its been described. So, what haven’t I told you yet? First, although the first spectator’s mental choice is completely free, the second spectator’s choice is not. It’s subtly linked and thus controlled to, by, the first spectator’s choice. Second, when the deck is "shuffled", it’s not really; the shuffles must be false shuffles. Don’t worry -- you can do any kind of false shuffles you like, and they’re done slowly and casually, on the offbeat. (See Appendix 1, "The Restacking Simon-Eyes Pack" for an alternative version in which the cards really are shuffled. I consider that version to be a more sophisticated approach, but it has its own limitation, because need to do a faro shuffle). you the Third, performer does a lot of fishing, or pumping, for information -- but don’t compare this to other fishing techniques you’ve used before, because, strange as it may seem, you’re always guaranteed to be right.

So, how is this all accomplished? Simon-Eyes is based on an intricate interplay of two quite disparate principles: (1) an advanced fishing technique I call No No’s Fishing, and (2) a particular "selection" procedure used in combination with a unique prearranged deck. Before I can hone in on the specifics of Simon-Eyes, I need to discuss and explore each of these two in principles greater detail.

124

a do V

AO

SIMON-EYES

THE PROBLEM

The main problem with fishing, and the reason many performers avoid effects requiring fishing, has always been the potential damage that can arise from negative responses. It’s a great feeling to confidently and assertively tell a spectator that a card in his mind is red, and have him in nod, awe, because you seem to have delved into his innermost thoughts. It’s a less than great feeling to have him instead respond "No", or worse, "You goofed -- it’s black. " But, assuming that you don’t really know the color, then the only way to pump for information about the true color of the card is to run the risk of being wrong. And, of course, whether the example we use is the color of a playing card, or any other variable, the underlying principle seems to be true: to pump for information when there is more than one alternative, you must at least expose yourself to some possibility of "being wrong”. Many performers and authors accept negative responses in fishing as a necessary evil, but worth the risk. The memorable positive effects on the spectators when you succeed will be remembered, and can build reputations, while (hopefully) the misses will be forgotten or forgiven. Taking chances will permit and sometimes create miracles, that insistence on absolute certainty would never allow. There’s sometimes a kind of fun, a challenge, in "getting out of" a weak situation, in seeing how well you can handle it. As long as you have your "outs" planned ahead of time, you’ll be able to recover gracefully, and maybe even hide the fact that you momentarily erred. Some mentalists argue that a few misses strengthen the image of legitimacy, because a "real" mindreader would never get everything 100% correct. (It’s interesting to ponder how anyone might know how a real mindreader would appear). If

mistakes occur in the context of an overall performance that has a strong preponderance of clearly correct divinations, then a few such infrequent errors may be excused or accepted. But the question for the serious performer should still be faced: was the error tolerated because the audience is charitable or polite, (or worse, pitying)? The fundamental problem with negative responses is not whether they are laughed at, forgiven, or accepted, but what they do to the image are to trying you create, the impression you want to leave in the spectator’s mind, of and you Whether your powers. magician or mentalist, we’re always trying to create some feeling of having done something (at least mildly) impossible, of being someone who doesn’t resort to known human methods. So, when you confidently tell the spectator something and he replies "No" -- the bubble of your super-human image "pops", and you are reduced, at least for a moment, to a mere mortal. Your method has been "revealed" to be ordinary; you were guessing -- and you got it wrong. Depending on the circumstances, it could taint a performance, cast a cloud on other methods, or plant suspicion or disdain in the minds of an audience.

If you comb the literature for discussions of fishing, you’ll find that virtually all fishing techniques, and the particular words and patter for fishing, have been designed to deal with the problem of negative reSponses -- either by lessening the probability of their occurrence or by minimizing the harmful effects should a "No" arise. Orville Meyer’s "Principle of Majorities" in the (Magic Modern Manner, p. 22) and my thoughts on "Off-Center Fishing" (Qar_d l_de_§, p. 57) both explored the idea that each fishing statement you make should be true of of the remaining possibilities, rather than only half of them. This "skewing" towards more possible right answers both lessens the likelihood of getting a negative response, and compensates by assuring that, if you do elicit a "No", it will give you more specific information, by narrowing

M

125

“K THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?-

VAO

down the field of still-open choices. Meyer applied the skewing principle to fishing among a random field of options which are presented to you; I applied it to pre-arranging, planning and limiting the range of possible choices so that every instance of fishing could take advantage of some skewing. Gene Grant has applied the idea in the extreme case, by so selecting a group of 5 cards such that any "no" response immediately narrowed the field down to only possibility (Phantini’s Mental Key, p. 15). Peter Tappan proposed the "almost 93 remaining right" concept, that pointing out there is an important distinction in ultimate effect between errors that are perceived to be "nearly correct" (e. g., guessing, say, that the selection is a King, when in fact it’s a Jack), and errors that are perceived to be ”very, very wrong" (e. g., guessing red when the card is black). (TE Impostress Princess, p. 49). The patter used in dealing with negative responses has ranged from lame excuses (Mental Interference: "I’m sorry, I was receiving someone else’s impressions . . .") to buffoonery ("Your is card a cherry-colored card . . ."). More subtle verbal techniques have included playing on ambiguities, hesitating mid-sentence (to see if there’s a response), or making oblique statements like "You’re not thinking of a red card, are you?" In the hands of a skilled and quick-thinking performer some of these techniques can be quite powerful, and can definitely help down-play or the "No” response. defuse, At the other extreme, it’s actually very easy to totally eliminate all possibility of a negative response -- if you’re willing to pay the price. Here’s a silly example, just to illustrate the other horn of the dilemma. Assume that a spectator has removed, say, five unknown cards from a deck and they’re face down on the table; however, you’ve secretly managed to guide or limit his selection (through pre-arrangement of the deck) so that in fact all five of his cards are red, but he doesn’t realize this. You ask him to peek at any 9m: card, and then replace all five back into the deck. You then read his mind, by telling him his card is "a red one". Clearly, can be confident of no negative response. Moreover, from the spectator’s point of view, you’ve actually accomplished some (minor) mindreading, because as far as he’s concerned, it could just as well have been a black card. The problem, of course, is that your guess of "red" and his confirmation of it doesn’t really constitute fishing at all, because i_t doesn’t giv_e you fly ne_w information. You don’t learn anything from his response, you don’t narrow the field at all. After all, the whole point in fishing is notjust to guarantee one right answer ("Red") but to keep learning more with each response, so you can give successive right answers.

m

Is there any method that can totally eliminate the negative response, and yet still continue to provide more and more valuable information, so that

you can proceed?

NO NO'S FISHING

The answer is "Yes" -- if you fish fl); things at m _sam_e tim_e. In my discussion of I explored some variations to fishing in QaLd my effect "The Aronson Artifice". In that trick, the Off-Center Fishing concept is applied separately to two distinct groups of force cards, it that so appears that the performer reads the mind of each of two spectators. In my comments, I pointed out that the Off-Center could be concept applied not only to each person’s range of possibilities separately, but also to the possible combinations of the two thought of cards taken together, and the response to such combined fishing questions could provide direct insight into both cards. No No’s Fishing is the development of that idea.

m,

126

M

a“ or-

va o

'

SIMON-EYES

Let me illustrate the basic concept with a specific and concrete example, to show how you it works. We’ll limit ourselves just to the values of playing cards. All cards (excluding the Joker) are either spot cards (A through 10) or picture cards (J, Q or K). There are many more spot cards than there are picture cards (which makes this an ideal criteria to use for Off-Center Fishing) but for this example let’s initially put aside this imbalance, and just consider the " logical" alternatives. If one, spectator is thinking of a card, and the performer "gets the impression of a spot card", there are responses: either the spectator will confirm that the performer is correct, or he’ll indicate some negative response (by saying "no”, or shaking his head). The spectator always respond, one way or the other, because knows performer i_s addressing him.

fl

M

E

m

M

If, however, there are spectators (let’s call the first spectator Mr. A and the second one Miss B) each of whom is thinking of his or her own ”mental" card, there now are four possible combinations of how the spot/picture criteria may logically apply: Case #1:

Both A and B might each think of a spot card; or

Case #2:

A might think of a spot card, while B thinks of a picture card; or

Case #3:

A might think of a picture card, while B thinks of a spot card; or

Case #4:

Both A and B might each think of a picture card.

Now suppose the performer addresses both Spectators together and explains that he will attempt to read their minds. He will receive impressions, bit by bit, and he will announce whatever he impressions receives; all he asks each spectator to do is confirm (by saying Yes, or raising their hand, or nodding Yes, or whatever) when the performer’s impressions are correct. The performer asks both spectators to concentrate on their respective cards. He talks to both of them; his head moves back and forth between the two spectators, making eye contact with both of them; then he confidently announces, still addressing his comment to both spectators, "I ’m receiving the definite impression of a spot card. Please confirm if you ’re thinking of a spot card. " What would be the spectators’ response? For each of the above four cases, the response will be different:

Response in Case #1: A and B will both confirm that the performer is correct. Response in Case #2: A will confirm that the performer is correct, and B, seeing A’s acknowledgment, will conclude that the performer has successfully received an impression from A of A’s spot card. Response in Case #3:

will confirm that the performer is correct, and A, seeing B’s acknowledgment, will conclude that the performer has successfully received an impression from B of B’s spor card. B

Response in Case #4: Both A and B will pause or hesitate, each knowing that he (or she) didn’t think of a spot card. When, after such a pause, one looks at the other and sees no affirmative response, they’ll 127

THE ARONSON APPROACH

do V A

9

shake their heads ”no" to give and disappointed, look probably a negative response. "no" response, the eliminated has cases three first We’re almost there -- each of the stands as a glaring still #4 case Only mindreading. of no" and will appear to be a successful instance ”double the and no" "double response, Case #4 is the failure. performer’s the of example this situation confront must We two spectators. between is still the Achilles’ heel when fishing will double no response the that so with it is to arrange things dealing of best the and way #4 from -situation of the possibility eliminate will completely pack Simon-Eyes The Beyer; happen. ever occurring. the first three cases: from far, learned so we’ve main point Let’s summarize the either to with respect is correct impression" "received namely, as long as the performer’s as having successfully spectators) both including spectator, he will be perceived (by everyone, read someone’s mind. from the first three cases -- a point learn can we another point There is, however, yet with the next proceed to the performer allow which is equally important, and will ultimately affirmative receives an the performer cases three first mindreading step. Although in all of the is different and distinguishable affirmative responses three the of response, nevertheless, each confirms. And only 3 or confirms, gn_ly A or confirm, from each other. Either 129th spectators seeing who, for. By is looking he information additional this distinction gives the performer the mental about my; new something learn will the performer will gives the affirmative response, the performer receives, he affirmative responses three selections. Regardless of which of the B’s card is a spot or picture whether and card, picture is or card a spot learn pom whether A’s to a tame, innocuous "no" response damaging converted a card. The procedure has, in essence, verbalize a "no", doesn’t spectator non-confirming The silent". response of simply "remaining Yet, other participant. the from came impression realizes he your or think you’re wrong, because if the silent as information valuable much as this silence still conveys to the performer just " wrong! spectator had yelled out "No, you’re is one of the key principles far thus described we’ve The concept of No No’s Fishing with the criteria of spot only used not be will Fishing No’s No on which Simon-Eyes is based. in the entire routine. Whether for fish variable we other vs. picture card, but also with every the Simon-Eyes pack whatever, low cards, or of a you’re fishing for values, or suits, or range chosen by the two cards of gets what pair matter no is structured so that in all instances, will never be a "double no" response. mere "impressions" , spectators, when you announce your and this will correct, are that confirm you will always One or the other or both of the spectators This "impression". next announce which to your information on always give you the necessary both cards exactly. know until continue you will procedure

THE SIMON-EYES ARRANGEMENT

possible "pair" that every can guarantee arrangement or What kind of deck structure fishable with respect to every be will always the two spectators of cards that might be chosen by no" response? "double a produce will never and variable,

128

40.59

SIMON-EYES

if both occur only would response the double negative #4, case example, In our present "double no” situation can occur a basis, generalized card. On a more picture impose a choose somehow therefore, Spectators We must, non-fished—for attribute. the select selection the into restriction, only if both Spectators of unnoticed manner minor, some limitation, card. of picture a choose some subtle form simultaneously both spectators to for possible is not it when that spectator, second the procedure, so to give we subtle instruction from a partly will come cards, or more what That limitation control over of our But the main source card. her “selects“ the special be will she mentally think of, can cards, the spectators of ”pairs" possible what precisely over arrangement of the Simon—Eyes pack. order: following the in bottom, to Arrange a deck of cards, from top 2D 40 28 27 2H 14 1 2C 3H 41 3C 28 3D 15 38 2 9D 42 98 29 911 16 9C 3 4C 43 4D 30 48 17 4H 4 108 44 10H 31 10C 18 10D 5 5D 45 SS 32 SH 19 SC 6 AC 46 AD 33 AS 20 AH 7 68 47 611 34 6C 21 6D 8 JD 48 IS 35 H J 22 JC 9 7C 49 7D 36 78 23 711 10 QB 50 QC 37 QD 24 11 Q8 88 51 811 38 8C 25 8D 12 KD 52 i. KS 39‘ KH 26 KC 13 regularity of or ordering, particular if of cards, to see any order the examine to moment going Take a you’re in performance, Later on, shouldn’t. color, emerges. It or pattern, or randomized "shuffled" deck sequence, of is sort the this the spectators; of front in this pack to be spreading they’ll see. With the experiment. simple let’s a try what’s to come, Now, to give you a taste of card face up to the deal top Now, cut. the and complete cards the cut above, as stacked deck face up to your right card next the deal and very the first selection) will represent left (that that the actual conclusion your the to 919111 jump Now, please selection). second the the pack and taking (to represent cutting to resemblance have will any selection procedure used in Simon-Eyes a simple demonstrate is to just This experiment -- it doesn’t. other each to next cards two property of the pre-arrangement. of the least one that at with certainty tell I you If you’ve proceeded thus far, then can in the Simon-Eyes because, Simply How? card. is a sp0t cards two selections facing you picture two are never there that cards are interspersed so the picture of all prearrangement, somehow be secretly could selection second the if in practice Thus, other. each to the first next following right immediately card the it always winds up being that such limited controlled or the Simonhow instantly see can then you Simon—Eyes arrangement, the in selection earlier In spectator’s our occurring. from ever "double no" response dreaded the prevent can Eyes pack 129

ol-

VA0

ARONSON APPROACH THE _________________________——————-——-——-

time the performer the only that saw we cards, and picture spot between fished " would be if bill; when we example, card " of a spot the impression getting to response negative for the could receive a procedure selection the limitation on The deck, plus a subtle cards. had picture "double no" response spectators a would produce that cards of second spectator, will assure that a pairing but for eveg distinction, the spot/picture with will be true not just ‘ can never happen. And this variable on which we fish. a feel for give to you prelude lengthy and I warned you that it would take a complex {belt to under your "theory" got enough you’ve this point, At about. all is what Simon-Eyes that Simondirection the understand and to to be overcome, need that the problems down to appreciate we get as clear become rest will The these hurdles. overcome to follow will Eyes I’m going to take you, step Simon-Eyes. of presentation actual 1_1_o_t specifics, so let’s now focus on an that recommend you I of Simon-Eyes. presentation entire an through detail, in great feel for the by step a to get it through read just reading; on your first things memorize learn or to scenes". There the try "behind mentally doing what you’re and entire routine, how it hangs together, the end, I’ll have a at Besides, it seriously. learn and will be plenty of time later to go back will be of some help. that examples and some "bare bones" summary THE SELECTION PROCEDURE (steps 3-5), patter preliminary During order. your 1) Start with a deck in Simon-Eyes the pack. of order the disturb don’t which shuffles, false if you like, you can give the deck a few Kings) Eight Stebbins or Si deck (like entire the Note that the prearrangement i_s cyclic throughout false shuffle that in fact likewise, any of times; number few so the deck can be legitimately cut any a the pack I’ll give I’m standing, If used. Ladder) could be the Up cards (e. the g. , cuts only shuffles. It’s completely Zarrow two do or one I’ll usually false overhand shuffles; when sitting, will enhance the shuffling such preliminary whether and taste individual judgment own to "feel" that up your the general have the if spectators subliminal plus presentation. lt’s probably an added because, frankly, you shuffling mention any expressly wouldn’t I the cards are randomized, but is supposed to be a this that mind in Keep much as possible. want to de—emphasize the deck as make the cards seem too to best it’s not in and ways many mental experiment, not a card trick, is simply important what’s really it though as You want to treat important to what you’re doing. "convenience" that is a simply deck the of minds; the presence spectators’ two the and mind your g9_n_’_t want to look like an certainly You concretely. allows people to visualize their cards more the cards. about studied or cautious, careful, be too to should appear you nor handler, card switched the expert secretly whether you’ve for example, A lot depends on what has gone on before, shuffled as part of your prior experiments, been its already that think deck so that the spectators the first time. The for it introduce to its case from the pack or whether you’re removing offliand, and unplanned. casual, look should it cards, the mix do important point is that, if you will ask which you two spectators focus on audience, 2) As you start to address your to follow your enough obedient and intelligent be to assist you. It is essential that they attitude of wanting to with positive a cooperative, be instructions. It’s quite important that they Also stay away from mischievous. or challenging hostile, help you. Avoid anyone who appears close-mouthed. Their or withdrawn, shy, are or people who seem flighty or free-spirited, and show the count when cards individual you the discern eyesight should be good enough to other, so that each close to fairly sitting who are faces to them. You must choose two spectators 130

SIMON-EYES

'

.t- v

a»

o

to comments address your can fishing you that during the and so other, the to one can whisper both of them, together. need to mentally sort where routine you the in In order to facilitate the few places consider the two I if can tremendously me I find it helps things, different remember the spectator on the things out, or use I always Accordingly, each time I perform. "consistently", selection) and the spectator spectators first the make will who one (the "first” Spectator the as left) I’ll use A to left (my the text, Throughout selection. second make the will who the one as descriptions these make on my right (To second spectator. refer to the refer to the first spectator, and B to and Miss B a woman). A man, a Mr. made I’ve even easier to follow, is appropriate to demonstrate an it where be one should 3) Your performing context immediately Simon-Eyes perform don’t other words, you in experiment experiment in mindreading. (In an to perform were I Address your audience, "If cup). Chop the him what told following, say, and mind his read I then think of a card, and merely to someone asked which I might cross explanations several possible but be impressed, his choice, that card he was thinking of, you might influence to managed I in some way, You might think that somehow, mind. to happened I chance that by your lucky, think that I was just might Or random. you ’ ’t truly we had that it wasn the with person, ’in cahoots think that I was might Or time. you that one mindreading experiment for get it right that very attempt ’m to going I To explanations. planned it all beforehand together. possible those upfront to each of myself address to want -— I but insures absolutely that you right now ’ ’ll procedure use a ’3 we choice, make sure that I don ’t ’influence anyone ’s not just a one-shat lucky it that certain make To random. completely is of make thought card the And to that in row. twice a it to doing ’11 repeat it -— I ’ll commit myself now I ’11 do it with two occurrence, I person, and particular a me between certain that there ’5 nothing prearranged " people. dijferent is to follow, and what for the tone It sets is crucial. Clearly the opening speech exact words are my While adopt. you’ll the procedures for For provides a context and justification and performances. trials after many with care, out worked been have they not sacrosanct, someone’s choice; you goal influencing" "not to refer this that later example, it makes a difference that you You’ll see forced." feel "I don’t want you to like terms magician-type want to use as an artificial or perceived been have otherwise introduction will help convert what might assuring that the choices are truly of method logical and obvious restriction, into a plausible random. in a moment I 'm "Mr. A, explain, then and assist you, Wait. 4) Ask your two spectators to think yet. one of 4911;; but, -this in pack the cards of one think any of have in any you influenced going to psychologically be to not and random, We want your choice to be completely y_o_u don 't since and mixed, well cards pretty are choice, since the random a To insure between I mannernumber think of any simply to the pack, I want you know the location of any card in and don’t let me 52, I and between number specific " Fine. and 52. JuSt mentally decide on any number? random Have you decided on a specific, [Pause]. in way. any influence you 1 casually spread the faces towards mixed, well being pretty false As I utter the phrase about the cards preliminary two or one doing be your seen which to the spectators. This is a good point at shuffles, if you so elect. ‘

‘

131

oi- V

THE ARONSON APPROACH

AQ

’d like you I number, random truly ’ve chosen a that "Now you tell A, ’5 to Continue It it. 5) hear she can only into B’s ear so that number " random that and whisper number. lean over know to your B, could possibly Miss than other important that neither I, nor anyone it clear that you’re out of earshot, and couldn’t possibly it in her mind, Allow A a chance to do this, making has number, the heard she’s and confirm that B, to turn Then number. learn the what it is. know let won’t anyone also she and that "limitation" I mentioned the is A, as number This step, of having B use the same no good, probably there’s this experiment, performing mindreader actual an were If earlier. that you play you it’s important So A. as number l_i_a_ve to use the same should B why reason is in fact freely logical number the that doing: points about what you’re the good emphasize and I’ll mention that Sometimes up etc. it, knows from 1-52, m one anywhere could it memories". range chosen, both into it your "burning of number is a good way the know other the person having using it to inject by plus, presentational into a weak point potential this turned I’ve occasion, On at the outset, number, the chooses initially who actually matter doesn’t it Since humor. little outside influence a to less and open independent, is more could other I’ll ask both spectators: "Which of you the that imply to wants " This can draw some chuckles, as neither one him (or her) and address or suggestion? I’ll volunteers, of the two spectators ’ll be "manipulated". Whichever one you influence, outside to be any open who ’5 less likely to the one you’re K. since "0. continue, , think of any number Please the in deck. random position be in charge of choosing an absolutely iry‘luence or know your could possibly I which in there’s no way between 1 and 52, but make sure mentally chosen the freely, whisper to I ask spectator that choice. " Then, once that’s been done, who will know world the in ones the only be both you’ll that "so other spectator, the to number wind up thinking both spectators that critical it’s " However it, you present and random that random number. is completely number the that realizes both that and everyone number, the same of it. know possibly not could that you at the very occurs the spectators between number Keep in mind that this sharing of a selections have the after Later on, what’s going to happen. know yet really they before I simply outset, number; the same used both spectators that been made, I don’t mention or emphasize number between 1 and 52 in your mind. " This may remind each of them that "you had a random had mentally chosen a them of each that afterwards recollection leave the general impression or number. number, that the same use both spectators It is this simple instruction, of having you’ll be doing. the fishing all of and pack the pre-arranged between link critical the unnoticed provides minor, a (hopefully) as by that goes something It is a quite subtle form of limitation, it will serve to underestimated: be cannot its power restriction in the selection procedure. But and it guarantees that occurring, from no" ever "double eliminate every possible instance of the belt, and thus endless in single a positions consecutive will be from cards of pair possible every A’s card will be freely although that, it means In essence, fished. can be comfortably and quickly But since the spectators selection. A’s "fixed" by and determined chosen, B’s card will always be it does not occur card, either about number or chosen mentally never reveal anything about the such a limitation how alone limitation (let such a could have imposed to anyone that the performer could ever be useful).

-

132

'

.1-

v 4» o

SIMON-EYES

false preliminary any completing, be just or finished, have should the this point you over control 6) At have don’t any that you emphasize to want If do. you to Then, cut. the shuffles you chose complete and deck the cut the spectators of one have 1 can deck, from the in order of the cards, you numbered position particular a of thinking ’11 "You're and I deck, entire look at A, and explain, the aloud through count to ’m I gang random listen and watch to to 52. It’s been chosen at want I you not try to hide anything. and slowly, ’ll the I card. go at that falls card show you every playing remember the particular and note to want I you to be thinking of carefully, and happen if example, you For of. you’re thinking position numbered the card that falls at card, particular the fifth remember ’ll the cards, you Once you card. the number 5, then as I show you that know will only you know your number, so only But 5. mu mind, so number in indelibly position your card, the strong mental picture of a to form want I you card, remember it instantly. see your able to be ’d still it was, you card what week next asked comfortable Mr. you that if I you’re as long as want, instructions in any way you these give You can "? Okay A, "Now dog stop caution I also ambiguity. uncertainty or no there’s that and smile, or A comprehends, look or away, inadvertently to ’t don want you " I number; reach your deck. once entire you watching through the I’ve until gone continue let me hints. Just anything; don ’t give me any a vertical to hand up lift and your dealing position, 7) Hold the deck in left hand thumb off the top card to going You’re faces towards the spectator. height, chest about its face is clearly position so vertically it holding up hand, right into it take your and deck, the fingers are of the right corner, right lower the at thumb is behind, The right A. Mr. left thumb to the displayed ". At "I once, announce hand takes this card, right As face. your the hand can in front on the right that so momentarily, and the hands come together card, second the off "jamming“ or pushes partially assists by hand left The card. first lift and then take this new card in front of the individually of sort fingers and the right fingers, the right beneath card the is holding. The sliding already hand the right card hold of the first lose to not as so its their grip, re-take hand packet, the right of front the onto card is taken second this and as for then separate, hands and display counting this repeat count "2". Now, just as A, you to displayed so is clearly hand face packet, the right of front the to card left hand the top taking time each deck, the entire make sure the right fingers deck, the deplete As disturbed. you cards. that the order of the pack is not any drop accidentally to not as so hand portion, retain a sound grip on the right comparing it If you’re tedious. sounds This counting and display procedure probably card is slower. undoubtedly it changes, visual with instant passes or card magic, cards at a finger-flinging to 18 that you can count the fact The time-consuming. that it’s not mentalism, for But what to look for. He’s not trying exactly knows already quite rapid clip, because the spectator and he knows and is prepared for, exactly when it’s about card, instant after each to remember anything except one an for just pausing rapidly, I count and show the cards quite view. into thus goes to come count My himself. orient the spectator take a breath and to help both to of five, "50", I then count the group count After and ." on. so "1—2-3-4-5 [Hesitate] 6-7-8-9-10 [Hesitate] . . it’s a full deck, that emphasize if to " as deliberately, and clocked myself last two cards "51 . . . and 52 slowly just (I’ve cards. 52 of one of any in fact thought 1 and that the spectator could have pack. entire the take me to go through does it actually long how 37 with a stopwatch, just to see exactly takes It me in I performance. as would the same pace and at aloud did it, counting seconds).

133

O 5 THE ARONSON APPROACH ____________________—————————— detail what, in essence, is simply I!- V

in describing in and care time much this I’ve taken it’s this deal step; over make big a to I’m trying not 52. showing the cards and counting up to timing, delivery, is patter, everything: presentation effect, entire just that, candidly, in this much You pretty know. go need can to really all you display, clarity and emphasis is basically (1) make sure the spectator points: three important emphasize as fast as you want. Let me just _a_t the same number each make sure say (2) you is "ready" and watching before you start to count; as to ambiguity there’s no so hand portion, the right of face Lime that the card is displayed at the face that they cards so the and body and turn (3) your which card goes with which number; _s_g mat B cannot view the cards; and them) him see to for it make easy squarely towards A (to cards as they’re counted. the see audience can the of members it doesn’t matter whether other; she’ll see that or run—through, first this cards on the B (It’s not that its "wrong” for Miss to see she’ll sometimes is B watching, if that found I’ve anything she’s not supposed to. Rather, the "random" numbered knows she -forget card (don’t A’s mentally note and remember fishing; subsequent with interfere occasion your could it on does see A’s card, position). If Miss B sometimes tries impressions, announcing your start in an effort to "help" you, when you have remained silent) should she card, her own to with respect to say "Yes" (even though, It’s just a bit safer, and card. A’s Mr. about correct because she ”knows" your impressions concentrate on). card to her has own she only if for B, less confusing turn towards B and as you procedure, and display counting this finish 8) After you double undercut the top casually then and card, the beneath top break start to talk to her, obtain a few of your most convincing deck the a give that’s done, Once card of the deck to the bottom. the single card transfer instead and undercut double the omit false shuffles. You may, if you like, from top to bottom as part of your shuffle sequence. "We’ve had one card mentally selected, by remark, shuffle, you As you (apparently) then mixing; them good a and give the cards, ’ll shujfle deck. I using a random position in the left " It are the that spectators is important card. second selecr a we ’11 use the chosen number to the cards of order the that and shuffled, been fully has deck the with the definite impression that the first spectator’s run through. existed during order as the same it’s not that and so has changed, Be casual, and hands. one’s burning and your no There’s no pressure on you, audience is paying The the two spectators. between "lull" the remember, this is the offbeat, indeed you hide anything; to You’re not trying actions. attention to what you’re saying, not your shuffled. want the spectators to see that the cards are being §_l_t_e_

3

will that one no the cards, so I’ve shuffled "Miss B, B, address After the false shuffle, would read t_w_Q I that earlier is. it I promised where is, A’s card or have any idea of what this time I want you to focus and cards again, ’11 shufi‘led the through people ’s minds, so we go numbered have specific a already Now, did. A Mr. you on a playing card, in the same way confirm. This she can so Hesitate, right?" earlier, to A position in mind, that whispered you "Using that Continue, mind. in her it firm to up number, the recall also gives her a chance to lies at that position in this that now card the new remember and look at number, I want you to A in step 6 above, so that to instructions " gave the you same of the gist shufl‘led pack. Repeat " random" number the is she to use that understands she that sure B will know what to do, making A whispered to her earlier.

134

SIMON-EYES

it V Q Q

_______________———————————— time from to 52, taking them singly 1 at aloud a cards one the count Once again, 9) and try towards B, cards the and body Turn B. face to each your displaying into the right hand, that B notes her Make faces. the doesn’t A see sure through, this it run on that, to arrange so it firmly in her to several plant times, herself to its name ask her to and repeat particular card, memory.

it Later on, if you remind Miss B of the randomness of "her" number, and that might in number, Miss B will never feel that she was ”channelled" or narrowed down have been that she might have thought believe she’ll B is concerned, far as artificial as forced or way; some of any of the 52 cards.

m

I’m a worrier, and so in the first few times I performed this effect, I tried to arrange lest any one the two deal throughs so that I faced different parts of the audience. I was concerned that the "notice" I afraid might someone both was times; cards the audience in the saw person I found that this the remained same. consecutive cycle) the one cards the of (i.e., relative order lo_ok_s too randomized and the deck the watching, if are Even people cautious. was being overly focus on a cards go by too fast. If people do watch for something, they invariably seem to position particular position or a particular card -- and, because of the undercut of one card, every has in fact changed to a different card. So relax. later on Square up the cards, and put the deck aside. Don’t mention the deck, and when you recap, don’t remind them about the details of the selection procedure. If the spectators’ recollection is "guided" prOperly, it should seem afterwards as though you simply spread the cards and had A merely think of any one; then you did the same with B. " but straight mindreading". be it’s to nothing going here From on,

FISHING IN THE SIMON-EYES PACK

We’re about to commence mindreading, by reporting to the spectators the "impressions" you’re receiving. It’s uncanny that you’ll always be correct. Before I give you my particular patter and presentation angles, I want to explain just how the fishing will work, as you narrow in on both spectators’ cards. The fishing procedure in Simon—Eyes is not like anything you’ve ever seen before; there’s a completely pre-established combination of cards the possible of Every each for step and way. statements criteria of pattern is covered, so there’s no contingency or special circumstance that might require adlibbing, and alternatives uncertainty, or backtracking. It may take you a little while to learn the variables I’ll show you how a prompt or cue card "by heart" (though, frankly, that’s not really necessary follow pretty much the same can be used); however, once you’ve got it down pat, the statements the bulk of your effort and attention able to concentrate be you’ll so time, format or every pattern toward your presentation and acting ability. ——

Let me mention some of the more unique or finer points about fishing in the SimonEyes pack:

135

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?" 4‘ O

(i) First and foremost, you always address your comments to both spectators together, and you make it clear that the impressions you’re receiving and announcing might come from either, or both, of them. All you ever ask the two spectators to do is simply confirm when you’re correct -- but it’s essential that they’re both aware that you’re addressing them (each of them); they must b_om be attentive and ready to

respond. (ii) All the information you’ll get comes in "pairs" «that is, you’ll always learn about 1mm spectator’s cards simultaneously. It’s never true, for example, that you might know the value of one card but not yet know the value of the other card -- you learn both values a_t the same 2931; in the fishing procedure. The same goes with the suits - the information always comes in pairs. (iii) The procedure and the effect is structured so that you learn much more than you actually reveal. Thus for example, at the opening of the fishing, you might, say, get an impression of a spot card, and one spectator confirms that’s correct. Perhaps next you’ll announce an impression about the shape of the card’s index, and again, say, one spectator acknowledges that you’re right. Even though those two "impressions" are quite general, and could cover hundreds of possible combinations of cards -- believe it or not, at that point, just from that information, you will already know the precise values of both spectators’ mental selections. As far as the spectators are concerned, however, you’re just starting, just scratching the surface. But in fact, you’re almost

we.

To take maximum advantage of this disparity between how mg}; you know and how li_t_t_le_: you appear to know, the routine is structured so that you give three or four general impressions, and then you take off the gloves and go direct for the jugular. You admit "so far I ’ve been batting 1000 -- but my impressions have been somewhat " general. Let’s get down to specifics. You then forthrightly tell both spectators their exact cards. It’s a shocker -- because it’s so unexpected. (iv) The response to each impression you announce will always be either a "double yes" (i.e., both spectators confirm that you’re correct), or a ”single yes" (i.e., one or the other of the spectators, but not both, confirms your statement). Whenever you get a "single yes" , it will give you more, or better, information than a "double yes ", in the sense that it narrows down the remaining field of possibilities further than a "double yes" does. One corollary: whenever you get a "single yes" response, it’s important that you note and remember which spectator (Mr. A or Miss B) is giving you the confirmation. This allows you to distinguish which spectator has which card. (Don’t worry -- there will be plenty of examples to make this all clear later on). (v) The principle of Off-Center Fishing is used with each variable on which you fish. This means, simply, that I’ve arranged things so that, on any given impression, the possible yes’s and no’s are mt, evenly divided; there are always more possible "yes" " " there than no are responses. For example, cards are either spot or picture responses cards. Those are the only two alternatives, so if you guess it’s a spot card, it might seem at first blush that the odds are "even": one out of two. But in fact there are 40

136

a. v a o

'

SIMON-EYES

_______________———————— if a cards the

deck and only 12 picture cards, so you guess "spot" card, the in spot logical odds by pure chance are already 10-3 in your favor. The spectators likely are not aware of this imbalance, and you, of course, do nothing to point it out. (vi) I’ve tried to gear all the fishing to the sort of impressions a real mindreader might receive. Naturally, this requires a certain leap of imagination, but my idea of being a mentalist somehow involves receiving thoughts as "pictures”, or images, or things that can be visualized. All the criteria, and your patter in each attempt to receive an impression, falls under this "imaging”, or ”picturing” presentation. I find it presents by asking them a particularly helpful way to get the spectators to focus on something, " Maybe the idea that we visual before it image "think you. of as a to "picture it" or can transmit visual ”images" will be accepted as a cogent, or plausible, explanation. (Not incidentally, this ”picture" approach also allows me to create certain new and subtle categories --like the shape of the index, or the shape of the pips -- that allow the Off-Center principle to function without being very obvious). (vii) Always keep in mind that the audience is viewing what you’re doing from a totally different perspective than what you’re really doing -— because of their innocent view of the mathematical odds involved. As far as the audience is concerned, there are thousands of different combinations of "any two cards" that might possibly have been mentally chosen. (If they ever bother to work it out, they’d calculate 2,652 logically possible combinations of two different cards chosen randomly from a deck). But in fact, because of the prearranged pattern maintained by the false shuffles, and the secret limitation imposed on the second spectator’s choice, the real number of possible combinations of cards, considering every possibility that might logically be chosen in the Simon-Eyes pack is, believe it or not, only 52! There are only 52 different combinations among which you’re fishing -- so you’ve eliminated the other 2600 alternatives before you even start. Don’t be hesitant to remind your audience of the overwhelming odds you face. (viii) Finally, you’ll always fish first for the values of the selections, and then for their suits. Depending on which values happen to be selected, you’ll need a minimum of two fishing impressions, or a maximum of three, to discern the specific values. On the suits, you’ll need either one or tWo fishing impressions, to get both suits. Thus, putting everything together, depending on what combination of cards your spectators choose, the overall fishing will always take somewhere between three to five general "impressions" -- and at that point you’ll know both cards.

FISHING FOR THE VALUES

We now (finally) get down to the heart of the effect -- how you actually will fish for both cards. As I’m sure you have realized by now, the act of undercutting one card from top to bonom of the deck has the result of simply moving each card up, or forward, one numerical position throughout the entire deck. This means that Mr. A’s "random" numbered position used in the first run through will now be occupied by the very next card in the prearranged sequence 137

4- v as

THE ARONSON APPROACH

o

on the second run through. Thus, the net effect of both spectators’ using the same number plus the undercut of a single card, is to force the two spectators to select two cards which lie together in the stack. Of course, the "mental" selection procedure of showing the entire deck and never having either spectator touch a card or say anything, plus the apparent shuffles, completely masks this "forced" pairing. As far as the spectators are concerned, their selections are independent of each other. The process of fishing in the Simon-Eyes pack thus reduces to determining which two adjacent cards in the prearranged order have been selected. First you’ll fish for the values of the two cards, because you’ll use this information later to assist in determining the suits. The starting point for understanding how the values operate is first to learn the following order or sequence of the 13 values:

~2-3-9-4-lO-5-A-6-J-7-Q—8-K Figure 36 If you go back and examine the order of the Simon-Eyes pack, you’ll see that the above sequence of the thirteen values repeats itself four times throughout the stack, thus forming one endless loop or cycle. If the above sequence of the thirteen values initially seems a bit too random to remember, that’s good. We want the deck to appear randomized. However, it’s not as random as it appears. If I re—write that exact same sequence of values, this time breaking it up in two "alternating" lines, one above the other:

/\/\/\/\/\/\ 10

9

2-93

4

J

A

5

6

O

7

K

8

(2)->

Figure 37 a pattern begins to emerge. If you divide the thirteen values into " lows " (2 through 8) and "highs" (9 through A), you’ll see that the bottom row contains all the low cards, and they’re in ascending order from left to right. The upper row contains all the high cards, and, except for the Ace, they 138

F SIMON-EYES

4- V A O

which will too are arranged in ascending order. (The Ace is out of sequence for a reason, become clear in a moment. The Ace is a 5M card, and it’s very important, to make the fishing work, that the spot cards be all grouped together).

The diagonal arrows up or down still show the overall sequence as it extends into throughout the deck, but the arrows also serve to conveniently break up this value sequence thirteen discrete "pairs". Each separate "pair” consists of the cards at either end of an arrow; the card at the "shaft" end of the arrow is always the first card of the pair, and the card at "point" end of the arrow is always the second card of that pair. The spectator’s cards, taken together, must always be one of these thirteen possible pairs. Notice that, while some of the arrows point and makes it easy to This left signifies, from to right. £1 point they down, and point some up remember, that all of the 13 pairs are always read in ”left to right", or AB, order. The first card of any given pair will always be the first spectator’s (A’s) value, and the second card of that pair will be the second spectator’s (B’s) value. These are the only possible combinations for the two values of the Spectators’ selections; whichever value Spectator A’s card is, B’s value will always be the one immediately following it, as shown by the arrow. (Examples: If A’s card is a 4, 8’3 card will always be a 10, or if A’s card is a Queen, B’s card will be an 8. Note that, if A’s card is a King, B’s card will be a 2, since as mentioned, the sequence is cyclic and repeats itself throughout the deck). These 13 possible pairs fall into three groups for purposes of fishing. The 2-3 pair is a special pair unto itself; it’s the only pair in which b_o_t_h_ cards are "low" (both in the "bottom row"). I call this pair the Double Low Pair, and it’s easily remembered, just because it is unique. (Keep in mind that each of these thirteen pairs denotes not only the two values, but the values in t_h__a_t order: thus the Double Low Pair is always 2-3, the ,2 first, followed by the 3. It’s never 32. This is important, because the order of the pair follows the order of the spectators. Once you determine the correct pair, you’ll not only know what the two values are, but also who has which). The remaining twelve pairs divide conveniently into two groups of six. One group consists of the six pairs where A has a low card and B has a high card: I call these six the "Up Pairs" , because the values, going from A’s card to B’s card, always go up, or higher. Another them go diagonally @: way of thinking of these six Up Pairs is that the arrows connecting The Up Pairs

Figure 38

139

a!- V

THE ARONSON APPROACH

4O

The other six remaining pairs are the ”Down Pairs”, because the values, going from A’s card to 3’8 card, always step down, from a high card to a low card. Pictorially, you can also think of these six pairs as the ones where the arrows go diagonally down: 'C

iDown

Pairs

-

Figure 39 (Again, note that the K-2 pair is a Down Pair. The King is always followed by a Deuce, because of the repeated sequence throughout the deck).

The two spectators, Mr. 'A and Miss B, will thus always have either an Up Pair, or a Down Pair, or the Double Low Pair. Don’t feel you’ve got to memorize everything at this point; it’s not necessary. I’m just showing you how the pairs break out, and how the relationships among the cards work. Eventually, as you get more and more familiar with the pairs, you’ll find that these pairs or groupings will come to mind automatically. Alternatively, it’s quite easy to use a small prompt or cue card that simply depicts the 13 values written like this:

9 2

3

4

10

A

5

6

J

O

7

K

8

(2)

Figure 40 and you’ll find that you can pretty much "work out" the necessary pairs as you go along (See Comment 6).

You’re now ready to begin your fishing expedition. You’ve just finished having both selections made, and the deck is put aside. Address both spectators together, as you explain the ground rules of how you’ll proceed. "I’m going to try to read both of your minds, and discern which card each of you is thinking of. I ’m going to try to receive your thoughts bit by bit, in visual images, so it ’5 important that you continually try to have a concrete mental picture in your mind of what your card looks like. I’ll ask you to focus on particular parts of your card, and when I do, it will help me if you concentrate all your imagination just on that one part, or one feature. Just try your best. I won’t ask any questions, and I’ll announce to you my mental 10)

140

4- V 4 O

'

SIMON-EYES

impressions, as I receive them. All I ask is that, if I ’m right, if my impressions are correct about the card you ’re thinking of, that you con/inn that fact. Your confirmation is important, so that ’ everyone will know when I’m correct. Just a simple 'Yes is fine, or nod your head, or raise your hand. When you confirm that I’m correct, I’ll be able to proceed. OK"? It is absolutely essential that the spectators understand this requirement. If your announced "impression" is correct about a spectator’s own card, he or she affirmatively confirm.

M

Make certain that both spectators are alert and ready, then continue, "Every card is either a spot card, that is, an Ace through a Ten, or a picture card, a Jack, Queen or King. That ’s the strongest, most vivid, visual contrast there is, so I ’m going to start with that. I want you both to concentrate on just that one feature, whether your mental selection is a spot card or a picture card. Please concentrate. " As you address the spectators, make certain that you are talking to _bo_th of them. You should make eye contact with both, and move your head and body back and forth, so that your gestures and body language relate to both of them. Each spectator must feel that he or she is being engaged in a dialogue with you, so that each will be ready to confirm if your impression applies to his or her card. 11) I’ve mentioned that, except for the deck of cards, there are no other props of any kind needed, and that’s true. However, I do use one Optional item that I find extremely helpful, and I thought it would be useful if I described it here, so that you can decide for yourself whether to use it. Keep in mind that you’re going to be asking the two spectators to form certain visual

images, or mental pictures, in their minds. While we, as magicians, are very familiar with playing cards and their peculiar features, many people play cards very often, and may not have much of a memory for exactly what cards " look like", how their pips are drawn, etc. The spectators won’t have the deck, or their actual card, in front of them; all they’ll have is their memory, which may not be well-formed to begin with. Accordingly, to "assist" the spectators in forming their mental pictures, I’ve prepared a simple chart, depicting the 13 indices and the four suit pips. An exact c0py of my chart is shown in Figure 41, and you’re free to photocopy and use it as you see fit.

gm

I introduce the chart, jokingly, as a "mind-reader’s eye chart ", because its printed in black letters on a white background, and loosely resembles an eye doctor’s chart. I explain that it may help the spectators as an aid to their visualization, and then I simply leave it on the table in front of them. While it does in fact help remind the spectators of what the cards and their features look like, it is also subtly constructed to make them think in certain ways. For example, with the eye chart, in first mentioning the distinction between spot and picture cards, I don’t need to expressly say that the spot cards include the Ace through the Ten. I just comment, pointing to the top row of the eye chart, "Here are the spot cards ", and, pointing to the second row (which shows just I Q K) "here are the picture cards. " The chart thus does most of the explaining for me, in a more subtle way.

You’ll find that this chart will be particularly helpful later on (steps 15, 16, and 17) when you ask the spectators to form a mental picture of the index, or the suit pip, of their card. Naturally you gl_o_n’_t want the chart to look like a "prop", or something hokey. You don’t want to build it up into anything "important"; it’s just a piece of paper, which the spectators can consult or disregard, as they see fit. I think you’ll find it pretty useful, and I’m very much indebted to Dave Solomon, who first suggested such a chart. 141

f ci- V

4O

SIMON-EYES

Act your mindreading best, and make it clear that you’re trying to receive impressions from both of them. Then announce, in a firm, positive, confident tone of voice, "I’m getting the definite impression of a spot card. Please raise your hand to confirm, if you ’re " thinking of a spot card. This statement, again, should be directed towards both spectators. 12)

Note carefully what you’ve said. You haven’t asked the spectators, ”Is your card a that spot card"? Indeed, you haven’t asked any question at all. Nor have you told the spectators their respective cards are a spot card. You have simply announced what impression you’ve received -- a spot card. You’ve committed yourself to a definite impression; you just haven’t had to say from whom. You then asked for whoever was concentrating on such an impression to confirm. As discussed above, one or the other or both of the spectators will confirm that your impression is correct. Whatever the response, smile triumphantly and nod your head towards the confirming spectator (or both of them, if both confirmed) to indicate your appreciation and your approval of their concentrating efforts. It’s important, on this first impression, that the spectators feel that tl_1_ey gm well, they were ”successful" in giving their confirmation -- it encourages them to feel positive about the experiment’s validity, and to give quicker confirmations on the next few impressions.

Now, let’s step back for a moment and see just what we’ve learned from the first response. Out of the 13 possible value pairs, 7 of them contain two spot cards, and thus will give you a double yes response, and the remaining 6 pairs each contain one spot and one picture card, and will thus produce a single yes response. The 13 pairs thus fall neatly into two groups, based on this first impression. Here’s the breakdown:

One Spot Card (Single Yes)

Two Spot Cards (Double Yes) 9

2

a

3

10

J

A

/ \4 / \ /' \ 5

6

6

O

K

/ \ / \ 8/ \ 7

2

Figure 42

(For convenience in using these charts, I’ve included both the 2 and the 6 twice, because they could wind up on either side of the "line". If you want a visual overview of where we’re heading, take a quick glance ahead at the tree chart in Appendix 2). From the above, you might conclude that, if you get a double yes, you’ve narrowed the field down from 13 possible value pairs to only 7, and conversely if you get a single yes the response, the field is narrowed down to 6 possible pairs. But that’s n_o_t correct; in fact, Simon-Eyes pack’s fishing arrangement is quite a bit more powerful. Remember, I mentioned earlier that whenever you get a single yes response, it gives you more, better information than 143

4- v o o

THE ARONSON APPROACH

a double yes respoiiSe.; In this case, it’s true that a double yes narrows down the field to 7 possible pairs, but believe it or not, a single yes narrows down the field to just possible pairs. Let’s examine why.

m

Remember, we earlier isolated the pairs into Up Pairs and Down Pairs, depending on which spectator had the low cards. (A refresher: if A has the low card, the values go "up” (reading, as you normally would, from left to right), so that’s an Up Pair; if B has the low card, the values go ”down" from left to right, so we’ve called that a Down Pair.) If we focus on the six possible pairs that comprise the ”One Spot Card" side of the line, you can see that three of them are Up Pairs:

B:

A:

6

/’

J 7

/’

O

8

/

K

Figure 43 and the other three of them are Down Pairs:

A: B:

J

\

O 7

\

K

8

\

2

Figure 44 Among the three Up Pairs, it is always spectator A who has the spot card, so if the single yes response comes from A, you’ll know that the possibilities have been narrowed down to one of just these three Up Pairs. Obviously, it works the same way on the other side: among the three Down Pairs, it is always B who has thought of the spot card, so if the single confirmation comes from B, you’ll know that it must be one of those three Down Pairs. (At first reading, this may sound like pretty heady stuff, requiring all sorts of conceptual comparisons and mental gymnastics. I’m dumping a lot of concepts and comparisons and alternatives on you, one right after another, so naturally you may not pick it all up instantly, but don’t get frustrated. As you start to play with the deck, work through some hypotheticals, and see how subsequent fishing patterns all follow this same skeletal structure, you’ll become 144

a. v a o

'

SIMON-EYES

familiar with the 13 possible pairs, and you’ll move through this stuff with ease. Just stick with it.)

If the response to your "spot impression" is a single yes, then you simply skip 13) steps 13 and 14 entirely. The following "impression”, of a “Low card", is used only when the

"spot impression" produces a double yes response. In that case, we’ve narrowed the field down to 7 possible pairs, so we nwd this extra step, this extra "impression", to narrow it ffom 7 down to 3 (just as it would have been had the response been a single yes).

So, assuming that both spectators have given positive confirmations to your "impression of a spot card" , you, of course, react quite confidently, and then state, "Very good. I knew I was getting a very strong impression. Let’s try another. You know, cards can range from a low value of two, the Deuce, all the way up to the highest value, an Ace. I ’d like each of you to concentrate on where, along that range from low to high, your mental selection lies. Don’t say anything, just focus on whether you think your card is towards the low end, or towards the high end. " This is pretty straightforward, but do note the patter. It’s critical that the spectators understand that the Ace is considered "High”; its not just a "One", below the Deuce. As long as you emphasize the Ace as the "highest value", the message will get across.

If you’re using the eye chart (step 11) to help the spectators form their visual images, the layout will already help you. It depicts the 2 at one end, and the Ace at the Opposite, high,

end.

Once they understand, do your mindreading, and announce, to both of them, "I’m receiving a strong impression of a low range card, definitely low, a 6 or below. Please confirm " " 6 ’ve below. "a the the Note reference to at such end, specific or sent impression. an if you Some people might have drawn their own dividing line between low and high cards at different places, so this specificity draws a clear cut line and avoids any uncertainty or ambiguity. It also makes it sound as if you’re sticking your neck out a bit more, taking more of a chance. You’ve claimed that there’s a definite 2-3-4-5 or 6, and this sounds, to the spectators, as though you’re not even trying for 50/50 odds. 14) Remember, we’ve previously narrowed down the field to seven possible pairs.

What will the response to this " low impression" tell us? Well, out of the seven possibilities, only 9mg, the 2—3, will give a double yes response (that’s why we called it the special Double Low Pair). If you get a double yes here, you’ve lucked out and you now know the values of both spectators’ cards. The remaining six pairs will each give a single yes response, indicating that low card, between 2 and 6 inclusive, being thought of. So the odds are 6 to 1 that there is you’ll get a single yes response. But, as before, since the single confirmation can come from eithg A or B, we’ll be able to narrow the remaining possible pairs down to flag, depending on which spectator confirms having thought of the low card. Here’s the analysis. Let’s put the Double Low (2-3) pair aside, leaving the six possible pairs that comprise the Two Spot Card side of the equation that we’re working with. Three of these pairs are Up Pairs:

g;

145

THE ARONSON APPROACH

B:

A:

3

/

0?-

9

4

/’

10 .

5

/’

V4O

A

Figure 45

and the other three are Down Pairs:

"A:

9

B:

\4

10

\

A

5

\

6

Figure 46

Among the three Up Pairs, it is always spectator A who has the Low card, so if the single yes confirmation comes from A, you’ll know that the possibilities have been narrowed down to just these three Up Pairs. Conversely, among the three Down Pairs, it is always B who is thinking of the low card, so if the single confirmation to the ”impression of low card " comes a from B, you’ll know that it must be one of those three Down Pairs. At this point,.whether you’ve gone through one impression or two, you’ve narrowed down the values of both spectators’ cards to just three possible pairs. This is pretty impressive, and it’s all the more startling when you compare your real position to where the spectators think you are. From their perspective, there are "hundreds" of possible combinations, and you’ve just made one or two rather general comments, about which so far you’ve been correct. They have m idea of how far you’ve actually gone towards pinning down both values exactly. 15)

If you’ve hit the 1 out of 13 chance, and got the Double Low Pair, then of course, you can st0p right there, skip steps 15 and 16 and go directly to the determination of the suits. 146

0?-

SIMON-EYES

VAO

Assuming, however, that you’ve instead narrowed the field down to three possible pairs, here’s the next step. Explain to both of your spectators, "Every playing card has an index, a little figure up in the corner, either a letter or number, that denotes the particular value of the card. I want you to focus your thoughts just on the index of your mentally selected card. I want you to have a clear picture of that index in your mind ’s eye, so that you can concentrate on how it looks, on the shape and the lines of that index. Now, some indexes are made up of round, curved lines, say like a figure eight. Other indexes have just straight lines and sharp corners or angles, like, say, the 7, or the Kfor King. And, of course, still other indexes are combinations of both curves and straight lines and angles, like the Ten. There ’s a whole variety of shapes and I want you and lines of the index of your particular mentally chosen card. Can to concentrate on the you do that?" Give the spectators a moment; this is probably the most "intricate" thing you’ll be asking them to do in the entire routine. The eye chart is particularly useful here, since it contains pictures of all 13 indexes; I always suggest that they should feel free to use the chart to " "intensify the picture in their mind if they’d like.

M

-

When you’ve got both spectators focused on the index of their card, address 16) both of them as you receive your next impression. "I’m getting an impression of an index with ” curves in it. Please confirm. Note the importance of the wording: it’s not an impression of a curved index, but an index with curves in it. That makes it clear to the listener, that if his index has curves -- any curves —- he should confirm. You’ve thus subtly broadened the range of affirmative responses to include all indexes that are either just curves, or that combine both curves and straight lines.

If you think about it, there are only 4 indexes (out of all 13 indexes) that Q9411 have curves in them: the A, 4, 7 and K. Only these four are made up entirely of straight lines and angles, so only these four will produce a negative response to the impression of "an index with curves in it." These four values have been carefully positioned in the Simon-Eyes pack so that no two of these cards will ever appear in the same pair; therefore, at least one card of each pair will always have an index with curves in it. That eliminates the double no response. But, in fact, the A, 4, 7 and K have been positioned to do more than eliminate the double no. Remember, we had narrowed the field of possible pairs down to three, and we want this "impression of an index with curves in it" to give us the extra information we need, to get to the correct one of those three pairs. The A, 4, 7 and K have been carefully arranged, within those three pairs, so as to produce three distinct and different affirmative responses. No matter what the response is, you’ll be able to narrow down the values to the precise pair held by the two spectators.

don’t know any clear way of explaining this "conceptually", but in practice it’s quite straightforward. The sequence of values in the Simon-Eyes pack is arranged so that, for any set of three possible pairs, there will always be one pair where both indexes have curves, one pair where only spectator A’s index has curves, and one pair where only spectator B’s index has curves. Thus, when you announce your impression of "an index with curves in it", if both curved indexes; spectators confirm, you’ll know it’s the only pair among the three that has or, if only A confirms, then it’s the one pair among the three where A but not B has a curved I

m

147

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0!-

VAO

index; or, finally, if only B confirms, then it must be the one pair of the three where B, but not A, has a curved index.

An example will make this clear. Assume that, in step 12 when you received an impression of a spot card, only A confirmed. Based on this response, you were thus able to narrow the possible pairs down to three Up Pairs, as shown previously in Figure 43 -- i.e. , either a 6-], or a 7-Q, or an 8-K. Now let’s see what the response would be when you announce you’ve received an "impression of an index with curves in it":

For 6-]:

Both indexes have curves, so both A and B would confirm.

For 7-Q:

Only the Queen’s index has curves, so B would confirm.

For 8-K:

Only the Eight index has curves, so A would confirm.

As you can see, the three pairs have three different affirmative responses, and so, depending on which of the three confirmations you receive, you’ll know instantly which of the three pairs the spectators are thinking of.

You don’t need to memorize these alternatives, since they’re readily discernible from the basic arrangement of the cards. You might find it helpful to recall the main two groups into which we’ve previously divided the cards. Those groups look like this:

Two Spot Cards; One Low Card

One Spot Card

Figure 47

I’ve highlighted the four mwurved indexes just to emphasize their placement within their respective groups. As you can see, with respect to curved indexes, each side "mirrors" the other. This means, simply, that the three Up Pairs on the left side will parallel the three Up Pairs on the right side. Likewise, the three Down Pairs on the left side will parallel the three Down Pairs on the right side. 148

.1-

'

vAo

SIMON-EYES

.

In actual practice, here’s how I proceed to keep things in my mind in an orderly fashion. Once I’ve narrowed the values down to three possible pairs, I then mentally "recite" those three pairs to myself, so they’re in the forefront of my mind. As soon as I get a response about a curved index, I mentally scan or look at those three pairs, to see which one of the three fits. (

If it helps, here’s a little chart that summarizes each of the four alternative situations

you could logically face:

Two Spots; One Low

Index with Curves

One Spot

UP PAIRS

3

9

6

J

only

4

10

7

O

A only

5

A

8

K

A only

9

4

J

7

Both

10

5

O

8

A

6

K

2

Both B

i

DOWN PAIRS

B

only

Figure 48 Frankly, my guess is that charts like the above scare more readers than they help. You conclude that you’ve got to memorize the charts, and that just leads to a bunch of abstract symbols and frustration. Believe me, if you just learn the mg sequence laid out in Figure 40, and get familiar with which indexes are curved or not, it will all fall into place. (For those who do like charts, I’m including in Appendix 2 a " logical tree" of how all 13 of the possible value pairs "fish out").

m

The net result of the routine, so far, is that the spectators have seen you discern two or three rather general features about the cards -- and you’ve been correct on all counts. You 149

———_———— THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?.

VAO

haven’t missed at all. They’ve got to be at least mildly impressed. Unbeknownst to them, you know the value of A’s card and the value of B’s card. already All that remains is to fish for the suits. straightforward.

That will be much easier, and more

FISHING FOR THE SUITS

Discerning the suits is much easier than discerning the values (after all, there are only four different suits), and, but'for one minor practical hitch, it would have been even easier. The easiest way (in theory) to arrange the suits would have been to simply use some sequence of the four suits, and repeat this sequence over and over again throughout the entire arrangement of the pack. Thus, for example, the most popular order of suits used in stacked decks is Clubs-HeartsSpades-Diamonds (usually referred to as CHaSeD order). All cardicians are already familiar with such an order, and its child’s play to fish with, because since the colors alternate, every pair would always have one red and one black card. But this simplicity is exactly what causes the practical problem. A straightforward CHaSeD order won’t work in this effect, because, remember, you need to display the order of the entire deck to each of the two spectators when they make their mental selections (step 7, and again in step 9). The fact that (in CHaSeD) the colors alternate on every single card would quickly be noticed; it’s just too much of an obvious, repetitive pattern. So, the Simon-Eyes pack does the next best thing. It uses a CHaSeD order, but disguises it just enough so that even a careful look won’t discern any obvious pattern. Go ahead, even with this knowledge, spread a deck in Simon-Eyes arrangement in front of you, and see if you sense any particular order among the colors. You shouldn’t. There are clusters of three of the same color together, and sometimes two of one color, and a bunch of single colors. Yet, in fact it really is in CHaSeD order -- with one added twist. I’ll explain that twist here, so you’ll grasp what’s going on when we fish. Succinctly, the little twist or variation is as follows: the cards run in Clubs-Hearts-Spades-Diamonds order, except that, whenever you come to an Ace, Two, Three, or Pour, the n_e_x_t c331 gigs forward one suit. For example, if the Simon-Eyes pack sequence were set up in normal CHaSeD order, an Ace of Clubs would be followed by a Six of Hearts; however, since it follows an Ace, the Six will jump, or skip, one suit, so instead of being a Heart, it will skip to the next suit, a Spade. Thus, in the Simon-Eyes pack, the Ace of Clubs is followed by the Six of Spades. Again, don’t worry. You d_cm’_t_ need to learn this order of the pack; I’m just explaining the basis of what will be called the Minority Rule below, when we start fishing. All you need to understand is that four of the values (out of a total of 13) work differently from the other nine. I’ve chosen which four so as to make the color pattern maximally random-looking and also to make it maximally easy to remember the exceptions. What could be easier than remembering 1-2-3-4! So much for the background. Let’s fish for the suits of the spectators’ two selections. In fishing for the suits, remember that at this point, unbeknownst to the Spectators, you already know the exact values of both cards. These values will be the starting point for determining the suits. More specifically, you’ll start by focusing on the value of A’s card, and 17)

150

0?-

SIMON-EYES

VQQ

you’ll apply this simple rule: if spectator A is thinking of an A-2-3 or 4, then you’ll use the Minority Rule (discussed in steps 20-22 below). If spectator A is thinking of any value other than an A, 2, 3, or 4, then you’ll follow the Majority Rule. Let’s look at the Majority Rule first, since it applies most often (more precisely, it gets used 9/ 13th, or 69%, of the time). You already know, from the previous discussion, that in all cases covered by the Majority Rule, the suits of the two selections will be in CHaSeD order (reading from spectator A to spectator B). Since we know the colors alternate, you might, at first blush, think that you should start fishing with color, by getting an impression of, say, a red card (or a black one) because you’d be guaranteed of getting o_ne_ (and only pie) affirmative response. That’s not good enough. We want to get more information, so we’ll again structure our fishing to break it down into we; separate and distinguishable affirmative responses. Here’s how.

Address the spectators, "Let ’s focus on the suits of your respective cards. Again, I ’d like to focus on a visual impression, so form a mental image of the particular suit you ’re thinking 0]? visualize the pip that depicts the suit -- a Heart, a Spade, a Club or a Diamond. I ’d like you both to focus on the shape of your suit. You know that some suits are made up of round curves, like the Club, some have just straight lines and sharp angles, like the Diamond; others may have both. Please concentrate on the shape of your particular suit. if it helps, you can disregard the little stem or stand that the Club or Spade sits on, and just focus on the shape of the pip itsey‘. Both " out. (This comment at the end, about disregarding the "stem" or stand, me help please of you, is totally optional; somehow, it seems to me to sound as if it might be "relevant" to what people should focus on, so I generally use that patter line.) When both spectators look like they’re thinking intently of the shape of their respective suits, turn on your mindreading gaze, and announce to both of them, ”I’m getting a ” it. Once again, this in Please with confirm. curves suit, design, pip a impression a of Strong " In suit with curves" affirmative the of fact, broadened a has subtly responses. impression range in it includes 3 out of the 4 possible suits; only the Diamond has no curves in it. (The spectators won’t focus on this skewing; they’re too involved with their own card. If they do focus on it, it still won’t mean much. Itjust sounds like your impression is somewhat general or broad). One important thing that this "impression of a suit with curves" accomplishes is to eliminate any possibility of a double no. The only combination of cards that could have produced a double no would be if both spectators were thinking of a Diamond; since in the Simon-Eyes pack arrangement there are never two cards of the same suit together, it isn’t possible for both cards to be Diamonds. 18)

The more important thing that this " impression of a suit with curves " does is to elicit three different, distinguishable affirmative responses, and to give you a 50% probability of learning mt}; spectators’ suits with just this one fish. Remember, logically (i.e., to the spectator) it appears as if there could be 16 possible suit combinations (A could have any of 4 and B could have any of 4). In fact, by knowing that you’re in a Majority Rule situation (A has any value other than an Ace, 2, 3 or 4) you’ve already narrowed it down to only four possible pairs of suits. Since B’s suit will follow A’s in CHaSeD order, these four possible combinations will be: CH

HS

SD

DC

151

“mm THE ARONSON APPROACH

4-9 m 6

where, in each pair, A’s suit is on the left and B’s is on the right. The Diamond is the only suit that won’t produce an affirmative response, so you can see that the three possible responses to your "impression of a suit with curves " will comprise the following:

Both Yes

CH

A

HS

Yes

3 Yes

SD

51 1'00

DC

are 49

This picture is worth the proverbial thousand words, because it demonstrates graphically how. if you get a "single yes" response, you’ll inStan'tiy know the exact suit combination for beth spectators. If A alone confirms your impression of a suit with curves, then B must have the Diamond. and A will therefore have one suit before Diamonds in CHaSeD order, i.e., A will have a Spade. Conversely. if B alone confirms, then A muSt have the Diamond. so B will have one suit after Diamonds in CHaSeD order, i.e.. B will have a Club. So, if you get a single es, , you’re done fishing. You know everything you need, and you can skip ahead to step 23. lf neither spectator is thinking of a Diamond. you‘ll you won’t know (yet) the exact suit combination. But you "nOtch" to your belt as an expert mindreader, and you will have two remaining possibilities. Even more, you’ll know something (and final) impression a bit more detailed.

M

get a Double Yes response. and have added one more successful narrowed down the field to only very specific, to make your next

If you’ve received a ”Double Yes" response (b0th spectators’ suits have curves) then simply continue, addressing both spectators, "Good, now continue to focus on the suit of your card. Think of a very visual aspect of the suit -— its color. Borh of you, concentrate on the color of your suit. " Once they do this, receive and announce your final impression, ”I ’m getting an impression ofa red card, yes, definitely, it ’s a Heart. Please confirm. " This is a forceful line, because it sounds so specific; you’re notjust announcing the color, but the precise suit. You can do this with comfort, because both of the two remaining possibilities each contain a Heart; thus you one or the other spectator will confirm. Moreover, whichever Spectator does confirm will tell you the Other speCtator’s suit. If you look at the Double Yes possibilities in Figure 49, you’ll see they’re CH and HS. So, if A confirms that he has the Heart, then B must have the suit following Hearts in CHaSeD order, i.e., the Spade. Conversely, if it’s B who confirms that she has the Heart, then A must have one suit previous, i.e., a Club. 19)

kw

152

9%?

fl%

if

_-_

SIMON-EYES

“r

—:-:

In any case, with one, or at mOSt two, general impressions, you will have determined

both spectators’ suits. And, at this point, the spectators still don’t realize how much you know.

To sum up the Majority Rule, here’s a logical tree that shows all the possibilities we’ve just gone through:

MAJORITY RULE

l)

Both Yes

Pip with Curves

Single Yes l

A Yes

l

8 Yes

i

2) Red, a Heart

-

CH

SD

HS

DC

Figure 50

Once again: don: try to memorize these charts. You don’t need to, and in fact it jusr clutters up your mind. For the Majority Rule. just remember that A might have any of the four suits, and B’s suit will follow A’s in CHaSeD order. and the chart will generate itself. The "reSponses" are child’s play: just remember that a non-affirmative response to the “curved" pip denotes a Diamond. Once you know that either A or B has a Diamond, you can work out the other person’s suit by going either backward or forward one suit in CHaSeD. Similarly, if neither has a Diamond, you’ll go to the next step and work on the Heart. Once you know who has the Heart, the other suit again follows logically from CHaSeD. These charts ga_n help you learn the system more quickly, by giving you a pictorial feel for what is going on, but once you understand the relationships involved. you won’t need to keep a bunch of charts in your mind. There’s ju3t one more situation we have to deal with, to cover all of the bases. 20) That’s how to determine the suits under the Minority Rule situation, i.e., when the value of spectator A’s card is either an A, 2, 3 or 4. This won’t take very long, since it follows pretty closely the same pattern as the Majority Rule just described. An easy way to remember the Minority Rule is to simply think "Same Color, Opposite Suit". In the four Minority Rule 153

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0?—

VAO

the Majority Rule, where to opposed (as the color be of will same suits always both situations, have two that is you’ll never so arranged pack the Simon-Eyes Since colors). of they’re opposite the same color, cards of the same suit immediately together, once you know the two cards are of with one Club; or, then it will also follow that they’re of opposite suits, i.e., one Spade under the Minority alternatively, one Heart with one Diamond. The four possible combinations Rule are thus: SC

CS

HD

DH

C

Rule just as it did under and, you’ll notice, this allows the fishing to proceed under the Minority the Majority Rule.

If you’re in a Minority Rule situation, you’ll still ask the two spectators to think 21) of the shape of their suit, and you’ll still announce the "impression of a suit with curves" , exactly Diamond can produce a negative as described in steps 17 and 18 above. As before, only a response, so the four possible responses will be:

Both Yes |

cs

A Yes

B

Yes

1

sc

HD

DH

Figure 51

Once again, a "single yes" response tells you all you need to know: the non~ both spectators confirming spectator must have the Diamond, and since in this Minority situation the have the same color, opposite suit, the other spectator, the one who does confirm, must have Heart (it’s thus easier than the Majority Rule, because you don’t need to go back to CHaSeD to determine the other spectator’s suit -- here, it must be a Heart). If you receive the Single Yes to step 23. directly and proceed can finished fishing, you’re response,

If you’ve received a ”Double Yes" response (indicating that both spectators’ 22) suits have curves), then you’ll know quite a bit: both have black cards, one Spade and one Club. It’s thus quite easy, on your next and last "impression", to determine which is which. Just the continue, addressing both spectators, to ask them to concentrate on the color, using exactly final impression, same patter as in step 19.for the Majority Rule. When they do, announce your " Please it’s confirm Spade. a "I’m getting the impression of a black card, yes, definitely,

154

.

0?-

VQ

0

SIMON-EYES

Once again, everything parallels the procedure of the Majority Rule, and allows you to make this specific statement. One or the other spectator will confirm, and you’ll smile knowingly at your success, and make a mental note that the other spectator has a Club. (Again, this is easier than the Majority Rule, since you don’t have to consult CHaSeD order to know the non—confirming spectator’s suit).

For completeness, here’s a chart showing the logical tree for the Minority Rule situations:

MINORITY RULE 1) Pip

Both Yes

with Curves

2) Black, a Spade

i

Single Yes i

A Yes

l

8 Yes

-

CS

SC

HD

DH

Figure 52

As you can see, it mirrors the Majority Rule chart shown in Figure 50; this makes it pretty easy to follow and remember.

If you’ve stayed with me this far, you can breathe a sigh of relief to know that 23) you’re finished fishing. You now know both spectators’ cards exactly, both their values and their suits. It’s now entirely up to you as to how to best present the final demonstration of your mindreading skills, but keep in mind that the spectators have no idea of how far along you actually are. As far as the spectators are concerned, you’ve had a few (either three, four or five) pretty good "first stabs" at their cards, all of them on target, but most of them somewhat general. They’re still waiting for you to really "commit" yourself, to utter some very definite statement. Now, you can do just that and knock their socks off. Here’s how I proceed. I continue, by first patting myself on the back, and then by acknowledging that I still need to do more. I say, "Well, so far I ’m batting a thousand. And 155

THE ARONSON APPROACH

or.

vao

you ’re both doing very well yourselves; you ’re concentrating very clearly. I ’ve received a number of mental impressions fi'om the two of you, and every one has been correct. But so far, we ’ve only concentrated on some general features of your cards. Let ’3 try to do some direct, very specific mindreading and, we ’11 do it me at a time. Mr. A, please form a picture ofyour entire card, in your mind. Concentrate on it very intently. Yes, that ’s coming through loud and clear, it’s (for example) a black card, a fairly low sp0t card, a Club, it’s the Five of Clubs am I correct?" Mr. A will be stunned. You’ve gone straight into his thoughts, and without any questions, have told him his mentally selected card.

-

-

Turn to spectator B, "Miss B, it’s your turn. Imagine your entire card, filling up the picture screen in your mind. Look at it, with your mind ’3 eye. . . . Good. It ’s a red card, a very simple design. It ’s an Ace, the Ace of Hearts. Am I correct?" Miss B will either faint, or express her consternation as she confirms that you have correctly read her mind. Take your bow. Naturally, you can vary the final patter to suit your own tastes, and to adapt to the particular fishing responses you’ve just completed. It’s often the case that one or the other of the spectators may have given more affirmative reSponses during the fishing; if so, at the finale I always read that person’s mind fist. It’s a small point, but if you’ve already learned and disclosed [tyre information about one person’s card during the fishing, then the final mindreading of that person will be a bit less surprising. I always try to reserve the spectator who has made the fewer affirmative responses for last. It just seems, at that point, that you know less about that person’s card, so its revelation is all the more startling. Note an important switch in approach and in your patter for this final revelation. When " you finally get down to specifics" at the climax, you make a point of the fact that you’re reading their minds 9% at a ting. This is the part of the effect that will be best remembered. This is the last thing you do, and will create the picture you want to leave them with, the memory you want to be recollected. When the spectators recall and redescribe this effect, each is likely to say, simply, "he told me my card." The fact that the other spectator had earlier given some joint responses to earlier, general impressions may be forgotten or overlooked. BARE BONES

appreciate (and sympathize) that the foregoing description has been extraordinarily lengthy. It was necessary, because of the underlying concepts and many alternatives involved, and also because I wanted to give you all of the patter points which you might find helpful, convincing or instructive. In practice, however, the effect proceeds smoothly and directly. You certainly £19311 need to use every single presentational idea I’ve mentioned, and you can cut down the patter to tailor its pacing to your own tastes; just be sure that your spectators comprehend what they’re supposed to do. (If you’re not trying to be a "mentalist", and are only performing this effect as a card trick for a few magician friends, obviously you can pare down the patter drastically. After you delete all the mindreading palaver, you’re basically left with (1) ”Mr. A, think of a number from 1 to 52 and whisper it to B." (2) "As I count the cards, remember the card that falls at your numbered position.” (3) "Miss B, I’ve shuffled the cards, so I’ll count again, and I want you to remember the new card that falls this time at the numbered position. " Then, proceed with the fishing to reveal the cards). I

156

0?-

V

4‘ O

‘

SIMON-EYES

I thought it would be helpful if I quickly listed the essential steps of the entire effect, to act as a simple guide for review, and to consult during your practice. 80 here are the "bare bones” of Simon—Eyes: (i)

False shuffle, as you ask A to think of a number between 1:52 (Steps

(ii)

Have A whisper his number to B (Step 5).

1—4).

(iii) Count and show the cards to A. for A’s mental selection (Steps 6-7). (iv)

False shuffle, and in the process transfer, one card from top to bottom (Step 8).

(v) Count again and show the cards to B, for B’s mental selection (using the number A whispered to her) (Step 9).

Explain how you’ll announce your impressions, and that the spectators should confirm. Receive your first impression, of a "Spot" card (Steps 10-12).

(vi)

(vii) [If, but only if, you receive a Double Yes to the "impression of a spot card"] Ask the spectators to think of whether the value is high or low, and receive an impression of a "low" card, a 6 or below. (Steps 13-14). [If only one spectator confirmed the spot card, omit this impression]. (viii) Ask the spectators to think of the shape of their index, and receive an " (Steps 15-16). You now know both "impression of an index with curves in it. values.

Determine from the values whether you’re under the Majority Rule or the Minority Rule for suits. Ask the spectators to focus on the shape of their suits, and receive an "impression of a pip, or suit, with curves in it." (Majority Rule, Steps 1718; Minority Rule, Steps 20-21). (ix)

(If, but only if, you receive a Double Yes to the curved suit impression] Ask (x) the spectators to focus on the color of their cards, and receive a specific impression (Majority Rule: "Red, 3 Heart", Step 19; Minority Rule: "Black, a Spade", Step 22). [If only one spectator confirmed the curved suit, omit this impression]. (xi) Read the spectators’ minds, one _t a time, to reveal their specific cards (Step 23).

EXAMPLES; PRACTICE It might be helpful if I just quickly ran through a few examples, to give you a feel for how the effect might proceed under a number of different combinations. I’m m1; going to repeat any of the patter, concepts, or discussions contained in the text, so you should consult the appropriate steps above for a full blown discussion. In these examples, let’s assume that you’ve already had both selections made, and have gone through all the preliminary patter. Here’s a few

157

THE ARONSON APPROACH

0!-

VAO

hypothetical situations and possible responses, just to show you the mental steps you’d go through to reach a successful conclusion. Example #1: In response to your first impression, of a "Spot" card, both A and B confirm. This means you’re on the Two Spot Card side of the equation. You follow with an impression of a "low card, 6 or below" and B alone confirms. This means you’ve eliminated the Double Low Pair (2-3), and since B has the low card, it must be one of the three Down Pairs: 9—4, 10—5, or A-6. You follow with an impression of a curved index, and A alone confirms. A quick (mental) glance at those three eligible pairs tells you it therefore must be the 9-4 combination. (A has a 9, B has a than an Ace-2-3-4, you know you’re in the Majority Rule 4). Because A has situation. Follow with an impression of a "suit with curves", and B alone confirms. This tells you A must have a Diamond, and by CHaSeD, B must thus have a Club. You know both cards. Since B has confirmed more times than A, read B’s mind first and reveal that she is thinking of the Four of Clubs. Read A’s mind and reveal the Nine of Diamonds.

m

Example $12: To your first impression of 3 "Spot" card, A alone confirms. This means you’re on the picture side of the equation, and since A has the spot card, it must be one of the three Up Pairs" 6-1, 7-Q, or 8-K. You next receive an impression of a curved index, and both spectators confirm. Of the three possible pairs, only the 6-] has two curved indexes, so those must be the values. You’re in a Majority Rule situation. Get an impression of a "suit with curves", and both spectators confirm. This tells you there is m Diamond, so there must be a Heart. Ask the spectators to think of the color, and announce an impression of "red, definitely a Hean. " A alone confirms. Use CHaSeD to determine that B has a Spade. Climax, by revealing A’s card as the Six of Hearts and B’s card as the Jack of Spades. Example #3: To your first impression of a "Spot" card, both A and B confirm. Follow with an impression of a low card, Six or below, and again, both spectators confirm. You’ve hit the Double Low Pair, so you know A has a 2 and B has a 3. For suits, you’re in the Minority Rule situation (A has a 2 ~- the Double Low Pair will thus always be a Minority Rule case). Receive an impression of a "suit with curves ", and A alone confirms. This means B must have a Diamond, and since in the Minority Rule, it’s "same color, Opposite suit", A’s card must be a Heart. Finish by revealing A to be thinking of the Two of Hearts and B to be concentrating on the Three of Diamonds. By now, you’ll get the idea of how it works. You do have to be on your toes, but once you’ve worked through a dozen or so examples, you’ll find it all happens pretty automatically.

To practice, I suggest you take a deck arranged in Simon-Eyes order, cut it a few times, and then deal the top two cards face up on the table, left to right. These will represent A’s and B’s cards respectively. Think through what you would say, what the responses would be, what you would conclude, and what you would then do next. When you finish, gather up and replace the two cards (in order), cut, and do it again. After you feel comfortable with it, find two

158

r 4- V 0 O

SIMON-EYES

understanding magician friends who have also purchased this book, and practice with them, by having them play the roles of A and B. CONCLUSION

When used in the right circumstances, with suitable patter and presentation, Simon-Eyes ' real for mindreading. It easily can pass can have a devastating impact. More than that, however, there are a lot of pretty interesting, meaty ideas involved which, to my knowledge, haven’t been explored in print before. I’ve gone into great depth and length because, as I said in the introduction to this book, my approach is not just to create a good effect, but also to explore, expand on, and develop some of the principles on which good card magic is based. I think you’ll be able to apply many of the ideas in Simon-Eyes (particularly the concepts underlying No No’s Fishing) to many other effects. I’ve still actually got a few more things left to say about Simon-Eyes, so go_n’_t omit reading the "Comments" section. In particular, for those who can do a faro shuffle comfortably, see the discussion of the Faro Restacking version; it’s, in my opinion, actually a more elegant, more sophisticated version of the Simon-Eyes pack -- which is even easier to use.

Thanks for your patience in reading this far. I hope and trust it’s been rewarded. I consider Simon-Eyes to be one of my better creations, and am proud of it as an example of the Aronson approach. COMMENTS

It’s a bit difficult to organize my observations about different features of SimonEyes, because all of its aspects and principles are interrelated. Analytically, one distinct topic deals with how the cards can be paired, for purposes of optimizing the fishing capabilities. Another separate topic deals with the selection procedure, with how the two spectators can be made to feel that their choices are free and independent. These two concepts are, in practice, related, because the choice of a particular organization of cards for fishing will dictate the parameters or limitations you need to work with, in devising an effective selection procedure. (1)

One key comment I want to make at the outset is that the particular card arrangement and selection procedure I’ve presented in the text is only one possible version you should consider. Other alternatives are available or can be devised, using the principles I’ve discussed. One very practical alternative is set forth in Appendix 1. You should read it not only for its own merits, but also as an example of how both the fishing pairs and the selection constraints can be varied, to produce different tradeoffs. Some general ideas for other alternatives are mentioned in comments 2-5 below. One radically different approach, which offers great flexibility, is the secret use (2) of two decks and a deck switch. Using this approach, you would start with Deck #1 in view, with Deck #2 hidden behind some prop on your table. False shuffle Deck #1 and use it for Spectator A’s selection. Then really and quite obviously give Deck 1 some legitimate shuffles, 159

f THE ARONSON APPROACH

4- v A

o

and casually place it down on the table (behind the prop) as you patter and talk to Spectator B. Then, casually pick up the pack (this time Deck #2) and use it for Spectator B’s selection.

If you choose this route and are willing to pay the price of the deck switch, you can get much greater simplicity and mileage out of the fishing combinations. You’ll be able to rearrange the two decks so they synchronize in any combination of pairs you like, without having

to worry about any "cycle" (or endless belt, as in the Faro version) imposing limitations. You could, for instance, decrease the possible number of combinations from 52 down to 26 by using inverse complementary pairs e.g.: If A gets the 88 and B gets the KD, then when A gets the KD, B would get the 88. That would reduce the amount of memorization. You could also guarantee that every pair will have, say one red and one black card (or, alternatively, both the same color), and yet not have this be apparent in the visible display of the cards. (This is because the "regularity" of any color pairing would not be within one deck, but would be across the two decks. You could thus dispense with the need to use two different rules for suits (e.g., Majority Rule and Minority Rule), and could establish the entire deck so that all pairs followed the same suit rule. It was Dave Solomon, focusing on the presentational context, who first mentioned to me the notion of Qpenly using two decks. I then expanded on the flexibility to be achieved, if a secret deck switch were added. While I’ve devised this effect using a regular deck of 52 different cards, it’s certainly open to the possibility of arranging a fishing system which uses duplicate cards in different positions in the deck. As long as any duplicates are far apart, they probably would not be noticed, and by cutting down the number of possible combinations, you could simplify the fishing significantly. For example, with 26 duplicates, you could arrange it so that all of the high cards are red, and all of the low cards are black. Or, you could use just a few duplicates to eliminate just a few value combinations, and thus eliminate a potential step in the fishing. (3)

If you want to really go the whole hog, if you’re willing to pay the price of gaffs, you

could combine the preceding two deck version with duplicates, and streamline the fishing possibilities to the limit! The particular features I’ve chosen to fish with work well and have certain (4) advantages, but they’re not sacrosanct. My feeling is that a mentalist should get visual images, so that, to me, the shape of the index, the shape of the suit, the color, or the spot vs. picture distinction all make sense. (They also subtly incorporate the Off-Center Fishing principle). However, the deck could theoretically be rearranged based on other fishing criteria, e.g. , whether the card is odd or even. But, please, if you try to vary the criteria, make certain that you’re not doing so just to make it easy on yourself, at the expense of weakening the "feel" of the effect. Somehow, to me, a true mentalist just wouldn’t focus on whether a card is odd or even; that’s just too "abstract", too mathematical. (Besides, I don’t like having to explain that Jacks are 11, Queens are 12, etc.).

fair game. 160

As long as it appears "appropriate" to the spectators, then any fishing factor should be

r a. v 6 o

'

'

SIMON-EYES

The regular Simon-Eyes selection procedure (having a number chosen, and then (5) counting through the deck twice, once for each spectator) is what consumes time, and it’s tempting to try to streamline this phase of the routine. The danger of giving in to this temptation is that it could turn a very strong mental effect into a just so-so card trick. I have experimented with alternative selection procedures that completely eliminate the "random number between 1 and 52", and do not require counting and displaying the cards -- and yet still guarantee that the two selections will wind up being two consecutive cards in the cycle. For example, it might seem expeditious to start with the pack on the table, have a spectator cut the pack and complete the cut, and then have one spectator peek at the bottom card of the deck and the second spectator look at the top card of the deck. All of this could be done behind your back, and the entire deck could then be put away before you turned around. You would then read both spectators’ minds.

There are several problems with such a procedure. First, it gets away from the notion of a mengl selection, and substitutes a physical procedure. Second, the spectators don’t get to see all the cards, and don’t get the "feel” of a random order. Third, and most important, it makes it obvious to all but a naive layman that the two selections are somehow linked together; the two cards come from the "same place", or from the "same cut”. The beauty of counting through the deck twice is that it disguises the controlled relationship between the two selections. Please don’t give in to this temptation. Indeed, the mental selection procedure has an added "plus": it is frequently misremembered afterwards, and can thus be even stronger than it really is. I’ve had spectators, in describing the effect later, tell people, "He showed me all of the cards, and I just thought of one." The use of a number between 1-52 seems unimportant, and can get dropped out of memory. A judicious choice of your patter,~at the climax, can help create and reinforce such a misrecollection. ~~ ..

don’t want to encourage use of an expedited physical selection procedure, but if you’re going to give in to such temptation, then at least it could be made more subtle. Give the deck a few false shuffles and legitimate cuts to begin with, and make them casual, even loose and somewhat sloppy. Hold the cards up, faces towards the audience, and run them from hand to hand so that their "random" order can be appreciated, as you comment, "In a moment I ’m going " to have a couple ofpeople each merely think of a card. Emphasize the thinking; don’t mention any physical act, like picking, or cutting. Put the deck back on the table, give it one more false shuffle or cut, and turn your back. Make sure the spectators realize that you can’t see anything, and emphasize that you won’t touch the cards and that you’ll keep your back turned during the entire selection procedure. Instruct either one of the spectators to cut the pack, and complete the cut. Then, with your back still turned, try either of the following alternative procedures: 1

of

a packet of cards, so that the deck is divided (i) Instruct spectator A, "Please cut into two piles -- but you don ’t have to make the two piles even. The pile you cut off " Wait until that’s done, and then continue, "Will one medium be large. small, or can two piles, and the other pick up the remaining one. of you pick up either one of the "

I don ’t care who gets which. Pause, then address spectator A, still with your back turned, "Mr. A, I’d like you to look at the bottom card of the pile you ’re holding, remember it, and then hide the whole pile away, say, in your pocket, or somewhere out 161

#- V A

THE ARONSON APPROACH

9

of sight. " Then, to the other spectator, "Miss B, justfor variation, why don ’t you peek at the [Q2 card of the pile you ’re holding, fix it in your memory, and then hide your entire packet. Tell me when

or,

I can turn

around.

"

.

(ii) Instruct spectator B to pick up the deck, and instruct spectator A to "Hold out your hand, so that B can deal a pile of cards into it. " Then ask B to start dealing cards from the deck, one at a time, into a face down pile onto A’s hand, and have her stop whenever she likes. Once she stops, each- spectator is then requested to look at and remember the top card of the pile he or she is holding, and then hide the entire pile. Only then do you turn around. The reversing of the cards as B deals allows both to use the top cards of their respective piles, and the fact that B does the dealing insures that the top card of A’s pile will be the one ahead of B’s in the stack.

Each of the above procedures helps disguise (somewhat) the fact that the two cards were located together; the two distinct piles "separate" the cards in the layman’s minds. Keeping the performer’s back turned, and hiding the entire deck, precludes any suspicion of a stacked deck, or a glimpse, or counting. Allowing the spectators an obviously free cut, and imposing a "no touch" condition on the performer, avoids thoughts of a force. However, although quicker, these physical procedures are not as strong as a mental selection procedure. Please, even at the risk of slowing down the pace a bit, give the procedure in the main text a try. (6)

If the initial memorization seems frightening, use a prompt or cue card.

During the first few weeks I tested this effect (among countless people in my office) I just left a small piece of paper with the pairing combinations casually lying on my desk. (My desk is always cluttered with paper and notes, so no one noticed it). I later had a small typed chart (it’s only two lines) secretly taped onto one side of the card case. When you open the case, just leave the case on your performing table, to glance at if and when needed. Alternatively, you could hide a prompt behind a prop on your table, or on the back of the ”eye chart" (if you use it). You could tape a prompt to one side of the Joker or Advertising card, casually remove that card from the pack at the outset, and place it in a conveniently observable position. The availability of a prompt gives comfort, even if you don’t use it. It’s nice to know that, if a mental ”block" suddenly occurs, a simple glance can allow you to proceed. This relaxes you, which in turn, makes the mental block actually less likely to occur. You’ll find that you very quickly learn the value pairings, and the suit rules, if you perform this effect with any regularity. The foregoing text, and its length, and all the diagrams are somewhat intimidating, so don’t feel it’s all got to be mastered fully before your first attempt. The prompt is a convenient and practical way to get started; the rest will come in time. Keep in mind that you can also apply No No’s Fishing to leg than a full deck. With partial stacks, you have fewer variables, and can hone in on the precise card more directly. For instance, John Bannon has suggested the possibility of applying Simon-Eyes to two hilt decks. Just have a number chosen "between 1 and 26", cut your prearranged deck in half, and (7)

162

F do V

fi0

SIMON-EYES

'

run through one half of the deck for Spectator A and the other half for Spectator B. This speeds things up, and cuts the number of possible pairs in half. It also offers a plausible rationale: you don’t want both spectators to inadvertently think of the same card. I wouldn’t try to follow up the Simon-Eyes pack with anything; it would be anticlimactic. If, however, you must do something next, remember that the Simon-Eyes pack is that can a full 52 card cycle, with all values separated by exactly 13 cards, so almost anything be accomplished with a Si Stebbins or Eight Kings stack can be done after the Simon-Eyes Pack. You could also do two faros, to produce four of a kind (a la Marlo’s Mental Topper), or deal off 26 cards, reversing their order, and go into Stay-Stack, say, for the Marlo Matching Miracle. Or, you could even use the Oh Pity Me location. (8)

The method used for disguising the color arrangement, so that the cards don’t simply alternate red, black, red, black throughout the deck, stems from something I devised years ago for the Si Stebbins order. You may find it useful. (9)

Briefly, in Si Stebbins (or in Eight Kings), set up the cards in normal CHaSeD order, and except that on any Ace, 2, 3 or 4, you simply skip forward one suit. It’s easy to remember apply, and still produces a non—regular color mix. You can expand this into a general principle: by simply skipping one suit on a_ny f_ou_r_ of the 13 values in an Eight Kings, or Si Stebbins, or other similar cyclic stack, the cards will still produce one full, complete cycle. (For other systems for disguising the suit order see Henning Nelms, Magic and Showmanship, p. 125, or Peter Tappan, 1h; Impostress Princess, p. 41). (10) If you inspect very carefully the way the U. S. Playing Card Company prints its cards, you may detect two tiny discrepancies, or possible ambiguities, with respect to the fishing. First, if you examine closely the Seven index, you’ll note that US. Playing Card prints it with a ye_ry slight curve in the long leg of the figure 7. Second, if you examine a Diamond pip very carefully, you’ll note that its four sides each have a yggy slight curve to them.

These two curves are extremely slight; I’ll bet most of my readers never noticed them had any spectator ever realize this during the presentation until I pointed them out. I’ve of this effect; after all, the spectators don’t have the actual cards in front of them when they’re forming their visual images. Nevertheless, it could be disastrous if a spectator ever did think of lines a 7 or a Diamond as having curves in it. To counter this theoretical possibility, the patter and (in steps 15 and 17) expressly mention the Seven as an example of an index with "just lines " This and lines angles. with sharp of straight "just pip a Diamond example an the as and angles", As an patter se_t_s_ an impression in the spectator’s mind, that precludes any possible problem. added precaution, I’ve subtly "retouched" the 7 and the Diamond pip on the "eye chart", to delete will focus on exactly any curves from those two figures. If you use my eye chart, the spectators the images you want them to have.

m

This is not the place to write a general dissertation on fishing or mentalism, (11) but I want to at least point out that the principles of No No’s Fishing can be expanded, or used in other applications. You’re not limited to just two spectators. For example, if you fish among three spectators, you’re even more likely to get at least one affirmative answer, but at some point,

163

THE ARONSON APPROACH

at. V at

9

that you’re "playing the obvious it becomes of Spectators, if you keep expanding the number odds. "

The ideas cards. limited to just not are Fishing Likewise, the principles of No No’s it appears that the two spectators when well particularly work and variable, to any mentalists there are applied be For can have. really than they of choices broader range much a variables. By of have been given set a as the alphabet using be accomplished can that things letter intriguing impression, some an can get mindreader the different word, "select" a each words). chosen having two spectators the two of other the or (as to at least one be right always he’ll and by letter, all interrelated, and can be as are ambiguity and The concepts of fishing, equivoce mannerisms of our the and language of our richness the subtle as and from the sophisticated years, over benefitted, subjects have certainly these on thoughts My communication. Waters. and TA. Goldstein Phil of, work conversations with, and from the 1, is actually in Appendix contained is which this effect, of version faro The back (12) its roots go history; nostalgic to me, it has an interesting and, and devised, I version the first Ed Marlo, in 1966. with meeting first to my very Faro manuscript, Marlo first of my very copy Back then, I had recently obtained a Re—stacking I worked out a rather quaint pack. the with Controlled Miracles, and I was excited 1 and 52, the performer between number of a think merely The spectator effect, in which a spectator would number. his at card the particular would note he and cards, 52 all him would show the pack one faro would give the performer second spectator, the using would then whisper his number to a second spectator, the for be repeated would procedure selection the noted cards their shuffle, and of values the add would then secretly spectators two The number. whispered total of 14. the force would always together, and unbeknownst to them, you but restaurant, Bears Three The at his hangout, and I had previously seen Marlo around myself, introduced I Inc., Magic, At a lecture at him. approach to the courage me a postcard never had wrote Ed it. even liked he and -idea Deck explained to him my Faro 14 Force a souvenir. card as that I’ve kept and the next week with some comments,

Simon-Eyes pack. Faro the for basis the is Deck That Faro 14 Force did a fair 126, noted on page as and, techniques, ’ve always been interested in fishing basic ideas The _I_d_e_a_s_ during the 1970’s. _C_a_rd_ with connection in that topic work on lacked a practical amount of languished, They then. developed were underlying fishing between two people those lines were along thoughts few my years, During the past print. saw and never application, information from more getting and on codes, work on gray when Pete re-kindled by some of Leo Boudreau’s ideas of exchanges fruitful I had some and Peter Tappan the factor response. or than one probably in opinion, is, my fishing on and his chapter _T_l_te_ lmpostress Princess, writing between two was fishing touches upon Pete just of the topic. discussion comprehensive most of getting an single chances better your can with two spectators, you that, mentions and 56), (p. people affirmative response.

164

f a. v a o

’

-

SIMON-EYES

All of this was background to a chance discussion with Steve Freeman in November, 1989. Steve and I were exploring mathematical principles used in card magic, and Steve mentioned that he felt no one had yet fully developed the potential of the faro re-stacking pack. I told him about my ancient Faro 14 Force Deck. We both set a challenge to ourselves, to see whether we could work out something truly worthwhile with the restacking pack. During the next few weeks I wrestled with the problem, and suddenly the idea clicked, of applying two person what fishing to my Faro l4 Force Deck, to actually discern not just their forced total, butexactly the two cards were.

After I developed the Faro Simon-Eyes pack, I showed it to Dave Solomon. Dave I then effect. mental the in of faro a context do need the a to disliked but it good, was thought set out to eliminate the faro, and came up with one single endless cycle plus the double undercut. From then on, the rest was refinement, and the result is the Simon-Eyes pack.

165

«- v A

THE ARONSON APPROACH APPENDIX

9

1

The Farg Restacking Simon-Eyes Pack For those who are adept at doing a faro shuffle, this alternative version has much to recommend. The presentation, patter, selection procedure, and the fishing operate almost there is of view, the from point spectators’ and, pack, Simon-Eyes the with "regular" identically version include the absolutely no difference at all in effect. The advantages obtained by this Faro following: 1.

The spectators see the deck really being shuffled (albeit with faro shuffles).

2. There is absolutely no repetitive color pattern to be observed. 3. The deckis legitimately (faro) shuffled between the first selection and the second selection, so if anyone looks carefully at the order of the cards on both run-throughs, they’ll see something entirely different each time. 4. The possible value combinations are easier to learn, and much easier to fish with. Instead of having to remember 13 possible pairs, you only need to learn 7 possible pairs. Moreover, no card ever appears in more than one pair, thus eliminating a potential source of confusion. The potential disadvantage is, of course, the requirement of doing a faro. You do need to do gm perfect out faro (between the two selections) and it could be deadly, particularly in a mental trick, look to have to struggle, hesitate, unweave and re-weave, stare intently at the deck, or otherwise concerned over what should be a nonchalant, casual attitude in apparently randomizing the cards. better—off If you don’t feel comfortable with your ability to do one out faro, you’re probably staying with the regular Simon-Eyes pack. I’m assuming that most of my readers are fairly sophisticated at card magic, and are at least somewhat familiar with the way the cards will change positions in certain regular cycles, as a deck is given repeated out faros. (Alex Elmsley’s original description of the Faro Restacking Pack first appeared in the Pentagram, August 1957, and was summarized in Cardiste No. 10, p. 14. A brief description appears in Exmrt Qard Technique, 3rd edition, pp. 145-147; you could also check out Marlo’s B119 Controlled Miracles, or the Marlo effect in Sharpe’s Expert Qard Mysteries, p. 173). You gorfl need to work any mathematics or calculations to perform the Faro Restacking Simon-Eyes pack, but it would help in understanding this method if you’re familiar with the basics of the faro restacking pack and the concept of the "endless belts ", at least in a rudimentary way. The fundamental change accomplished by the Faro version is that the two selections do no_t lie next to each other in the prearranged order. Instead, they lie in alternating positions in the faro’s endless belts.

Here’s the order of the cards for the Faro Restacking Simon-Eyes pack:

166

a. v A o

'

SIMON-EYES

SIMON-EYES 'RESTACKING' PACK

1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 1 1

12 13

2s

KS 8H

9c

KD QB 3D

7c

8s IS 7s

4D 9H

14 15 16 17 18 19

20

KH

os

1H KC 2D 6H 51) QC

21 22 23

10H

24

411

25

26

.

6s

3c 5c

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

8C

3s

7H QH 6C

10c

8D 6D

2c

AC JD 108 AH

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

9D 71)

4s 1c 5s

4C SH 101)

AD

9s SH AS 2H

You can keep giving such a pack repeated faro out shuffles, and each resulting new order will also be in prOper arrangement for this effect; after every eight out shuffles, the pack, of course, returns to its original order. The 26th card will always be either an Ace or a Five, and there will be no other Ace or Five anywhere near the center. This greatly facilitates splitting the cards exactly in half, because you can glimpse the bottom card of the upper half to see if you’ve cut correctly.

If you’ll review the section on "Fishing for the Values", you’ll recall that there were 13 possible pairs, or combinations, you needed to learn: 6 Up Pairs, 6 Down Pairs, and one special Double Low Pair. Each of these 13 were "onedirectional": the first card of the pair always was Spectator A’s card and the second was always Spectator B’s card. In the Faro version there are only 7 possible pairs, but they are "two-directional": either spectator might have one card of the pair, and the remaining spectator will have its complement. These pairs should be very easy to learn at this point, because they’re basically the same as the six pairs we called the "Up Pairs" in the regular version. These pairs are as follows:

Figure 53

167

THE ARONSON APPROACH

4. v A 9

that if ever with so themselves", "paired they’re special case; deuces a the are As you can see, deuce. (For those who know your have also will a other the spectator has deuce, a one spectator 1-18-35-52 in the pack, and there located at positions been have deuces the is because this faros, are special faro cycles governing those four positions). in the The remaining six pairs each have one high card and one low card (just as B and card low the have A might either (i) pair particular to With respect any regular version). A to B, you could would thus have the high card, so reading your spectators from left to right, and B would think of this as a "Low-High" pair, _o_r, conversely (ii) A might have the high card thus get the low card, thus producing from left to right, A to B, a "High-Low" pair. (Compared for instance, either 7-Q or to the regular version, you’ll find that it’s a lot easier to remember, Q-7 (i.e., the same cards, just in opposite order), than it is to remember two overlapping pairs, i.e., 7-Q or Q-8).

The suits operate exactly as they do in the regular version, with one change: in this be You’ll often. will Rule equally occur the and Minority Rule the Majority faro version, know the already you’ll so version, in the do regular as exactly the with fishing you proceeding in the regular values of the spectators’ two cards before you start fishing for the suits. Just as suits will depend on the the for rule Minority the or Majority apply whether version, you which rule to use of determination the faro this in version, but learned, values you’ve particular and if the is even easier. The rule is simply: if the values go Low-High, use the Majority Rule, values go High-Low, use the Minority Rule. (Or, another way of restating it would be just to focus on spectator A: if A has a low card, use the Majority Rule, and if A has a high card, use the Minority Rule.) The main difference between the faro version and the regular version is what happens into between the two selections, i.e., what you have to do to set the second spectator’s card B. In the regular position, at the same number (1 to 52) that was earlier whispered to Miss effect of version, you need to undercut one card from the top to the bottom (which has the instead of moving every card in the cycle forward, or up, one position). In the faro version, into doing an undercut, you must perform one perfect out faro. This has the effect of substituting card to be paired with the card that previously the appropriate in the deck, position single every of in occupied that position. (If you want to take the time to analyze the faro arrangement terms about the re-stacking endless belts, you’ll find some fascinating relationships. If you don’t care it: it works). these conceptual underpinnings, forget such considerations, and take my word for There are only a few other minor differences between the faro version and the regular version, so it might help if I mention them. First, if you get to steps 13 and 14 (where, because you received a Double Yes receive an impression of a "low" card, to then card impression, the you ”Spot" to response further narrow it down) the pairs in the faro version allow your patter to be even more specific, "5 or more "narrowing." Instead of saying a "6 or below", in this faro version, you can say below." Second, if you receive a Double Yes response to this "low" card impression, you know faro version, you’re in the Double Deuce situation, i.e. , both spectators will have a Two. In this 168

SIMON-EYES

0 ________________————-————— do V

O

'

and not even fish for the suits. there, situation right such in stop could a as a practical matter, you 1 or number number choose will ever that no Spectator be sure How? Because you can virtually there’s a double if that in practice, That between. means, in number 52; they’ll always pick some It’s child’s play, at that point, to 2C. the and 2D the be will cards always the deuce situation, determine which spectator has which deuce.

version. If you the do regular as version exactly faro the you Basically, you present faro shuffles, as long as they’re out of number optional with effect the any want, you can precede doesn’t disturb the order that shuffle false of kind use of any You course, can, done casually. of the deck, but remember this faro version _c_an_’t be cut. for Mr. A’s selection, as you and procedure display the counting finish As s99}; as you should immediately square up the pack along hands talk her, to and B to your start towards turn should turn the hand left As faroed. and your patter, be cut you it’s to ready all sides, so that thumb at the inner end can the that right left so the palm, towards face its side, deck vertically on and as you fashion, faro standard in grip hands together The come the center. split the deck in index of the face card of the upper portion, the and down glimpse look the eyes pack, your split it’s anything other than an if it fine; is, As you’re as Five. long Ace a it’s or an to make certain two more or either one letting bit, by need a adjust to and is you’ll off, out Ace or Five, your the cut is In cards. event, any two more or one pulling by up thumb, or cards riffle off your check. Once card this key eliminated is by fear missing of and automatic any rendered almost the halves 939 out faro. and time give take 26, at the cut your made you’ve the precision Like any other effect utilizing a faro, it’s important to de-emphasize that it’s a controlled, or needed in getting the cards to weave, so the audience doesn’t sense the then should emphasize weaved, cards the are you once However, special kind of, shuffle. view, and hear a the that get spectators so coalesce, cards the as flourish, cascade or Springing do this point at cannot faro. (You do You only we together. the sound, of the cards riffling more than one). for doing a have conditions ever you’ll best the possible about effect gives you This it’s and, do faro; need to 5 one only Ace key; the or you by is faro: the cut at 26 guaranteed It’s also a well-known secret done on the offbeat, between the actions with the two spectators. works well that deck find If a faros. for "trained" you in", "broken or be that certain decks can it exclusively for this effect. It’ll always be and reserve order, in Simon—Eyes it for a faro, keep ready and will make the faro that much smoother.

under the faro version the how fishing show to example, you here’s one just Finally, A and B confirm. This both card, of "Spot" a first impression to In response your might work. the Two on and card, puts and you card one spot have picture that one three pairs eliminates the and B below, Five or low card, of a with impression follow an You Spot Card side of the line. narrowed it down to so you’ve double deuce, the excluded you’ve This means alone confirms. 5 and Ace. But you’ve also the and and 4 10, the 3 and 9, the three complementary pairs: cards in the pairs will run Highthe of values the .B low so card, the has who it’s that determined it down to three possible AB pairs: narrowed This you’ve B. means A to from Low, reading and A alone confirms. curved index, of a with impression an follow You A-5. and 9—3, 10-4, 10-4 combination (A has a Ten, the be it that must tells indexes the you of review mental A 169

f THE ARONSON APPROACH

do V

A9

which has a curved index, B has a 4 which has a non-curved index). Because the values run High-Low, you’re in a Minority Rule situation for the suits. Receive an impression of a ”suit with curves", and both A and B confirm. This means neither has a Diamond, so both must have Black cards. Get the impression of a "Black card, a Spade ", and B confirms. Thus A must have the opposite black suit, a Club. Finish, by revealing A’s card to be the Ten of Clubs and B’s card as the Four of Spades. Depending on your own facility with the faro, the particular performing circumstances, and the sophistication of your audience, either the regular version or the faro version may prove more appropriate. In either case, you’ve g0t the basis for a blockbuster effect. Present it as such.

170

r {0'40

SIMON-EYES

APPENDIX 2

Logical Tree, depicting All Values in the Regular Simon-Eyes Pack Arrangement

One

Both

1

I

B

A

Spot

One

Both

(Low)

Index With

I

I

A

B

3-9

2-3

|

Double Low

l

'

I

i

A

B

5-A

4-10

I

l

Up

Pairs

One

Both

One

Both

Curves

10-5

Both

i

I

A

B

J

I

Down

-—-T'—i B A

9-4 A-6

Pairs

6-J

8-K

7-0

J

I

Up

Pairs

One

Both

One

0-8

i

l

A

B

J-7

K-Z

i

I

Down

Pairs

171

POSTSCRIPT

The essence of magic is "doing the impossible". The "doing" is accomplished by the performer, but the "impossible" must ultimately be supplied by the audience. That one has witnessed the impossible is a conclusion, a judgment, a determination that must be reached by each spectator -- and this requires the active participation of a spectator’s senses and his mind. A spectator must first be convinced that he is aware of all that has happened: that he has been attentive, that he’s followed everything, that nothing has escaped his notice. That conviction will then be contrasted against the spectator’s awareness of the laws of nature and the laws of logic -- laws which he ”knows" like the back of his hand. The resulting dichotomy is the determination of impossibility: he knows what has just happened, and yet also knows that it cannot happen, that it defies the controlling laws that govern our world. And yet, you did it. A magician’s paramount goal is to manipulate the spectator’s mind and senses to bring about this state of impossibility. You’ll deceive him in any way you can, but you must produce both components, or else the magic will be lost. If the spectator feels he’s missed something, or that you’re "quicker than his eye", or that something was confusing, then he will not reach the certainty, the absolute conviction, that he knows what happened. Alternatively, even when he’s convinced that he’s carefully followed everything, if he thinks the subject matter is beyond his ken, that it’s susceptible of some kind of scientific explanation (even if he himself can’t articulate it) -- indeed, if he believes there’s still any room for possible theorizing -- he will not reach the conclusion of impossibility. The magician must affirmatively raise and destroy any hypothetical solution which the spectator might be likely to consider. The spectator must be actively engaged, so that his own mind and senses together eliminate even the possibility that -- let alone any explanation of how -- the effect could have taken place. There is a world of difference between a spectator’s n_ot knowing how something’s done versus his knowing that it can’t be done. The performance of magic today attempts to accomplish much: entertainment; the creation of beauty; the audience’s personal engagement and involvement; the creation of a memorable, unique persona or character; the display of skill, of artistry. All of these are laudable goals. They are certainly necessary if the art of magic is to survive in a competitive, demanding, fast-paced world. But they should not overpower or distract from the illusion of impossibility.

The art of magic is limitless. Our creations can be as clever as our intellect, as subtle as our imagination, and as devilish as our will to deceive. The feeling of impossibility is a fragile, ephemeral goal; when achieved, it is transitory, lasting only for an instant. But that sense of impossibility will long be remembered as a uniquely magical moment. It is an ideal for us to strive for in the creation of magical effects. To paraphrase the phil030phers, "the impossible is as wonderful as it is rare".

172