The Universal Force Technique
152 A Piece Of My Mind Credits and Inspiration: A number of years ago I witnessed a very good friend of mine, Kennedy (aka Ken Dyne), demonstrate a very clever prediction effect of his titled “iThought So”, which used multiple outs. After playing around with the idea I hit upon a way of eliminating the outs. This discovery inadvertently spawned a new method of forcing which has almost limitless potential for the modern mentalist. For the sake of completeness I must also mention the amazing work of Colin McLeod. Within Colin’s latest book, Divine, he details a routine titled “Diced Thoughts”, which shares some similar thinking. I wholeheartedly recommend the works of the aforementioned artists. Their work continues to both motivate and inspire my own thinking within the field of mentalism. I cannot, however, recommend their choice of hair styles! One Time Assembly: What follows is a rather simple way to force almost anything upon your spectators. Best of all, this uses little more than a half dozen business cards and two minutes of your time. To prepare you will take your first card and write the word “One” across its face (the blank side). Make sure that this is both large and legible. You must then flip this card face down and subtly code its corresponding number upon the back. A subtle mark or perhaps a nail nick will be sufficient for our needs. This process is then repeated for the remaining cards, which are marked and numbered Two, Three, Four, Five and Six accordingly. With a little care these cards should last you a lifetime. The Application of the Technique: I offer below a basic example of how you can use your “Universal Forcing” cards to force any common object upon your spectator. Once you understand how this technique works, it will quickly become evident how this may be used to force anything from playing cards to memories with no further preparation necessary.
153 In our example routine, you announce to your spectator that in a moment you will be asking them to think of a simple object, perhaps something that they would likely be carrying upon their person. You caution that before they do this, you are aware that certain objects hold greater psychological appeal than others, and for this reason you will ensure that their choice is random using what will be the cardboard equivalent of a die. Removing the six cards from your wallet, you openly display the various numbers written upon their faces. You will now demonstrate how the spectator is to make their number selection by mixing the cards in a face-down fashion and then taking a look at the top card. You suggest that after they have done this, they are to place the cards as a group onto the table in a face-down pile. Note: If you are performing in a walk-around environment, you could have them hold the cards face down in their hands. I always recommend demonstrating the procedure twice to ensure that the spectator understands what is required of them. Once the spectator understands, you will hand them the cards so that they can make their selection. You must turn your back as they do this. Once the spectator has made their selection, you must turn to face them. As you do this, you will ask if they further shuffled the cards after making their selection. The spectator will naturally inform you that they didn’t (simply because you never asked them to). Upon hearing the spectator’s response, you will gesture for them to further mix the cards (your words should convey the idea that this was an oversight on the part of the spectator). It is at this very moment you will read the marking from the top card of the stack. This should only take a fraction of a second to accomplish, and as soon as you have knowledge of this number, you will turn your back whilst the further shuffling takes place. Note: For those who are uncomfortable using the open glimpse at this moment, you may prefer to use the Gypsy Peek instead. For those who aren’t familiar with this technique, I will give a brief overview at the conclusion of this section. The Universal Force Technique
154 A Piece Of My Mind Our spectator now has a number in mind (of which we are aware), yet this number has no relevance. We will now verbally associate each number with a word/object or memory, and since the association is being made post selection, we may define each at our discretion. Let’s say that we are aware that the spectator is thinking of the number three and we wish for them to think of their mobile phone. In this instance we could say the following: “If you are thinking of the number one, I would like you to think of any coin which you have in your pocket. If you are thinking of the number two, I would like you to think about your credit card or perhaps which bank you belong to. If you are thinking of the number three, I would like you to think of your mobile phone. If you are thinking of the number four, I would like you to think about your keys. If you are thinking about the number five, I would like you to think about your watch, and if you are thinking of the number six, I would like you to think about anything else you may have in your possession.” In short, you are naming your force item at the point in which you mention the spectator’s chosen number; the other items called are pretty much irrelevant. I’m sure you will now understand just how versatile this technique is. The Gypsy Peek: The Gypsy Peek is an incredible technique which doesn’t seem to have been given the attention it deserves. When used in performance, this affords the performer a clear view of any tabled items whist giving the appearance that your eyes are covered and your head is turned. If you take a look at Figure 1, it is hard to imagine the performer is able to read the top card of the tabled stack, yet when we take a closer look at Figure 2, you should begin to understand how this works. You will begin by openly closing both eyes, and that the first and second fingertips of your left hand will then contact your right eyelid. To add to the deception, I also recommend positioning the left fingers close to the bridge of your nose. This will allow the spectators a clear view of your closed eyelid. In this position the palm of your left hand will naturally cover the left eyelid.
155 Under the cover of your left palm you will now open up the left eye, giving you a clear view of the table in front of you. Even if you turn your head to the left, you will still retain the same amount of vision. Try it once and you will be amazed at just how much you can see. Additional Thoughts: It almost goes without saying that any of the more popular electronic devices could be used to replace the requirement for the cards with this technique. Remember, it is the post labelling of the spectator’s choice rather than the specific selection process that offers the greater value. When deciding on which non-force items to use as your labels, I would suggest broadening the choice by offering them a category of items to choose from, such as: “If you are thinking of the number one, think of a piece of fruit.” “If you are thinking of the number two, think about your favourite TV show.” This will further imply a freedom of choice, yet when you get to your force number, you must be a little more specific when suggesting any possible association, leaving little to no room for choice as dictated by the routine you are performing. My good friend Mike Smith suggests amending the first digit of your post code (zip code) on your business cards for a simple yet effective marking system that can be read at a distance. Take a look at Figure 3 (over the page) for an example of this: The Universal Force Technique Figure 1 Figure 2
156 A Piece Of My Mind Figure 3
Cal-Ender
158 A Piece Of My Mind Credits & Inspiration: Having secured the publishing rights for Pete Turner’s Isabella Star 2 book, I began to work my way through its contents. Included within this book was an idea by Kenton Knepper titled “Kenton’s Calculation”, and it was whilst playing with this that I discovered a rather unique quirk with the iPhone calculator. This discovery opens up a lot of doors for the modern mentalist, and I am happy to present it to you now along with several “suggestions” for its use. Note: Whilst this system works perfectly with all iPhones, it is recommended that you test other mobile handsets prior to using them in performance. Luckily this is a very simple process and may even be done “on the fly”. It has also been suggested that this works on the Android iPhone calculator emulator, which is available for download in the app store. The Discovery: It would appear that the iPhone calculator will allow you to recall the last “addition” or “deduction” to any given calculation. The Secret: If you have an iPhone then you are all set to go; if not, please follow along with this calculation on your mobile to test whether this will work on your particular handset. Open up the calculator function on your mobile and make the following calculation: 1979 + 1654 = You should be presented with the total for this addition, which is 3633. You now hit “0” to wipe the total from the display and follow this by hitting the “C” button once (if you are using an iPhone, the “C” will now be replaced with “AC”). The display on the phone will remain zeroed out and you would expect that the
159 calculation has been wiped from the memory. But here is the amazing part of my discovery: if you now hit the equals button once, more the display will now register the number 1654. The number that is being displayed is the last figure to be added in your calculation. If this worked, then great news, you have a mobile that will function perfectly for this variant. If it did not, then please do not despair; iPhones dominate the mobile phone market and so there will be countless opportunities for you to work this method using the spectator’s phone (which is the preferred option anyway). Note: This function works with both additions as well as subtractions so long as these are the final actions performed by the calculator. It’s also worth noting that pressing the “0” to wipe the total is not required to make this work. However, it does provide the motivation for your actions in performance. The Logic: The logic of using a calculator is to ensure the accuracy of a calculation and so its use will never be questioned in performance. Whilst you could use your own mobile for this style of effect, I would always advise using the spectator’s phone where possible (to avoid any notion of apps or gimmicks). As mentioned above, it isn’t necessary to hit “0” for the recall to work. However, this not only helps to cement the idea that the total has been wiped, but since the total disappears whilst doing so, it also allows us not only to look at the calculator at this point, but also affords us the option to press the “C” button ourselves. The reason for this is that if the “C” button is pressed more than once, it will genuinely clear the information from the calculator’s memory. Never be concerned about pressing the “C” button yourself; it simply appears that you are being helpful. The added bonus is that the wiping action is also made more memorable in the mind of the spectator. If you are using more than one spectator, you should allow the owner of the phone to make the first calculation, allowing you to make your glimpse as you hand the phone back to them towards the conclusion of your routine. This information may be used at your discretion. Cal-Ender
160 A Piece Of My Mind Further Techniques: Once the “C” button has been openly pressed, you can press the “=” button as you pick up the phone from the table or from a spectator’s hand. The display will continue to register a “0” until your finger is slid/removed from that button. Another quirk of the iPhone is that the calculator function can be accessed even if the phone is locked. This is done by pressing the “home” button and swiping up with your thumb from the very bottom of the screen (providing they are running the latest iOS software and have not disabled this feature). It may also be worthwhile to note that most calculator apps hold the information in their memory even if the app is closed. With the iPhone you may press the home button and, after zeroing the screen, you can then re-open the app at a later point to gain access to this information. This may be the ideal way to use this for pre-show work. Additional Thoughts: This principle opens the doors to many routine ideas. Below I suggest a few possible applications to help whet your appetite. Whilst primarily this technique is designed to extract one piece of information, it can also be used to extract two. For example, let us suggest for a moment that one spectator enters their mobile PIN code into the calculator and a second spectator adds theirs to it. If that total was then announced aloud, it wouldn’t help you in any way to figure out either of the PIN numbers. However, if you were now to make your glimpse, you would be viewing the second spectator’s PIN number, and in taking this away from the total, you would now have the first PIN number, too. Special thanks go to Pete Turner for instigating this idea with his own variation of this technique. As mentioned, this technique also lends itself perfectly to the “Isabella’s Star” routine, allowing you to identify two separate astrological numbers with nothing written down.
161 In a rather simplistic fashion, you could choose to ask a spectator to add their month of birth to their day of birth, allowing you to backtrack the full thing. Note: In effects of this nature, it may be a wise idea to utilise the “sum” total within the context of your routine. Predicting this in advance through the use of a “Swami” is a perfect illustration of how this could be possible. I hasten to add that the “Cal-Ender” technique also works in perfect harmony with the “Toxic” force. This not only allows you to genuinely predict the end total of any given sum, but it also allows you to gain an additional piece of information along the way. Padlock combinations, bank serial numbers and even telephone numbers are just begging to be exploited with this idea. I sincerely hope that you enjoy exploring your own uses for this technique. Cal-Ender
162 A Piece Of My Mind
Springboard
164 A Piece Of My Mind Credits and Inspiration: Peter Turner has a very impressive “spectator as mind reader” routine during which he teaches the audience how to identify a card that another spectator is merely thinking of. Having enjoyed this effect so much, I decided to come up with my own method for it. The resulting effect was given the title “Springboard” and the response to this so far has been highly favourable. All indications were that this was a rather new principle within the realms of mentalism. Further investigation highlighted two notable performers who have independently developed similar ideas. The first is Andrew Gerard, who will be releasing his thoughts on his up-andcoming DVD project titled Secrets. The second is Phil Smiff, who has an excellent effect in his first book titled Mitox, which shares some similar thinking. After sharing my thoughts with Rus Andrews, he developed a great handling which he has now released under the title Also Known As. Those interested in this plot would do well to pick this up, too! What I present for you here is both the original work as well as my current and now favoured handlings of the Springboard technique. The Springboard Principle: The “Springboard Principle” relies on knowing which card a spectator has selected from a borrowed shuffled deck. This information may be harvested via a peek, glimpse or perhaps even forced during the initial selection process. I’m assuming everyone will have their own preference for achieving the above. If not, I’d recommend looking up the Le’Homme Maske force which was made popular by David Blaine. Note: My currently preferred handling of this can be found on page 198 under the title “CUP’s with Springboard”. Providing you have done a good enough job with the above, the spectator will
165 be under the impression that no one could know of which card they are thinking. This is the key to making this whole thing work. Now that the business side of things is done and dusted, let’s get to the good stuff... You are now going to inform the spectator that you have a card in mind (you never think of a card). You are going to ask them to attempt to read your mind and to guess the card of which you are thinking. Now here is the sneaky part: as the spectator builds up a card in their mind, they will subtly communicate every choice they make! Let’s examine this process in depth using an example to help clarify what’s going on... Let’s assume that you have glimpsed the spectator’s card and you know that they are thinking of the Three of Hearts. You can now place the deck back into your pocket, as it is no longer required. You will now say the following, “You now have a card in mind and so do I. How would you feel if you were able to read my mind and were able to identify the exact card that I am thinking of right now?” Allow the spectator to answer. “Let me explain how the mind-reading process works. Firstly, it requires a target which, in this case, is my card. Secondly, it requires a springboard or an idea to work from in order to determine what this card could be. That’s where your card comes in. “Think about the colour of your card... Do you believe that the card I am thinking of is the same colour as the card that you are thinking of?” The spectator’s “Yes” or “No” answer will tell us which colour card they believe you are thinking of. In our example the spectator is thinking of the Three of Hearts, so a Yes will indicate that they believe your card to be red, conversely a No would indicate that they believe your card to be black. So we now have a colour for your card. Let’s see how we get the suit... Should the spectator believe that your card is the same colour as theirs, then you will ask, “Do you believe that my card is the same suit as yours?” The Yes or No answer to this question will tell you which suit they think you have in mind. Springboard
166 A Piece Of My Mind Using our example card, a Yes would indicate that they think your card is a Heart and a No would indicate that they think your card is a Diamond. If the spectator replies with a No to the “same colour” question, then I will follow up by saying, “So you now believe you know the colour of my card. Please think of the first suit that pops into your mind of that colour.” In this case I would think of the dominant black suit, which is Spades. Note: If the spectator’s original card was black, I would then think of the dominant red suit, which is Hearts. Trust me, this will work out 99% of the time. We will discuss the other 1% a little later. So now that we have a colour and a suit for your imaginary thought-of card, let’s look at how to get the value. “I’d like you to put the suit of my card to one side for now.” As I say this I touch a point in the air just above the spectator’s head (trust me when I say that this really does help the spectator remember the suit). “Now I’d like you to think of the value of your card. Do you believe that the value of my card is a couple higher or a couple lower in value than the card you are thinking of?” As I say the word couple, I imagine an invisible ladder between me and the spectator, and I physically mime tapping two of the invisible rungs. This will subtly emphasize that by the word “couple” I mean “two”. The answer to this question then gives you the value. Using our example of the “Three of Hearts”, an answer of “Higher” will make us think of the value “Five” and answer of “Lower” would give us a value of “One/Ace”. I would now conclude by re-framing the process as follows: “I’d like you now to attach the value you are thinking of to the suit that you placed to one side in your mind a little earlier.” Here I point to the spot above their head where we placed the imagined suit a moment earlier. “Have you done that?” Allow the spectator to confirm. “So using your own internal logic, you have pieced together a single card from fifty-two possibilities, and at no point have you mentioned any colours, suits or values. Is this true?”
167 The spectator will confirm this because it is true! You will now know with almost 99% accuracy which card the spectator believes you are thinking of. That in a nutshell is the “Springboard Principle”! Before we go into the routines, I just want to cover some ground on how to reveal this information and how to cover/avoid near misses in those rare instances where you’re not bang on! Firstly, we can use what I have labelled The Close Call Protection. In this instance the deck is taken out of play the second you know the spectator’s card. Note: This looks beautiful for those who miss the point at which the deck was in play. I have had several colleagues join a performance after the spectator has selected a card from the deck. In this situation, they believe they have seen something that took place entirely in the spectator’s mind. You are now at the point at which you are pretty certain that the spectator is thinking of card “X”. You will now say the following: “I’m about to name the card of which I have been thinking. Now, please don’t be disheartened if you don’t get it bang on. These things take years of practice. To get the right colour is considered a partial success, to get the right suit is fantastic, but to get even close to the value is a sign of true potential. Only you will know just how close you are.” I then name “my” card and let the spectator’s reaction speak volumes to the rest of the audience! Even a close call (off by one) will still evoke a strong reaction from most spectators. Let’s now consider what I have labelled The Life Raft. Supposing you were to name the card and the spectator does not react in any way, what do you do then? The answer is simple; you follow up by saying, “Don’t worry, as I mentioned these things do take years of practice. Let me show you what you can do with years of hard work and dedication. Think about your card for a moment...” You can now close the routine by naming their thought-of card! This is still a strong conclusion to the routine! Now that you know the what and the how, let’s take a look at some of the Springboard
168 A Piece Of My Mind different ways this principle can be applied... The Knowing: Effect: You teach a spectator how to successfully read a thought! This is the basic routine which started it all off and has in essence already been explained in the description of the “Springboard Principle”. In short, you offer to teach a spectator how the mind-reading process works. You have them shuffle a deck of cards and allow them to select any card from the pack. Have the card returned to the deck and control it to the top using your favourite method. State that you no longer require the cards and place them back into the box, glimpsing the top card as you do so. Essentially you’re going to drop the entire deck into the box with their faces towards you. The pads of the fingers will cause a slight friction on the top card, which will prevent it from dropping into the box. This friction is only held long enough to note the card’s identity before pushing it home. You have natural cover for this action as you begin to close the card case. Now that you know the identity of the spectator’s card, you will place the deck back into your pocket. You will now deliver the exact patter from the “Springboard Principle” explanation as you apparently teach the spectator how to read a mind. This process will cue you to the name of a card, the one about which they believe you are thinking. Close the routine by saying the following: “I’m about to name the card of which I have been thinking. Now, please don’t be disheartened if you don’t get it bang on. These things take years of practice. To get the right colour is considered a partial success, to get the right suit is fantastic, but to get even close to the value is a sign of true potential. Only you will know just how close you were.” All that remains is to name the card and to receive your reaction! Note: If you get an amazing reaction, please do not feel tempted to top this by revealing the identity of the spectator’s original card. This would be counterintuitive!
169 The Killer: Effect: A single card is handed sight unseen to a spectator. Amazingly, the spectator is able to discern its identity! This is my version of Kenton Knepper’s “Kolossal Killer” effect. Although this uses a pack of playing cards, they are only in play for the briefest of moments. Those of you who are familiar with Kenton’s effect will appreciate the similarity. You begin by handing the spectator a single card sight unseen from a deck of cards. Request that the spectator places this card into their pocket throughout the demonstration that you’re about to perform. The card you give them must be the Jack of Hearts. State that your spectator is going to try and work out the identity of this card using a systematic mind-reading process. You will now ask them to select a card from the deck. During the selection process you will force the King of Spades upon them. One of the simplest ways of doing this is via a riffle force however any force would suffice for our needs. If the King of Spades was removed from the deck by the spectator during the selection process, request that they return it back to the deck before placing the cards into your pocket. Your hard work is now done! State the following: “You have in your possession a single playing card. The only thing we can be sure of at this moment in time is that it couldn’t be the same card of which you’re presently thinking. I’m sure that makes sense to you! “Believe it or not, I’m about to teach you how to identify the hidden card using the card that you have in your mind. Firstly, I’d like you to think about the colour of the card that you have in your mind. The only clue I’m going to give you is that the card in your pocket is a different colour than the card of which you are presently thinking.” You have now successfully forced them to think of a red card! “So now you will have a new colour in mind. Please call out loud the first suit that pops into your mind of this colour.” Here we are relying on the spectator opting for the dominant suit, which is a Heart! This works out almost every time. Just think of how successful the Springboard
170 A Piece Of My Mind psychological force of the Queen of Hearts is to understand how effective this is. We will cover how to handle the near miss at the end. If the spectator takes the bait and goes for the Heart, then I respond as follows: “Ah, so you have decided that the card in your pocket is a red card in the suit of Hearts! Is there any reason you didn’t go for the diamonds instead?” Allow the spectator time to respond. Note: This questioning emphasizes the apparent free choice(s) that they had when deciding which colour and suit to choose. This really is a beautiful moment and is one that prevents any backtracking. You are now on the home run and are going to use a rather devious technique to force the Jack upon the spectator. To do this we ask the following: “I’d like you now to think about the value of your card. Considering Aces as low cards and Kings as high, do you believe the card in your pocket is one, two, a couple of cards higher, or a couple of cards lower in value than the one that you are presently thinking of?” I tap the two invisible ladder rungs as I say this. Since we originally forced a King upon the spectator, they are forced to go a couple lower, giving them the Jack we need! Clever, eh? “Now that you have decided this you will have a new value in mind. Please tell me what this is.” The spectator should respond with the Jack. Assuming all has gone well, you will now re-frame the events which have transpired. “I handed you a single playing card, instructing you to place it into your pocket. You then made several decisions in your mind resulting in a free choice of colour, suit and value. This information was then pieced together to create the name of a single playing card, in this case the Jack of Hearts. Please show everybody the card which you hold.” The spectator will then look at the card, giving you the reaction you deserve! Should the spectator miss on the card, this miss will be very marginal for obvious reasons. The resulting cards will likely be the Jack of Diamonds or the Ten of Hearts; both are close enough for the audience to appreciate just how close the spectator got. Note: Please remember that sometimes a near miss is stronger than a hit! Remember, you are never wrong; it is just a case of how close the spectator is.
Springboard 171 Though I don’t personally see a need for this, you could use Kenton’s wording from his original effect to cover any of the other options. If you wish to repeat this effect with a different card, you could force the Two of Hearts and place the Four of Spades into the spectator’s pocket. Suits, of course, are interchangeable. Duplopia: Effect: The performer and spectator each think of a card from within the pack. The mentalist removes his thought-of card and places it onto the table. Amazingly, the spectator is able to reveal its identity. Not to be outdone the mentalist then reveals the name of the spectator’s thought-of card. The following is a variant on Paul Vigil’s beautiful “Diplopia” effect, which can be performed with an incomplete deck. The methodology behind the Springboard technique is perfectly suited to the context of this routine. This effect offers some unique advantages over the other routines which use this principle. Firstly, your thought-of card is committed to the table from the beginning. Secondly, the spectator has a genuine free choice of which card to choose. Actually, both of the above are not strictly true, however they do accurately describe how this routine will be remembered. You will begin by handing a deck of cards to the spectator for shuffling. Taking the cards back, you will now have your spectator select a card. Since you want this card to be remembered as a thought-of card, I would suggest that you perform a riffle peek of some form. For those who don’t have a preferred method to achieve this, I offer you the following technique: Hold the deck at eye level with the faces of the cards towards the spectator. Turn your head away and then place your first finger on the upper index corner of the face card. Slowly pull backwards with this finger, allowing each of the cards to flick off the fingertip in turn. Request that the spectator call out Stop at any point they desire. Once the spectator has called out Stop, you will ask that they remember the card at that position. Once they have committed this card to memory you will
172 A Piece Of My Mind lower the deck, allowing an extra card (the spectator’s selection) to flick off the fingertip. You will now hold a little-finger break above this card as you square the pack. Double cut this card to the top of the deck and then hand the pack to the spectator. Only when you have done this do you turn to face the spectator. Request that they spread through the cards with the faces towards you so that you can also think of one. As they do this you will note the top card of the deck. This will be the spectator’s selection. You now request that the spectator shuffle the deck. You now state that the spectator must attempt to read your mind and to identify the card of which you are thinking. State that to help them you will remove it from the pack so that you can focus more clearly in sending its colour, suit and value to them. What you will actually do is remove the spectator’s card and place it face down onto the table in front of you. You will now teach them how to identify this card using the Springboard technique (based on their thought-of card). Once they have a card in mind (the one they believe is resting on the table), you will then ask them to think back to their card. Note: No cards have been named yet. You now state that you have an idea of which card they are thinking. Spread through the deck and find a card which is one or two higher than their thought-of card. State that you are a little unsure and that you will show them this card, but they are to remain silent. Display this card to the spectator, pause for a moment and then state that you feel that you are close but not exact. You will now push this card back into the deck, followed by removing the card of which they believe you are thinking. Note: This beautiful convincer gambit is credited to Simon Aronson. You can now ask them of which card they believe you were thinking (pointing to the card on the table). They should name the card which is in your hand. You now ask them which card they were thinking of, gesturing towards the card in your hand. They will then name the card on the table. You now have two options. You can either drop the card you hold onto the card on the table before flipping both face up, or you can perform a Mexican
Springboard 173 Turnover of the tabled card, revealing that the spectator was correct, and then casually flip over the card in your hand, revealing that you also successfully read their mind. As a side note, I personally feel that the revelation of their card is justified in this routine since your card was apparently committed to in advance. Springback: It appears that there are a large number of mentalists who do not wish to use a pack of cards in their work. With this in mind I set out to develop a handling of Springboard that does not require a physical deck of cards to be used. About a week ago I spoke to my good friend Wayne Goodman on the phone. Wayne explained his beautiful approach to Springboard which begins with the force of a card from a shuffled deck. This approach got me thinking, and since you are all familiar with the technique, I will talk through the performance and explanation at the same time. You will begin by asking the spectator to think of any card in the pack without restriction. Once they have acknowledged that they have a card in mind, state that you will do the same. You will now state that you will teach the spectator how to read your mind using the original scripting as follows: “Let me explain how the mind-reading process works. Firstly, it requires a target which, in this case, is my card. Secondly, it requires a springboard or idea to work from in order to determine what my card could be. That’s where your card comes in.” I now deviate slightly from the script and say the following: “Think about the colour of your card for a moment. In reading your mind I can tell you that the colour of my card is the same as yours, however my card is the opposite suit. I’d like you now to think of what this suit would be.” Once the spectator has acknowledged this I will continue, “I’d like you to put the suit of my card to one side for now.” As I say this I touch a point in the air above their head (trust me when I say that this really does help the spectator remember the suit).
174 A Piece Of My Mind “Now I’d like you to think of the value of your card. Do you believe that the value of my card is one, two, a couple higher or a couple lower than the card you are thinking of?” It is very important to remember the spectator’s reply to this question, as you will be using this information in a moment. “So using your own internal logic, you have pieced together an idea of what my card may be. The resulting card has been generated from over fifty-two different possibilities, and at no point have you mentioned any colours, suits or values. Is this true?” The spectator will confirm this because this is true! At this point the spectator is thinking of two cards: one is their freely selected card and the other is their idea of which card you are thinking of. At this moment in time you only know that both cards are of the same colour but are opposite suits, and you also know whether they believe your card is two higher or lower than theirs. You are now set to conclude the effect. You take two business cards from your wallet. Handing one card to your spectator, you request that they commit themselves by writing down the name of the card which they believe you are thinking of. You must now peek this information using any one of the countless methods which are available to the modern mentalist. There are numerous peek wallets and impression devices that will suffice for this purpose. Once you have this information, you can very easily use the “Springboard Principle” in reverse to discern the identity of the freely selected card. Let’s say that the spectator has written the Four of Clubs as the card they believe you are thinking of. You will now know that their card is black (it’s the same colour) and that their card is a Spade (since theirs is the opposite suit to yours). To work out the value we must recall whether the spectator believed your card to be a couple higher or lower than theirs. No matter which they chose you will count two values in the opposite direction. The result will identify the exact value of the card of which they are thinking. You will then write the name of the resulting card on your business card and you are all set for the revelation!
Springboard 175 Invisible Deck Application: Colin McLeod made the great suggestion of combining the Invisible Deck with my “Knowing” routine. In essence, rather than just naming your thought-of card at the end of the routine, you begin by handing the Invisible Deck to the spectator, stating that you have a card reversed in the deck. You can then proceed with the same routine. However rather than naming your thought-of card aloud, you will simply reveal it using the Invisible Deck. This adds a nice element of prior commitment to your supposed thought-of card! Springboard for the Stage: If performing “Springboard” for a larger crowd, then you may like the following presentational angle. This is best suited to a routine such as “The Knowing”, whereby the cards are out of play as soon as the initial selection has been made. Using the script from the initial routine, you will work out which card the spectator believes you are thinking of. You then hand your spectator a drawing pad and take one for yourself. Standing back to back with your spectator, you can then draw the cards that you have in mind simultaneously in a “Drawing Duplication” fashion. In this instance the end revelation may be amplified for a larger audience. Note: Why not consider pre-show to gain knowledge of the spectator’s selection before using this? Increasing Accuracy: After performing this countless times for both magicians and mentalists at the Blackpool Magic Convention (Feb. 2013), I felt it necessary to adopt a slight change in my scripting to significantly reduce the chance of being “off by one”.
176 A Piece Of My Mind Don’t ask me why, but magicians and mentalists seem to think a little differently than our lay friends, and so I have now adopted the following line: “I would like you now to think about the value of your card. Do you believe the value of my card is one, two, a couple higher or a couple lower than the card of which you are presently thinking?” The addition of the “one, two” cements the range that is being discussed, and since “one” can’t be classed as a couple, this subtly limits the spectator’s choice even further, giving us a highly accurate reading of their thoughts. A few who have picked this up have asked why I don’t give the spectator the freedom to nominate a value difference during the effect; e.g., “Do you believe the value of my card is one, two, three, four or five higher or lower than your card?” The reason for this is that when recapping the effect I prefer to say: “.... and at no point have you mentioned any colours, suits or values...” I feel that this re-framing is very important to how the audience will remember the effect. Another technique I have adopted from time to time is to quantify the spectator’s value after they have confirmed “a couple higher” or “a couple lower” by throwing the following back at them: “so two higher in value” or “so two lower in value?” For those spectators who either correct you (with lines such as “Quite a few higher/lower”) or show any signs of hesitancy to confirm the “couple”, you can then ask them to quantify their choice by saying “by how many?” In this fashion the spectator is giving you the exact value of their choice. Springboard Suit Exchange for Perfectionists: Let’s suggest for a moment that despite knowing the value and colour of the card that the spectator has in mind, you are still a little unsure which suit a spectator has chosen. In this instance you can simply control one of the possibilities to the top of the deck as you remove the other. For example, we will assume that you have tabled the Three of Diamonds and have controlled the Three of Hearts to the top of the deck. You can now ask the spectator which colour card they believe that you have
Springboard 177 in mind. Once they have answered “Red”, you can very quickly flash the face of this card to the remaining audience. This should be done swiftly and just enough for the colour to register. You will now ask which suit they believe you have in mind. Upon hearing your answer, you will know if you need to switch the card via a top change or similar. The nice thing is that the switch happens before the spectator announces the value, and as such you can cleanly reveal the card after the value has been announced. Back Tracking: With almost all of the “Springboard” routines, there isn’t a need to know the identity of the spectator’s card until the very end. In this fashion I prefer to control the spectator’s selection but don’t glimpse it until the moment I go to remove my “apparent” thought-of card from the deck. This affords you the ability to keep your head turned even after the control and further allows the spectator to cover the deck with their hands until the conclusion of the effect. The fact that you can be so open about your lack of vision really helps to sell the openness of the effect. I wholeheartedly recommend using this ploy where applicable. Just be sure to remember the spectator’s replies, which will then allow you to backtrack at the end of the effect. Other Applications: As demonstrated in the following watch routine, this technique is not limited to just playing cards. In fact, anything which contains/uses some form of increments in an ascending/descending pattern may be exploited. Think about how we could explore monetary values, numbered lists, pages from a book, letters of the alphabet, sizes, days and even dates. All of these and more are just begging to be used with the “Springboard Principle”.
178 A Piece Of My Mind Watch This: I knew there were other non-card-based applications for this principle, and my first step on this journey was a reworking, or rather extension, of Bev Bergeron’s watch technique, which was popularized by Richard Osterlind. Bev Bergeron used his beautiful technique to force a time on a spectator with a borrowed wrist watch. In this effect we will use this technique as a basis for the spectator to “Springboard” from. Since this original technique is not mine to reveal, I would suggest picking up a copy of Richard Osterlind’s Mind Mysteries DVD, which details the work on this. So let’s assume that you have used Bev Bergeron’s technique to force the time 1:21. Ask the spectator to look at the time they have set on the watch. State that you are also thinking of a time. State that the chance of the spectator randomly setting their watch to your thought-of time is approximately one in seven hundred and twenty. There are sixty minutes in an hour and twelve hours in a day, thus totaling seven hundred and twenty different permutations within any twelve-hour period. In other words, the chances of this happening are very remote. State that you can, however, teach the spectator to successfully read a mind. State that to keep things simple, you are thinking of a straight-forward time. Request that the spectator think of their time and think of where the minute hand rests on the watch they hold. Ask them to imagine in their mind that they are very slowly turning this dial forwards, stopping it at the nearest quarter past half past or quarter to as the case may be. This will force them to think of half past the hour. Once they have done this they are to let you know. You will ask that they keep this hand where it is and now concentrate on the hour hand. State that they are to think whether the time you are thinking of could be a couple of hours before or a couple of hours after the time of which they are thinking of. Once they answer this, this will give you the hour of which they believe you are thinking. This would be either eleven or three. If you’re bold I would (given the example above) take a good punt on the three without needing to ask whether they went for a couple higher or lower.
Springboard 179 You can now state that they have a time in mind based entirely upon their own actions and decisions, a time which they believe that you are presently thinking of. You can now name the time of which you were apparently thinking and receive your reaction. Here is another idea for those not wishing to use the minute gambit. You can simply use the couple higher or lower on the hour and for the minutes leave them to guess what this may be. You will now state that you will commit your thought-of time to your watch and you simply just set the hour and will fake pushing in the crown. You can then ask them to name the minutes past the hour that they believe you are thinking of. Upon hearing this and whilst holding on to your watch strap, you can now secretly roll the crown with your finger and thumb to set the minutes. Once this is done you can then smile, placing the watch on the table (pushing in the crown), and then ask for the hour, leaving them to turn your watch over to check! As a side note, to make the minutes easier in the latter handling of the watch routine, you can state that the only help you will give them is that it’s so many minutes after the time of which they are thinking. In our example of 1:21 we would only be left with about thirty minutes to scroll through! Note: For those of you who are fans of Swami gimmicks, you can use this tool to apparently commit to your thought-of time from the very beginning! Springboard & Letters: If you know of which letter of the alphabet the spectator is thinking you can then use this to force another letter or word. The following example may help to suggest some possible routines for this ploy. Let’s assume that you have somehow forced the spectator to think of the letter S. You could perhaps use my “Universal Forcing” technique for this purpose. Note: Pete Turner also has a great method for this on his Jinxed DVD set. You can then secretly write the word “SUN” upon a card as a prediction. Asking the spectator to imagine the alphabet written in the air in front of them, you ask them to move one, two, a couple of letters before or after their chosen letter.
180 A Piece Of My Mind Since it’s a lot harder to go backwards, the spectator will generally take the easy route and skip two letters forward, settling on the letter U. You will then ask them to imagine those two letters “big and bright” in their minds and ask them to add another letter after the two to form a three-letter word, preferably something they could visualise or draw. Psychologically speaking, this has a very high tendency to force the word “Sun”. I hope that you have fun exploring this idea. Springboard & Colours: If the spectator has selected a colour of the rainbow which you know (via a peek or similar), you could perhaps ask whether they believe the colour that you are thinking of is a couple of colours lighter or a couple of colours darker. By following the natural order of the rainbow, you should be able to determine which colour the spectator is now thinking of. Closing Thoughts: Neil S (from The Magic Cafe) recently contacted me regarding his beautiful application of the Springboard technique, whereby the spectator is able to deduce the exact month that you have in mind. It wasn’t a great leap to suggest that this could be taken one step further to create the illusion that the spectator is able to reveal your exact date of birth! Remember that if you follow the Springboard process to get the “thought-of ” information from your spectator, you can just reveal this, stating that it’s your date of birth. You will never have to prove this. There are two other suggestions that have been offered by other Springboard owners, and without detailing the exact routines, I’d like to leave you with the following thoughts for you to explore in your own way. The first is to force a card from an apparently shuffled deck and to use this card as the basis for the “Springboard” action. Thanks to Wayne Goodman for this suggestion. The next is to use a marked deck. This has been suggested by many of the purchasers of the Springboard book. For those who don’t mind using cards in
Springboard 181 their work, this can be combined beautifully with my “Springback” routine.
182 A Piece Of My Mind
Thought Unlinking (The Lazy Man’s Pre-Show)
184 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: “Thought Unlinking” is one of my favourite discoveries. Whilst other mentalists may have touched upon similar techniques in the past, I do believe that I’m the first to isolate the principle, to give it a label and to offer a simple formula for its optimum use and application within the field of mentalism. If you have ever wanted to accurately reveal unspoken, unwritten thoughts that only exist in the minds of your spectators, then you’re in for a treat. Let me deliver the bad news first: This isn’t a method for real mind reading; sadly you must harvest the information prior to the revelation and there is a small element of dual reality at play. With the bad news out of the way, let’s look at what makes this technique so powerful. Firstly, the revelation of this information does not seem connected to anything you have performed prior to its use. The revelation of this information will elicit a big reaction from the spectator concerned. The spectator will confirm that the information revealed only existed in their mind, and lastly, you can allow the spectators to discuss all aspects of the routine afterwards without fear. The Foundations of the Technique: In short, you will present the spectator with a range of things to think of, however rather than asking them to make a single choice, you will instead ask them to make two. After surreptitiously gaining knowledge of both selections, you will further instruct your spectator to pop one of them into the back of their mind, allowing them to focus their thoughts upon the other. You caution them that this choice must be reasoned, and as such you will offer them several moments to consider it. Using any means necessary you will reveal their thought, bringing the routine to a logical conclusion. This second piece of information, however, has been secretly retained for later use (some examples on how to achieve this will follow). Note: It is preferential to use a selection procedure which doesn’t involve the
185 spectator writing down their thoughts. Instances where both pieces of information appear unconnected are also preferable. After a suitable duration has passed, you can now turn to your spectator and boldly state that a thought has been nagging away at the back of your mind, a thought that you believe pertains to someone within the group with which you’re working with. You will then turn to the required spectator, singling them out. You then state the following: “I have some information here that I believe pertains to you. This information makes no sense to me, and since I’m unsure whether this is personal, please allow me to whisper it to you.” You then lean in and whisper the harvested information to them. The spectator will instantly connect the dots and will react appropriately. You can then state: “Yes or No, does that make any sense to you?” The spectator will confirm that this is correct. You can then follow up by saying: “...and did this information just exist in your mind or did you write it down somewhere?” The spectator will confirm that it only existed in their mind. Due to the time lapse, this will appear totally unrelated to the original effect that was used to set this up, and as a result this will appear to be a very direct piece of mind reading. For those who do not use dual reality effects, I’d like you to take a few moments to consider the worst that could happen with this effect. Should the spectators decide to talk, then they are still left with the same mystery. The statements you made were all factual and congruent with the effect that took place. Try it once and I’m sure you will be a convert! Note: Adding a second choice into the mix seems to add an element of fairness to the selection procedure. The suggestion of popping one of the selections to the back of the mind also subtly implants the idea that it is to be recalled at a later point. Thought Unlinking
186 A Piece Of My Mind Examples of the Unlinking Process: There are many effects that lend themselves perfectly to this principle; within this book you will read about the “Boomerang Force”, “Comparative Uncertainty Principle”, “Universal Force” and “Springboard Technique”, and these alone should provide you with plenty of scope to implement this technique. However, before you rush to re-read those principles again, I’d like to offer you some additional examples of how I have personally employed this technique alongside some of the more popular commercial mentalism releases. The Mother of all Book Tests: One of my favourite uses for the “Thought Unlinking” technique utilizes the “Mother of all Book Tests”. I have the great pleasure of sharing the following presentation with you. Note: The handling that follows can just as easily be applied to other book tests, too. Handing the MOABT to a volunteer, I ask them to go through and to select any word in the traditional way. Once they acknowledge that they have a word in mind, I ask them to select another word in the same fashion before closing up the book. Once they have done this, I ask them to then decide, between the two words, which they would like me to go for. With a single word chosen as a target, I ask them to put the other word to the back of their mind. I now go for the first letter as in the original routine. This is then followed by writing the second letter (sight unseen). Before I reveal the two letters on my pad, I reiterate the fairness of their choices, stating: “If you had decided to go for the other word, this would have probably begun with a different letter; it would have begun with a...” This hanging sentence prompts them to give me the first letter of the second word, thus informing me of what it is. Upon hearing what this is I interject with:
187 “In other words your choice was free and fair.” I then flip over the pad, revealing the two letters that I have written and asking: “How am I doing so far?” You can now finish off writing the first word, bringing this effect to a successful conclusion. With the second word secure at the back of your mind, you are free to dispense this information later in your act. Precognition 365: Another method for using this technique was explored in the amazing diary effect titled “Precognition 365”, which was a joint release between myself and Ken Dyne. (Further credit must be given to the amazing Colin McLeod, who co-wrote the “Gregorian Mind” along with Ken Dyne. “Gregorian Mind” was the sole inspiration behind the “Precognition 365” effect.) In “Precognition 365” you seemingly predict the gender, name, age and occasion of an entry which is freely selected from a diary. In this effect your prediction comes in the form of a greeting card. What isn’t revealed to the audience is that during the effect, the spectator also reads an additional detail in the diary regarding the specifics of a gift that is to be purchased. This affords you the ability to reveal the details of this gift in a remarkable manner. After a suitable amount of time has elapsed, you simply stop what you are doing, turn to the spectator who helped with the diary effect and state, “I have a thought sitting at the back of my mind, something that pertains to you. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you weren’t by chance thinking about the purchase of an ‘X’.” The spectator will smile, agree and then react. To the audience it appears that the spectator is confirming that they THEMSELVES were thinking of purchasing an “X” (for example a black and white kitten). The subtle use of language is poetry! Multi-Dimensional/Real Die: I must admit that I am a big fan of this device. Since dice are so naturally associated with chance, they always seem to fly under the radar and are above suspicion for this reason alone. Thought Unlinking
188 A Piece Of My Mind In order to use “Thought Unlinking” with this item, I will begin by using my Universal Force technique to implant a thought in a spectator’s mind. I then claim to be struggling and ask a spectator to repeat the selection procedure. In this instance you now have a very direct way of knowing two thoughts that seemingly only exist in the spectator’s mind, all without any questions or anything written down. The fact that you seem to fail at first really cements the idea that this is genuine, and this in turn really adds to the end result when you make that final revelation. Another alternative is to use the original colour/number which formed part of the original selection procedure to become part of the routine itself. This latter idea must come with a nod of gratitude to Peter Turner and his “Bob Principle”. Closing Words: For those who need a little push in the right direction, I present you with a few things on which to ponder: How can the spectator’s original/initial selection in “Springboard” be used further? As with “Springboard”, how could we further use the initial selection from the Boomerang Force? The “Comparative Uncertainty Principle” most often affords us the opportunity to reveal a freely thought-of item from a limited selection. The spectator’s choice will most often negate the use for another piece of information, so why let this go to waste? As mentioned previously, we can quite easily create a false start by purposely failing the first time around. This will not only breed credibility in what we do, but will also give us the information we need to work the “Thought Unlinking” process. When you think about it, there are so many ways in which this principle may be employed. Why not spend a few moments to consider any openings within your own work where this technique may be employed?
189 Springboard Unlinked: One of the strongest ways to conclude a “Springboard” demonstration is to follow it with my “Thought Unlinking” process in the following way. Let’s assume that in the context of the Springboard “Knowing” routine you have discerned that the spectator’s original card was the Three of Clubs. You will allow a few moments to pass after the routine has concluded (without the revelation of their original card). You now turn to another spectator and ask them to think of any card in the pack. Once they have committed to a card, you will remove the deck from its case and locate the Three of Clubs. You then place this card face down onto the table. You will now ask the spectator of which card they were thinking. Upon hearing their reply you must smile triumphantly as though you have nailed it. You now state that another card is also coming through, and as such you will now remove the card that the spectator has just named aloud, placing it on top of the tabled card (essentially using a one-ahead). You then turn to the spectator who helped you with Springboard, asking: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that you also had a card in mind, too, a black card, a club. Was it the Three of Clubs?” The spectator should agree and react accordingly. When they do this, casually flip both cards face up to receive your applause. Note: The slight dual reality here is that your original Springboard helper has only just created the new card in their mind. Trust me, this flies, and even if an inquisitive spectator were to probe, they will still be unable to unravel the full mystery. The Sceptic: “Thought Unlinking” is a great technique to use with an open sceptic. You will begin with your first revelation whilst secretly gaining knowledge of a secondary piece of information; I favour the MOABT for this purpose (as detailed earlier). Thought Unlinking
190 A Piece Of My Mind Sensing that the sceptic still isn’t convinced, you offer to try something a little more challenging. You ask the sceptic to nominate anyone from within the group to think of a challenging word. Note: Since you have asked for a challenging word, they will likely pick a longer word, and this will help to cover what is about to take place. Taking a business card and a pen, you will focus all attention on the second spectator. Apparently picking up on this word, you begin to write something upon the card. What you actually write is the secondary word that was harvested from the first spectator (the sceptic). Using this as a one-ahead, you can now openly ask the second spectator which word they were thinking of. Upon hearing their answer you must smile triumphantly. You will now turn your attention back to the sceptic, suggesting that even if you are correct they would perhaps just think you had primed everyone in the room to say this word. You now state that the only thing that would convince a true sceptic is that if you could reveal a word that just existed in their mind. You must seek a verbal confirmation that this is true. Upon hearing their reply, you will take a second card and begin writing upon it. Upon this card you will actually write the second spectator’s word. Placing the two cards to the table you will now ask the following: “Please answer with a simple Yes or No. Were you by chance thinking of the word “X” (where “X” is the word that was harvested earlier)?” Since the spectator was thinking of this word earlier they are forced to agree, falling into your trap. As a result of this they are confirming for everyone else that they are a believer. The combination of “Thought Unlinking” and the one-ahead is a marriage made in heaven.
The Comparative Uncertainty Principle
192 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: If you have ever wanted to genuinely read a mind, then I’m happy to report that this principle comes very close. It will allow you to reveal the exact thoughts of your spectators through a simple visualisation process. I have devoted more time to the following principle than any other within this book. Since it first saw print within Pete Turner’s book Isabella’s Star 2, I have received countless e-mails asking if I had any further work for it. It is therefore with great pleasure that I present my most recent thinking on what is now known as “CUP’s”. Credits: Before we go into the inner workings of this technique, I wish to give the following credits: Al Mann for his over-the-phone book test “The Damned Thing”, Leo Boudreau’s “Binary Code” and Paul Brook’s “Any Word on Any Object”. The above credit list was kindly donated by Chris Bartak, who noticed some parallels between the above works and mine. Having previously read some great thinking by each the above performers, I can wholeheartedly recommend their material to you. Another credit goes out to Phantini, who used a written ploy which achieves a similar end in his effect titled “Key Word”, which was published in Magick #282. The Breakdown: The following illustration should help you to understand how this principle works in its most simplistic form. Please think of either of the words printed below: CAT or DINOSAUR I would like you now to imagine that your chosen word is written in front of
193 you in block capitals. Think about how many letters are in this word... or if it’s easier you can simply visualise the item itself. If I had been observing you as you did this, I would have been able to tell you which of the two words you were thinking of. For those of you who aren’t already ahead of me, this system works due to the varying length of each word. If you were thinking of the word CAT, you would have had no trouble in thinking of how many letters were in your chosen word. As such you would have been able to follow my instruction without hesitation. DINOSAUR, on the other hand, is a much larger word, and as a result I would have recognised one or more of the following tells: An extended look of concentration, a wandering gaze, a look of confusion or a general pause for thought. In short, there would have been some visible signs of uncertainty. My good friend Pete Turner suggests watching the spectator’s fingers for visible signs of counting (thanks to Pete for that one). Based on Pete’s suggestion, I sometimes hold the hands of my spectators so that they are forced to internalise this thought process. By comparing any presence of uncertainty between the lengths of the words available, you can easily work out which word they are thinking of. That in a nutshell is the “Comparative Uncertainty Principle”. Note: In my initial instruction you would have noticed the presence of a slight pause. This pause is present to allow the spectator to begin making their calculation (if required). It is at this moment that you must observe whether your spectator is making a calculation. In doing so you will instantly become aware of which word your spectator is thinking. You then immediately continue with the line “...or if it’s easier you can simply visualise the item itself,” which will infer that you have no idea what your spectator is thinking. The Comparative Uncertainty Principle
194 A Piece Of My Mind Opening up the Possibilities: Ideal word pairings will consist of one word with five letters or less and another with seven letters or more. With careful consideration you could even increase the number of words used. I myself have been able to differentiate between three words with a high degree of accuracy. If you are trying this I would suggest a three, five and eight-letter combination. I hasten to add that the application of this principle isn’t limited to just word length alone. Imagery or questioning may also be used so long as one path is notably easier to walk than the other. In the routine “Picasso” (explained within this book) we subtly control the spectator to think of an animal which begins with the letter C or T. Experience has shown that a quick response will likely indicate that the spectator was thinking of the letter “C”. A cat is far easier to think of than a tiger. Imagine a book test that uses the five senses to determine the spectator’s freely selected word (a shameless plug for something I have in the works). For example, let’s assume that we ask them to think about any sound their selection would make. Their facial response to this statement will give us vital information of which item they are thinking. By combining two or more criteria such as word length and perhaps object colour, we can begin to multiply the number of words used. In this fashion we are able to create lists of words with infinite possibilities. The beauty is that all of the above is achievable without any direct questioning. Note: I feel it’s important to mention once again that you should never leave your spectator hanging. The moment you notice any extraneous thought process, you must immediately direct their thoughts elsewhere. This is easily achieved by saying something along the lines of “...or if it’s easier you can simply visualise this thing in your mind.” CUP’s with Vowels: My good friend Stephen Shaw is one of the rare few that seems to be able to instantly calculate the number of letters in a word, and for this reason he
195 suggested using vowels as our differential. In short, rather than using word length, we will request that the spectator concentrate on the number of vowels within the word. In this instance we can purposefully control the difficulty of the longer words by choosing ones which have a healthier mix of vowels and consonants. Words such as chocolate, rhinoceros, refrigerator and words like card, beer and phone would make suitable pairings. Natural Pairings - Male or Female: Mentalists are often faced with the prospect of having to discern the identity of someone of which a spectator is merely thinking. It is always nice to be able to give details of this person before any method to gain their name has actually taken place. Note: Pete Turner has a beautiful technique which he has labelled “The Confirmation Principle”, which he has kindly allowed me to detail within this book. This technique can be combined to great effect with the following idea to implant the thought that you already know who the spectator is thinking of before the revelation takes place. As readers of minds, we should be expected to at least be able to discern the sex of the person of which the spectator is thinking. This is very easy using the “CUP’s” system. Simply ask your spectator to concentrate their thoughts upon the sex of the person that they have in mind. Once they have done that, ask them to think of either the word “Male” or “Female” as dictated by their choice. Since both of these words naturally differ in length, it is very easy for us to use “CUP’s” to distinguish which word the spectator has in mind. The result of this exercise puts us one step ahead of our spectator. The Confirmation Principle: The confirmation Principle is a technique created by Peter Turner which allows you to reveal information about the spectators thoughts before anything is The Comparative Uncertainty Principle
196 A Piece Of My Mind even spoken aloud. The way this process works is very sneaky. Rather than ask someone to think of something random, you are instead going to subtly control the attention of their thoughts to something quite specific. However, this is all done under the guise of picking up their thoughts. As a result you can now feed back this information to the spectator, and to everyone else, it will seem that you have successfully read their mind. A very basic example of this is as follows: “I’m picking up a strong impression of someone close to you with brown hair, you know who this is?” In the above example the spectator is forced to think about someone close to them with brown hair. For a deeper understanding of just how far this can be taken I strongly recommend that you hunt out a copy of Peter Turner’s book titled Bigger Fish. CUP’s & Calendar Months: Since I first learned the “Isabella’s Star” routine, I have been using this principle to zero in on a thought-of month. Ask a spectator to think of someone close to them, whose date of birth they know. Caution them not to select someone who was born the same month as them. Ask them first to convert the month into a number; for example January would be one, February would be two, etc. The speed of their response will give you a good indication as to which month they have in mind. A quick response will likely be an indicator that they are thinking of January, February, March or April. A medium response time will likely indicate that they are thinking of May, June, July or August.
197 A slow response time will likely indicate that they are thinking of September, October, November or December. Note: The reason why we ask them to choose someone with a different birth month to their own is that it is very likely that they will already know their own birth month number. A word of warning: a quick response could also indicate that they are thinking of either November or December (since these are so close to the end of the year). Luckily, there is a simple way to test for this. If you now ask the spectator to imagine that the month is written out in front of them and use CUP’s for the word length, you will now have a second indicator to go by. Let’s break down a few possibilities: Fast initial response = January, February, March or April (or November/ December) A fast secondary response = March or April A fast initial response followed by a slow secondary response = January or February (or November/December). By using the line “You weren’t born towards the end of the year, were you?” You can now distinguish between January/February and November/December. If the spectator replies with a Yes, you will reply with: “Yes, I thought so.” If the spectator replies with a No, you will reply with: “No, I didn’t think so.” Medium initial response and fast secondary response = May, June, July. Using Derren’s idea of repeating the first letter (or even a full month name) will help you to zero this down further. Medium Initial response and slow secondary response = August Slow initial response and slow secondary response = September or October Note: If you have memorised the order of the star signs in relation to the calendar months, you should now be able to discern the star sign of the person whom the spectator is thinking. The Comparative Uncertainty Principle
198 A Piece Of My Mind CUP’s with Suits: If you ask a spectator to think of any playing card suit, you can (in most cases) identify the exact suit that the spectator has in mind, providing that you know the colour of the card that they have in mind (more on this in a moment). If you know they are thinking of a red card, ask them to concentrate their thoughts upon the suit of the card that they have in mind. Ask them to imagine their suit written as a word in front of them in the traditional “CUP’s” fashion. Since there is a more noticeable difference between the number of letters used in the words “Hearts” and “Diamonds”, these are generally very easy to identify. Note: The black cards are a little harder to work with. However, since we have the natural bias of the Spade, we can check this using the “CUP’s” system with favourable results. A quicker response is generally indicative of a Club and a slightly slower response will generally indicate that your spectator is thinking of a Spade. Just as I have illustrated above, the speed of the spectator’s response can also be used to give you an educated guess as to which colour your spectator is thinking of, too. The colour Red will provide an instant response, whereas the colour Black may be indicated no matter how small the delay. CUP’s with Springboard: Given that the black cards are a little more difficult to work with when using CUP’s, I now prefer to pre-set my deck by placing all of the red cards on top of the black cards. I then give the deck a single casual overhand shuffle (reversing this order) before offering the spectator a card from the top half of the deck. Note: This shuffle technique is credited to Laurie Ireland, who incidentally also allowed the spectator to perform this shuffling action. In this fashion it is very easy to force a black card upon your spectator (by offering them a card from the upper half of the deck). If you now repeat the overhand shuffle for a second time, this will bring the red cards back to the top of the deck. You can now allow the spectator to return
199 their black card back into the upper, red half of the deck, making it very easy to identify later in the routine. Upon gaining knowledge of the suit of the selected card (Club or Spade), we can easily follow any of the spectator’s subsequent choices. For example, let’s say that we are aware that the spectator has selected a Spade. If the spectator later suggests that the colour of our card is the same as their card, then we only need question whether the suit is also the same to determine the suit for our card. If they suggest that the colour of the card is different, then you know that the spectator believes that your card is red. In this instance the CUP’s will now work perfectly, allowing us to nail the suit. Remember, Remember, Remember: The most important thing to remember whilst using CUP’s is that you must give the spectator further instruction the moment you notice that they are struggling/thinking. This is achievable by asking the spectator to focus their attention from the word to the imagery. I hasten to add that even if your spectator responds quickly, you can further disguise this process by simply not acknowledging their response and asking them to direct their thoughts elsewhere (just as above). The quicker the transition, the more deceptive the method will be. My Bookless Booktest: As a fan of Colin McLeod’s original plot, it wasn’t long before I set my mind to creating my own version of this remarkable effect. Whilst fundamentally relying on my “CUP’s Principle”, this effect does combine several other techniques which have been detailed throughout this book. In essence, this routine will allow you to seemingly predict a genuinely thought-of word from an imagined book. The Comparative Uncertainty Principle
200 A Piece Of My Mind Preparation: To perform this effect you will begin by holding out a pre-written billet/ business card up your sleeve which says “Let’s look inside the wallet”. This preparation will allow you to perform the Racquet Switch during the routine. The Racquet Switch is detailed elsewhere in this book. Routining: With the preparation complete, you are now ready to perform the effect. You can begin by either placing your wallet onto the table or handing it to the spectator for safekeeping. Once you have done this, you ask the spectator to imagine that they are holding an invisible book. You further instruct them to flick through the imaginary pages, allowing them to stop on any page. Once the spectator has done this, you ask them to imagine sliding their finger from the top of the page to the bottom. You suggest that they will stop on a simple word and ask them to verbalise their choice. Due to the language used, your spectator should have decided upon a reasonably short word. If not, do not worry, we will discuss how to handle this a little later. The gesture on the next page will also help to bias their choice. Assuming that the spectator has followed your suggestions, you will now request that they flick through several other imaginary pages so that they can choose a second word. However, this time you ask them to choose a more interesting word. As you suggest this, it will help if you hold your hands out as in Figure 1. This will help to suggest that the spectator is to choose a much larger word as their second choice. You will now ask them to verbalise their second choice of word. You will now suggest to the spectator: “I’d like you now to select another word in the same fashion. Since you already know the process, you do not have to call this one out.”