Nobody seems to know the first time an effect made use o f the concept that Ken Beale named “Interlock, ” but it has been used a great deal in the past half-decade. Interlock, amongst other things, is a way o f positioning cards such that the bottom card o f the upper half o f the deck is under the top card o f the lower half o f the deck. This condition allows you to ditch, change or vanish cards with ease. A good use o f the Interlock concept is a devious switch created by Axel Adlercreutz (a confidant o f Tomas) which Tomas has built into a handling o f Luke Dancy s “Royale with Cheese. ” Tomas uses this routine only after he has performed a more traditional Sandwich routine to add to the surprise when this routine deviates from the standard plot. Effect After performing a Sandwich routine, Tomas offers to help a participant perform the routine herself. He starts by removing the four Kings and placing the black Kings under the card box. To perform her Sandwich trick, the participant selects a card, which is promptly lost in the deck. She then cuts the deck at any point, which is exactly where Tomas inserts the two red Kings. After a magical gesture or two, Tomas spreads the deck to show that the selection has appeared between the red Kings. Offering to repeat the trick, Tomas returns the selection to the middle of the deck and then places the red Kings back into the deck, wherever the participant cuts to. This time, though, when he spreads the cards, he shows that two cards have appeared between the red Kings. He turns them over to show that they’re the two black Kings, which can only mean that the selection is now underneath the card box.
Handling Remove the two black Kings without showing their faces and place them square, under the card box (fig. 1). The thinking behind not showing the cards is that you have an excuse to show them later in the routine, when you need to switch them for a selected card. Spread through the deck and openly outjog the two red Kings, and turn the deck face down, catching a little-finger break below the top card. Remove the outjogged red Kings and place them face up on top of the deck. Take all three cards above the break as a unit and place this packet onto the table, away from the card box. Spread the deck for a card to be selected, then control the selection to the face of the deck (ideally in a way that leaves a decoy card outjogged in the middle of the deck—Tomas uses Ed Mario’s Convincing Control), place the deck onto the table and then slowly square the decoy card into the deck. Ask the participant to lift off about half the cards. As she does so, pick up the red Kings, push off the top King to show both cards and then place it on the bottom of the packet, sandwiching the face-down card between the Kings. Place this three-card packet on top of the lower portion of the deck and ask the participant to return her packet, sandwiching the red Kings at her chosen point. Indicate that the magic has happened and pick up the deck, and as you place it into dealing grip, acquire a little-finger break above the face card. Spread the deck to show a face-down card between the two red Kings, outjog the three cards and remove them from the deck, secretly adding the selection to the bottom of the packet using Dai Vernon’s Strip-out Addition. Table the deck. Outjog the sandwiched face-down card and injog the top card a little in relation to the double at the bottom of the packet (fig. 2). Grip the outer end of the outjogged card and push it back toward your body until the right fingers bump into the bottom double (fig. 3). Lever all three of the bottom cards face up together (fig. 4) on top of the packet, mimicking having pulled a single card from between the two red Kings. The selection has apparently appeared between the red Kings.
3. 4. Execute a block push-off to turn the top three cards face down as one. Thumb off the top face-down card (the indifferent card) into your right hand and insert the card into the middle of the deck, leaving it outjogged for about half its length. As a red King shows on the face of the packet during this sequence, everything looks copacetic. Re-grip the three cards, face up in right-hand end grip, and catch an Erdnase break below the top card of the three. Say, “Iforgot to show you the cards that I p u t under the card box. ” Pick up the card box with the left hand and then pick up the two face-down cards under the right-hand packet, sidejogged for half their width (fig. 5). Return the box to the table. Move the packet to the left hand, squaring the packet against the base of the left thumb. As soon as the cards are square, pull back the top card (facilitated by the break) so it returns to its sidejogged position (fig. 6).
Immediately lever over the face-down cards, sideways, onto the right-hand card (fig. 7) and then thumb off the face card into your right hand to display the two black Kings (fig. 8). This sequence was invented by Dr. Jacob Daley and was suggested to Tomas by the elusive cardman and scholar David Michael Evans. Now comes the Interlock concept. Replace the King on top of the packet, but outjogged for half an inch (fig. 9). Execute a block push-off (pushing off all cards but the bottom card) to seemingly turn the two black Kings face down, leaving the lowermost King still in an outjogged position (fig. 10). Push the top card forward a few millimetres past the outjogged card, allowing you to secretly push that outjogged card square with the packet. Lift off just the top card (acting as though you are holding both black Kings) with your right hand and slide the apparent black Kings under the card box. “ Well com e back to them shortly," you explain. This completes Axel’s clever switch. The audience believes that you have placed the black Kings under the card box, whereas that was actually the selection. The black Kings are in fact sandwiched and reversed between the two red Kings.
Slowly square the outjogged card into the tabled deck and ask the participant to cut off some cards, as before. Place your packet onto the lower portion and ask the participant to replace her packet on top. Gesture toward the deck, pick it up and spread to find two cards between the red Kings. Remove the four-card packet and say, “ Oh, these two cards are what we magicians call indicator cards, as they indicate where the selection is." Turn the fan over to reveal the two black Kings. Finally, slide the selection out from under the case, show its singularity and then turn it over to show that it’s the selection. Credits Luke Dancy’s “Royale with Cheese” was marketed by Penguin Magic in 2004. The Interlock concept has been used by many of card magic’s greats, including Karl Fulves, Derek Dingle and Jack Parker. The earliest effect using the concept that I am aware of is R.W. Hull’s “ Ihe Elusive Joker,” released as part of Thayer’s Trick of the Month Club series (circa 1930). However, in the second volume of The Vernon Chronicles (1988), author Stephen Minch credits the move to Dai Vernon, suggesting that Ralph Hull neglected to credit Vernon when he published the move. Dai Vernon’s Strip-out Addition first saw print in “The Vernon Card Puzzle” in his booklet Ten Card Problems (1932), written by Faucett Ross. The Daley Switch was published in H ugard’s M agic Monthly, Vol. 5, No. 12 (May 1948).
The late Jack Parker will always be special to Tomas and me. In Jack's prime (the last few years up to his illness), he would create dozens o f tricks, plots and ideas every single week. Tomas and I were his lucky correspondents, and we would often receive challenges from him. This one, in particular, is a fun problem that you may like to try to solve before reading Tomas elegant solution. I f you are playing along at home to create your own method, it is important to know the rules that Jack put to us: uThe rules are, there ain't no rules!" Jamie Badman provided a gaffed solution, and Jack used an Interlock procedure that needed to be carried out on top o f the deck. Tomas wanted to find a way that did not use the deck, and I hope that Jack would have liked the end result. Effect Tomas takes two Kings and places them face-to-face onto the table. He then takes two Aces, places them faceto-face and holds them in his hands. The effect is simple: the Kings and Aces change places. Handling Remove the two black Kings and two red Aces, holding them face up in left-hand dealing grip with the Kings on top. Take the top King in the right hand, stud style. This means approaching the card with the right fingers on top and thumb below, and then turning the hand palm up, leaving you holding a face-down card with the thumb on top and
fingers below. Execute a block push-off of the next two cards and take them, leftjogged, below the face-down card (fig. 1). This is a clear image of two face-to-face Kings. Place the cards, still in the spread condition, below the single Ace in the left hand (supposedly two Aces). It is useful to flash both sides of the spread Kings before placing them under the Ace to reinforce exactly what you hold. Square everything up. Execute a block stud turnover of the top three cards (showing the two red Aces), placing the triple card injogged on top of the face-up Ace (fig. 2). This looks exactly like you are putting the two Aces face-to-face. 2. Hold the upper packet in right-hand end grip with the thumb at the back and push the entire packet forward (including the outjogged card) to give the impression that you are pushing the Aces forward. The perceived reality is that the outjogged Ace started aligned with the Kings, so it should seem like it is the only outjogged card in the packet. As you push the packet forward, allow one card to riffle off the bottom of the packet with the right thumb, leaving you holding just two cards. Move these two cards forward, pushing them farther forward than the outjogged red Ace (fig. 3, from below). In standard Interlock manner, reach your left index finger around the front of the packet and push the outjogged Ace square as you pick up the top two cards. These actions happen as you say, “ Ihe Aces go onto the table. I ’ll keep hold o f the Kings." Drop the apparent Aces onto the table (they are really the face-to-face Kings), allowing them to spread just enough to show that there are two cards, but not enough to expose the indices.
Make a magical gesture and then show that the cards have changed places. Credits “The Last Trick of Dr. Jacob Daley” was first published in Lewis Ganson’s The Dai Vernon Book o f M agic (1957), where it is explained that Dr. Daley perfected the trick in the last few weeks of his life, before passing away at the end of a performance in 1954. Dr. Daley was not the first person to use this plot, however. Milbourne Christopher s “Christopher’s Red and Black Aces” was published some thirty years before Daleys in The Tarbell System o f Magic, Lesson 61 (1926).
Paul Harris “Grasshopper” is an ongoing obsession for “Locust, ” was published on The Second Deal website Cost” is his latest, and favourite, handling Tomas. His first version, in January 1998. “Low Effect Tomas inserts a selected card between two red Jacks. The selection immediately vanishes and appears between the two, tabled, black Jacks. Handling Remove the four Jacks and hold them face up in left-hand dealing grip, with the red Jacks on top. Spread the deck face up on the table. Thumb off the top red Jack into the right hand, gripping it with the thumb on top and fingers underneath. Continue by executing a block push-off, taking the top two cards on top of the right-hand card, positioned so that the double is both injogged and leftjogged (fig. 1). To the audience, it seems as though you simply took the two red Jacks in the right hand and left the black Jacks in your left hand. Invite the participant to withdraw any red card from the deck and to place it face down on the table. As she does so, turn the left hand palm down and move the black Jack toward the double card in the right-hand packet. Use your left fingers (fig. 2) and contact the lowermost card of the double. Drag this card squarely under the blackjack (fig. 3, exposed view, next page). This leaves you holding the two
black Jacks which are now face-to-face. This is essentially a K.M. Move and was suggested by David Michael Evans. Reach down to the table with the palm-down left hand, flip the selection over and take it on the face of the packet. Turn the hand back palm up to display the selection. While this is a pretty bold action, Tomas has found that by asking the participant what drew her to select the card, ample cover is provided for this move. Buckle the bottom card of the left-hand packet and clip the red Jacks outjogged and rightjogged onto the left-hand packet, secretly feeding the inner left corner of the lower red Jack into the break (fig. 4). This display looks very effective, so pause at this point to explain that the reason for having a red card selected was that it matched the red Jacks. Grip the top red Jack in a right-hand end grip, and align it with the other red Jack and square them in their outjogged position. As per the standard Interlock handling, use your left index finger to push the lower red Jack square with the other cards, allowing you to just lift off the top Jack in right-hand end grip. Execute a block push-off with the left thumb, using the right index and middle fingers to help flip the three cards face down. You have seemingly turned the selection face down. Thumb it off onto the right-hand Jack and clip it in place with the right index finger (fig. 5) as the left hand tables its three cards. Pretend to sandwich the face-down selection by sliding it under the red Jack. Mimic outjogging the apparent sandwiched selection by pulling the upper red Jack backward a little so that a face-down card is visible below
it. Then, push both cards forward at the same time for about half an inch. This is essentially a fake Anncmann/ Christ alignment move. Drop the cards onto the table as you pull down on the outjogged card, causing it to flip face up as it falls. This is a great image as the outjogged card seems to disappear as the cards fall. Finally, spread the black Jacks to show that the selection has appeared between them. Comments Particularly observant readers may have noticed that if the selection starts face up on the table, its back is never shown during this entire sequence, leaving you open to perform a colour-changing card effect afterward. Tomas sometimes utilises an idea by John Guastaferro. In his effect “Bizarre Prequel” (Brainstorm, Volume 2 DVD, 2003), John puts the selection crosswise between the red Jacks to make it vanish in the spectator’s hands using Paul Harris’ “Bizarre Vanish” {Art o f Astonishment, Volume 3, 1996).
Finally, we move to a new use o f the Interlock concept. Tomas Hindu Interlock achieves a surprising amount for such a simple concept. It allows you to force a card, secretly switch it for any other card and then control the selection to a specific position, even after a shuffle. Plus, i f the effect requires it, you can even maintain a small stack on top o f the deck. The technique is an outgrowth o f a move published by Dai Vernon in his uThe Intelligent Leap er” effect, published in The Vernon Chronicles, Volume 2(1988). The procedure achieves so much that Tomas feels that he is yet to find an effect that utilises the fu ll potential o f the move! I will, however, describe an effect that makes use o f a few useful elements. Setup Place the Ace of Hearts on the face of the deck and the Ace of Diamonds third from face. The second from face card can be anything, but it needs to be injogged about a quarter of an inch. deck ready for a Hindu shuffle, ensuring that the injogged card is covered by the right hand. The easiest way to do this is to hold the hand with the right side of the deck facing toward the audience (fig. 1). I will break down the move into separate points: Handling Grip the face-down
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Execute a standard Hindu shuffle, asking someone to stop you at any point. When you are stopped, slap the right-hand portion on top of the lower packet, in a position where the injogged card is lined up with the left-hand portion, leaving the bulk of the packet outjogged (fig. 2). Grip the elongated deck with the left hand only, making sure all four fingers are seen at the right side of the deck, to help avoid any unwanted suspicion (fig. 3). Raise the left hand to show the face of the apparent selection (fig. 4) and tap the index corner of the Ace of Hearts with your right index finger to show that the spectator selected a card from the middle of the deck. Slowly lower the left hand, making it clear that no manipulation can take place. Grip the outjogged packet in right-hand end grip, making sure that the fingers cover the outer short edge and that the top of the injogged packet is clearly visible. Rotate the upper packet counter-clockwise a little (fig. 5, next page) to allow the left index finger to easily push the interlocked card square with the lower packet.
5. y At the same time, push the left index finger against the face card of the upper packet to pull out the face card of the upper packet. Ihis card is believed to be the selection, but is actually the decoy card (in this case the Ace of Diamonds). p Push the decoy into the middle of the right-hand packet and casually flash the index just as the card is squared in to sell the fact that no switch has taken place (fig. 6). Hand the packet to the participant and ask that he shuffles it. The fact that there is now an indifferent card on the face of the packet further sells that the selection is inside the packet. The selection is now second from the top of your packet. Comments I have shown the move at its most basic: as a force, switch and control, all-in-one sequence. However, the move really comes alive when you notice that you can pre-set any number of cards (even face-up cards) between the force card and the injogged card. If you were to put four cards between these two, the selection would end up sixth from the top. Tomas’ “Intelligent Leaper” makes use of this concept.
INTELLIGENT LERPER HANDLING Casually peek at the face card of the deck to ensure that it is a high spot card, such as a Seven or Eight. If it isn’t, a simple shuffle can rectify this. The Seven of Spades will be used for this example. Take the deck in overhand shuffle position, and execute a Milk Build Shuffle as follows: place your thumb on the top of the deck and pull the deck out (fig. 7), leaving the top and bottom cards in place. Singly run off five more cards (to make seven; the value of the original face card), injogging the fifth card. Finally, shuffle off fairly. This leaves the force card on the face and six cards below the injogged card. Use the Hindu Interlock Sequence to force the Seven of Spades and to seemingly push it into the packet you hand to the spectator for shuffling. When the shuffle is complete, explain, “ This is an exercise in imagination. For the next fiv e seconds, whatever we imagine, w ill happen in real life. Think o f the value o f the card, but don't tell me what it is. Now im agine that the card has been shuffled to the exact same position as that number. For example, i f you pick ed a Five, im agine it goes fifth from the top. Done that? Then it has already com e true. ” Have the participant count down to the thought-of value, but before he gets there, interrupt him and say, “Sorry, I ju st d id som ething stupid. I im agined that the card was in my packet and not yours. You know what that means .. . ” Put his cards aside and ask him to count down to his value in your packet. He will find his selection at that position. Credits As noted, this is an outgrowth of a Dai Vernon move, in which Tomas has added a Hindu force. The Vernon move appeared in Bruce Cervon’s booklet The Real Work (1976) and later in The Vernon Chronicles, Volume 2, by Stephen Minch (1988) within the trick “The Intelligent Leaper.”
Combining Karl Fulves uGemini Twins” with an intriguing mathematical placement procedure, Tomas has produced a very clean and unusual effect in which the participant finds the four Aces under exceedingly fair conditions. Effect Three selected cards are distributed in the deck by the participant. Even though the process appears to be completely random, an Ace is found to be next to all three of the selections. The values of the three selections are totalled up, and then the participant counts down to that number in the deck, only to find the last Ace. Requirements A full, fifty-two card deck. two Aces on top of the deck, an Ace at the face and the final Ace eighth from the face of the deck (ideally reversed, but not essential). Tomas tends to do this in a session situation by secretly getting the four Aces to the top of the face-down deck, spreading the bottom six cards to get a break above them and then Braue Reversing the top card to that position. He then turns the deck face down and double cuts the top card to the face of the deck. It would fit within the presentation if you openly made this setup (without the reversed card) and told the audience that you were placing some cards in specific positions into the deck. The whole procedure should be done without showing the faces of any cards. Setup Start with Handling Explain, “ We have all heard that the num ber thirteen is supposed to be unlucky. The good news is that fourteen is a lucky number. In fact, I have fo u n d a way to make any num ber lucky, by simply rounding it up to fourteen. I ’ll explain exactly what that means in a fe w minutes." This deliberately sounds cryptic.
Spread through the deck and ask someone to touch any three cards, ensuring that none of the Aces are selected. Outjog those cards as they are nominated. Remove the cards, show them to the participant and give her the opportunity to exchange any of these cards with another card from the deck. If she takes you up on the offer, insert the discard back into the spread. With the deck in left-hand dealing grip, get a little-finger break below the top card of the deck and place the three selections face up on top in a spread condition. Ask the participant which of the three cards she would like you to make lucky first, and then move that card to the face of the three-card packet. Square the faceup cards and lift off all four cards above the break. A face-down Ace is now secretly hidden under the three selections, which are in right-hand end grip. Lets say that the face card of the right-hand packet is a Seven. Show how you can “round” that up to the lucky number (fourteen) by thumbing off cards from the deck into a face-down pile on the table, counting, “8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 142 In other words, you begin the count on the number one higher than the value of the card. Had it been a Jack, youd have counted, “12, 13, 14," as you dealt off cards one by one into a pile. Place the four right-hand cards on the top of the deck to free your right hand to gesture at the dealt pile. “ Well mark the spot with the card we ju st rounded up to be lucky. ” Place the Seven face up on top of the dealt pile. Spread off the two face-up cards and drop them in front of the spectator. Drop the rest of the deck on top of the dealt pile. Hand the deck to the spectator and allow her to do exactly what you just did with the remaining two selections; that is, pick one of the cards, count up to fourteen, place the selection on top and then drop the rest of the deck on top of that. With this completed, take the deck back and spread it on the table, but stop the spread as soon as the three face-up cards are visible to not show the card you reversed at the outset. Clarify to the audience that any other cards, or any other order of the three selections, would have put them in other parts of the deck. Slide out the face-up selections and the cards just above each of them. Square up the deck fairly while it’s on the table to clearly show that you don’t change the position of any card. Slowly turn over the face-down cards to show that each selection was placed next to an Ace, making the number fourteen very lucky indeed. But that’s not all. She’s about to get even luckier. Ask her to add up the values of her three selections. Ask that she count to that number from the top of the deck. On the final count, the last Ace will appear on top.
Comments Tomas feels that the number fourteen works well within the presentation. However, it is surprisingly easy to switch the number to one of your choosing. The setup should always consist of two force cards on top of the deck and one at the face, but this is how you calculate where the last force card should be placed: The last force card needs to be 3 x (lucky number + 1) from the top of the deck. The 3 comes from the procedure being repeated three times, and the 1 is the selection itself. In “Lucky 14,” this turns out to be forty-five from the top of the deck. To know how far that is from the face of the deck, you simply subtract it from one more than the size of the deck: deck size + 1 - (3 x (lucky number + 1)). In the case of this effect, that number becomes eight, which is where you place the final Ace. If you have Jokers in your deck, there are two things to note. Firstly, the reversed Ace must be inserted higher up in the deck accordingly (one Joker would mean that the Ace must be ninth from the face, two Jokers would mean that the Ace should be tenth from the face, and so on). Then, if the participant selects a Joker, she can decide what value it has from one to thirteen. If you change the lucky number to be sixteen, the last force card would be second from the face in a standard deck. That means that you simply have two force cards on top of the deck and two force cards at the face of the deck. This is what Gene Castillon preferred in his variation of Tomas’ trick (called “Really Fit For Kings”), which he first published on Jon Racherbaumer’s website. Credits The concept at play here is commonly known as Karl Fulves’ “Gemini Twins” from Self-Working Card Tricks (1984) and prior to that in Impromptu Opener (1979) under the title of “Stopped Twice.” The earliest published reference I have been able to find to the placement procedure used within Fulves’ effect is Theodore Annemann’s “Locatrik,” which was published in The Jinx (No. 39, March 1937). Tomas’ direct inspiration for this version comes from Allan Ackerman and Dean Dill’s “The Gem-Money Gards” from Ackerman’s book Las Vegas Kardma (1994). Frederick Braue’s Braue Reversal was published in The Royal Road to Card M agic (1949), written by himself and Jean Hugard.
Tom Bowyer’s “The Frequent Miracle” (an effect published in 1940) has had somewhat o f a resurgence lately. Tom Stone, Lewis Jones, Mark Elsdon and others have experimented with the concept in recent years. Let’s first look at the original concept. Lt is quite simple: i f you were to take two shuffled decks and deal through them at the same time, the chances are surprisingly in your favour that, at some point, you’ll deal the same cardfrom each deck. I f you don’t get a match, the decks are shuffled and the dealing is repeated until you do. In Tom Bowyer’s original, he would apparently write a prediction and place it into a spectator’s top pocket. Then, when they hit a match, he would secretly write down the name o f the matching card and its position in both decks behind his back on a duplicate business card, before switching it for his apparent prediction. This is pretty bold, so it’s not surprising that there have been several variants in how the prediction is revealed at the end o f the effect. “The Freakish Miracle” is pretty complicated to explain, but once you understand the basics, it allfalls together nicely. I f you take the time to make up the decks, you will have a miracle on your hands that I can’t imagine many other magicians will put the work into making!
Effect Tomas removes three decks and invites the participant to pocket one, hand you one and keep the other for himself. Tomas removes his deck and the participant does the same. Intriguingly, the cards are clearly marked on the back, and the reason will become clear soon, Tomas explains. Both Tomas and the participant shuffle their decks and then deal through their decks together, one of them face up and the other face down, counting out loud with each deal. They stop when they come to a matching card. The participant removes the third deck and counts down to the same position that they stopped at. It doesn’t match the cards at all. But wait. When one of the dealt cards is turned over, it matches the upper side of the prediction. When the other dealt card is turned over, it matches the other side of the prediction—a twist that nobody will see coming! Setup Take three decks (complete with two Jokers in each) and stack them in exactly the same order. This could be a memorised stack, a cyclic stack or simply a shuffled order, so long as all three decks match. On the back of each card you will write the name of a playing card. Choose one deck on which to write. Take one of the other decks and cut eighteen cards from top to bottom. Look at the identity of the top card of this deck. Write that identity on the top card of the other deck (fig. 1). Move both top cards to the faces of the decks. Repeat, until you have written on all cards in one deck. Now write on the backs of the other two decks so they are marked in exactly the same way as the first deck. Before you perform, cut the identicallystacked decks as follows: Deck 1: leave intact Deck 2: cut 18 cards to the bottom Deck 3: cut 36 cards to the bottom
Secretly mark the card boxes of each deck with 1, 2 and 3, so that you can easily distinguish between them. Just a numerical mark on the bottom end of the box will suffice (fig. 2). Performance Bring out the three boxed decks and place them on the table in numerical order. Invite a participant to pick one of the decks and to place in his pocket. Ask him to keep one of the decks himself and to give you the other deck. At this point, you need to do a little mental gymnastics. Imagine the spectator pocketed deck number two. The deck before it (in this case, deck number one), must be dealt face up later. The deck after the pocketed deck (deck number three in this case), must be dealt face down. Think of the three numbered decks as cyclical. So if the participant pockets deck three, then the deck before it is deck two and the deck after it is deck number one. Editor Mike Vance made the observation that you could remember the acronym UBAD (Up-Before, After-Down). You both remove your nominated decks from the boxes and both shuffle your decks (giving yours a false shuffle). Deal through together, and stop if and when you get a match. If the above instructions dictate that you are to deal your deck face down, then your participant must deal hers face up and vice versa. Count out loud with each card that you deal. It is quite likely that you will get a match when you deal through two decks in this way. In the eyes of an audience, it is probably inconceivable that a match would occur. Therefore, Tomas likes to build up just how unlikely it is to get a match. This has two benefits: it justifies why you’d need to do a deal through a second time if you don’t get a match, and also helps build up the impossibility of the effect. Stop when you get a match and note the number at which you stopped. Take out the prediction deck and hold it in the same orientation as the deck that you dealt. So if you dealt your cards face up, you must do the same with this deck. Count down to the number at which you were stopped. "Ihe audience will probably expect this prediction card to match the dealt cards. It won’t. Turn your dealt card over to show that the cards are not in fact marked with their own identities. This side of your card matches the prediction card! Turn the prediction card over to show y et another identity. When the spectator’s dealt card is turned over, it shows a match!
If you do have to deal through a second time, you must false shuffle your deck and deal in the same orientation. The prediction deck, however, must now be counted in the opposite way, as the order of your cards would have been reversed. Comments Tomas calculates that the percentage of Tom Bowyer’s miracle hitting is 63%—admittedly, not great odds. But there are two interesting ways to increase the hit rate, which when used together, can make the effect almost guaranteed: Bill Elliott described the first solution as “Synchronicity” in the combined Ibidem, Volume 3, and AZIZ & Beyond book (Howard P. Lyons, 2002). The solution is simple: instead of having the two participants deal cards at the same time, they are instructed to deal cards alternately. So the first participant deals a card, followed by the second participant. They compare the cards to check for a match. This is repeated with you looking for a match as every single card is dealt. This increases the probability of hitting a match to 86%. While this is not suitable for this particular effect, Tomas has a very interesting idea for those who use the standard “Frequent Miracle.” Start with both decks in the same order. Then, cut one of the decks approximately in half and have two participants shuffle half each. After the shuffle, take back the two packets, putting the original top halfback on top. This simple adjustment, when used alone, increases the probability to 86%. Add the Bill Elliott alternating concept to this and you increase the probability to 98% chance of hitting a match. If you are interested in the other directions that Tomas has taken this concept, see his other three tricks in Steve Beams Semi-Automatic Card Tricks, Volume 7 (2006). Credits Tom Bowyer’s “The Frequent Miracle” first appeared in The Sphinx (Volume 39, Number 3, May 1940). While it is a very different trick, John Bannon uses a similar idea of an incorrectly marked deck (without announcing it until the end of the trick) in his marketed effect “Detour De Force,” which is also explained in his book Smoke and Mirrors (1991).
In his traditionally astute way; Tomas told me, "Stewart James Miraskillprocedure is rather obvious i f you think o f it as follows: a black pile has four more cards than a red pile. Remove one cardfrom each and put it into a third pile. The black pile, o f course, still has four more cards than the red pile. Again, remove a cardfrom each o f the piles and the black pile will still have four cards more than the red. ” Tomas new approach offers an additional layer o f complexity that makes it seem truly impossible that you could control, let alone predict, the outcome o f the sequence. The key to this concept—like many mathematical tricks—is how it can be used with justification, and to produce a strong effect. This surreal presentation comes from our brainstorm buddy Jamie Badman. Effect Tomas tells of a dream where he had an opportunity to wager in a game between the Devil and God. If he predicted the outcome correctly, he would go to Heaven, and if he got it wrong, he would go to Hell. Tomas then replays the game using a deck consisting of cards where half are printed completely white on the face (representing Heaven) and half are printed black on the face (representing Hell). He invites ten people on stage and asks each one to randomly select two cards. If a participant’s cards are both white, she is asked to stand in the Heaven side of the room. If they are both black, she is asked to stand in the Hell side. If they are mixed, the participant randomly picks a card and moves to the side of the room that it represents. At the end of this completely random game, Tomas shows that he has correctly predicted the outcome in such a way that it would be impossible for him to go to Heaven or Hell ... a paradoxical prediction!
Requirements Tomas suggests that you use twenty-six cards that are completely white, and thirty that are completely black on the face. These should be approximately the same size and shape as playing cards. You can actually use as many cards as you like, so long as you have four more black cards than white (and by all means, follow this explanation through using red and black playing cards). Write a prediction that says: I The Devil wins! Three more souls will go to Hell. Fold the paper with this text outward, and on the inside write: I My soul included Tomas Sign your own name, of course, and place this prediction, facing downward, onto the table. Given the number of participants involved in this trick, you also need an unusually large amount of stage space for a card trick! black cards aside. Alternate the remaining cards, and then cut the packet roughly in half, ensuring that the top cards of each packet are different colours. Place two black cards on top of each pile. The end result is that the packets will be stacked as follows: First packet: black, black, white, black, white, black, and so on. Second packet: black, black, black, white, black, white, and so on. long ago, I underwent surgery. D uring the operation I had a vivid dream. I saw a bright light, so bright that I could hardly keep my eyes open. I realised that, in my dream, I was in Purgatory. “In the dream, I quietly sat and watched God and the Devil; they played a gam e with each soul to decide whether the soul would go to Heaven or Hell. I wasnt going down without a fight. I asked to make a wager on the outcome o f the Handling Explain, “Not too Setup Place four
game, with my own soul on the line. I f I predicted the outcome correctly, Vdgo to Heaven, and i f wrong, I d go to Hell. Pretty big stakes! Pause for a second and say in a serious tone (for comedic effect), “It’s time to re-enact this dream. ” Invite about ten people onto the stage. In fact, the number is irrelevant so long as it’s an even number, so it could even be up to twenty people if you can confidently manage that number of participants on stage. Have the participants form a line behind the table. Explain the basis of your dream: “Apparently, every soul in Purgatory is composed o f two parts: the persons actions and the persons thoughts. I have two piles o f cards on the table. The white ones represent good actions and thoughts, while the black ones represent bad actions and thoughts. You w ill each take two cards, and w ell use them to decide you r fate, ju st so you don’t have to expose you r real soul in this gam e! Address the first helper and ask him to step forward to the table. Using him as an example for everyone else, explain that he must take two cards from the tops of the packets. He may take one card from each packet or both from the same packet. Due to the pre-prepared stack, he will be holding two black cards. He may show these to the audience, but not look at them himself. Give the instructions that no one should show their cards to anyone, including themselves. Ask that he stand on the side of the stage so that everyone else can select his or her two cards in the same manner, and then stand alongside him. When everyone has made their selections, ask the audience to randomly exchange one or both of their cards with other people as often as they like to ensure that they have a completely random pair of cards. “This is the way you r souls are form ed, by interacting with other people. ” You may have to force some people to start exchanging cards, because for some reason some participants fear giving up good cards even though they have no idea what they are holding. During this exchange, explain the game that God and the Devil played for the souls: “I f both parts o f a soul are black, it goes to Hell. I f both parts are light, it goes to Heaven. I f a soul is mixed, random chance decides where the soul should go. ” “I knew that the D evil loves a bet, so I said that I ’d make a prediction o f who w ould win and by how many souls. I f I failed, I ’d go to Hell, and i f I succeeded, I ’d go to Heaven. The D evil laughed and accepted my bet. Here’s a prediction exactly like the one I wrote in my dream. ” Show the paper that is lying on the table. Ask the spectators to form a line next to the table. Explain that you need a black card and a white card, taking a card from each tabled packet. Tomas has a small convincer here: after taking one card, he takes a card from the second packet, pretends that it is the wrong colour and replaces it. He then takes a second card from the same packet he picked the first one, which is the right colour. Show that you have one white and one black card. This also sells the idea that the piles are random. This, you explain, divides the room into a “white side” and “black side.”
The participants are to approach you one at a time and for the first time to hold their two cards up in the air so that they, and everyone else, can see the parts of their soul. Send the spectator to the white or the black side of the room according to the rules. If the participant has a mixed pair, they are invited to gamble a little, dfiey are asked to pick and turn over either top card of the two tabled piles, and whatever colour this matches is the colour side that they should go to (the card they picked should be discarded away from everything else). This will divide the mixed souls evenly between Heaven and Hell, but it seems to randomise things further. It is very difficult to see a pattern as it is not strictly every other mixed soul that goes to Heaven or Hell; it will look very random. An alternative to this is that the first person that has a mixed soul riffle or rosette shuffles the two piles together, and any person with a mixed soul simply picks the top card from the single pile, to decide where they will spend eternity. After a group has formed in each half of the room, it is time to sell the randomness of the procedure even more. Believe it or not, even Tomas could not work out exactly why this worked for a long time after creating it! Continue, “I want you to realise that any small change w ould have brought about a totally different result. ” If the Hell side has at least two mixed souls (people with one white and one black card), ask them to step forward and explain, “Ifthese two had exchanged the cards differently to form two unmixed souls..." Exchange two of their cards so they get a totally white and a totally black soul. "... one o f them w ould have stayed, while the other w ould have ended up on the other side, changing the outcom e o f this game." Exchange the cards back. “But you didn’t. Step back to where you belong.f What you just explained rings true, but the particular Gilbreath procedure presented here ensures it could never happen. Let us reflect on this for a moment, as it truly is mind boggling. If two mixed souls are in Hell and those two spectators switched one card with each other, they would not both be in Hell anymore. That really would have changed the outcome, right? Believe it or not, this isn’t the case, as I will explain later in my comments. Count the number of people on each side. The Devil will have two more people than God. Ask a spectator to turn the prediction over and to read that you have written, “Ihe D evil wins. Three more souls w ill go to Hell." Have the spectator continue, “This exact thing happened in my dream, too. The D evil started laughing. Then I asked him to read the rest o f my prediction. ” Ask the spectator to unfold and read the rest, saying, “My soul included. Signed, Tomas’. ’
“So you see, that means that the D evil won by three souls, making my prediction perfectly true. God said that I should go to Heaven, but I p oin ted out that i f I go to Heaven, the D evil only wins by one soul, making my prediction wrong. "Move to the Heaven side of the stage so that everyone can count that the Devil only has one more soul on his side. Then, move to the Hell side to show that there are now three more souls there, making the prediction correct, as you say,11 Therefore, the D evil w anted m e to go to Hell. But that w ould make my prediction correct, so I couldn’t go to Hell! They looked at each other fo r what seem ed like an eternity before I suddenly woke up on the operating table. Looking around, I ’m ju st not sure i f this is life ...o r Purgatory I This logical paradox needs to be explained very slowly and clearly so that everyone understands what it all means. Comments Of course, this presentation does not suit all performing styles. But, the same concept can be applied to many other presentations and can even just use standard playing cards (separating reds and blacks). This can of course also be done with a single spectator, but it’s a bit hard to force the number of souls to be even then. You have to keep count of how many pairs are removed and to make sure he stops after an even number of pairs has been removed. To perform this effect using a standard deck, you must start with the entire deck alternating, with a red card on top, and then remove the four black cards closest to the face of the deck and add them to the top. In performance, remove the deck and cut it into two piles, ensuring that the top packet has a red card on the face. That ensures that there is a black card on top of the lower packet, allowing the Gilbreath principle to work. Request the help of two audience members and ask that they take turns in removing a pair of cards, either from the top of each packet, or both from one packet. They must then place the packets onto the table in front of themselves, each forming a pile of cards. You may stop them from removing pairs at any time, so long as they have removed an even number of pairs and all four black cards have been removed from the original top packet. Invite the participants to shuffle their own packets. As they do, remove the top card from each of the two packets, placing them at opposite ends of the table. Ask the first participant to take the top two cards from her packet and to show everyone the cards. As in “Deal the Way,” the participant must either place both of her cards on the red or black packet (if they match), or randomly select a card from either face-down packet on the table and add it to the matching packet. This sequence will divide the mixed sets evenly between the two packets, but it seems to randomise the outcome much further than the original Miraskill principle.
Count all the black cards in the black pile (ignoring the red cards) and count all the red cards in the other pile (ignoring the black cards). If you started out with four more blacks than red, the black pile will win by four cards. You can predict this in whatever way fits your presentation. You can even count the cards in pairs, including the mixed pairs, and the black pile will win by two pairs. So the end result can be used in quite different predictions. For a long time, Tomas couldn’t work out how the mathematics worked for the mixed cards. His own explanation of two mixed pairs on one side suddenly going one to each side was so compelling that he thought there was an error in the method! Ihe reason it works is that there will be exactly the same number of mixed pairs on both sides. If you, on the Devil’s side, turn two mixed pairs into two coloured pairs, there are now two more mixed pairs than there should be in Heaven. One of those mixed pairs would then belong in Hell. And the freshly formed white pair belongs in Heaven. So you would simply be moving one soul from Heaven to Hell and one soul from Hell to Heaven, in fact changing nothing. Credits Stewart James’ Miraskill principle was published in The Jinx (Issue 34, September 1936). The Gilbreath principle was discovered by Norman Gilbreath and published in The Linking Ring (Volume 38, Number 5, July 1958) under the title “Magnetic Colors.” Karl Fulves claims to have also independently discovered the principle. Thanks to Jamie Badman for allowing us to share his presentation, alongside Tomas’ clever ending.
A paradoxical title for a paradoxical mystery! In this strange\ extremely original version o f the classic Paul Curry “Paradox” (a geometrical vanish in which a square disappearsfrom an arrangement o f cut-outs when the pattern is rearranged), Tomas utilises a sheet o f uncut playing cards (made popular by manufacturers o f modern playing-card decks) as part o f a 52-on-l card gag Effect Tomas has a card selected and explains that he has a prediction that contains the selected card. He brings out the prediction to show that it is actually an uncut sheet of playing cards. Just like the classic 52-on-l gag, Tomas explains that this prediction is correct, as it contains every card in the deck! But there’s a twist; the last time Tomas performed this effect, a participant did not find the joke to be funny. Instead, she tore up the prediction into several pieces. Tomas then takes those pieces and rearranges them to make the selected card completely vanish from the giant uncut sheet of cards. Requirements A regular deck of cards, an uncut sheet of playing cards that you don’t mind tearing up to create this trick and an envelope about a third of the size of the uncut sheet. As uncut sheets of playing cards are often offered in limited supply by magic companies that design decks of cards, you could produce your own by lining up a full deck of cards on a large photocopier.
Setup Carefully tear the uncut sheet as shown in fig. 1, tearing along the dark lines. The X shown in the image is the card that will disappear (the Queen of Clubs). Handling Force the Queen of Clubs on a participant and place it face down onto the table, without showing it to the audience. Explain that you have a pretty large prediction and ask something along the lines of, “W ouldyou be impressed i f your playing card was on my prediction?’ Remove the four pieces from the envelope and assemble them with the cards face down (fig. 2). Point out that it is an eight by seven grid with a total of fifty-six playing cards, meaning that your prediction must be correct! This is the standard 52-on-l gag. Follow it up with, “To be honest, the last tim e I d id this jok e nobody fo u n d it fu n n y either. In fact, as you can see, som eone actually tore up the prediction! ’
Turn over the outer pieces momentarily to flash the two Jokers and the two advertising cards, which shows that you have every card in the deck, plus those four odd cards, covered. Then continue, “Ofcourse, that’s ju st a joke. I have actually predicted all the cards you didn't pick! ” Rearrange the pieces to look like fig. 3, showing that one of the cards has suddenly vanished. Have them count to make sure that it’s still an eight by seven grid. Turn the whole setup face up to show that the missing card has to be the Queen of Clubs. Turn the selection face up and place it in the hole in the grid (fig. 4).
4. Credits Paul Curry invented this paradox in 1953. The most complete treatise on this concept appears in Karl Fulves’ Curioser (1980). Also see Martin Gardner’s book Magic, M athematics and Mystery (1956) for a thorough analysis of this principle.
This is a clever combination o f two old ideas to create an intriguing coincidence effect with a new mathematical methodology. A bare-bones effect that Tomas only performs for mathematically-interested magicians is given here to illustrate the core concept. While not a blockbuster effect, it is almost impossible to backtrack. Effect Tomas says, “/ am goin g to do som ething that magicians are not supposed to do. I am goin g tell you exactly what w ill happen at the end o f the trick, before the trick has even started!” “We are both goin g to select a card, and as an incredible coincidence, my card is goin g to show up right before your card. I realise that doesn’t sound incredibly impressive, but it gets better! I am not goin g to touch the deck at all; you are goin g to do absolutely everything. Some w ould say that i f you state in advance that a coincidence w ill happen, and it does happen, it’s not a coincidence at a ll... it’s m agic? He asks a participant to shuffle the deck and to select a card for both Tomas and himself. The deck is shuffled several times, and then the participant is asked to deal the deck out into six piles. Both Tomas and his participant pick up the packets in which their cards reside. They both deal through their cards one by one, and even after such a fair selection and shuffle process, Tomas and the participant find that their cards lie in the exact same positions in their packets. Handling Hand the deck to a participant to shuffle as you explain the effect to the audience. When he has finished shuffling, ask the participant to place the deck face down onto the table and then to cut it into two, roughly equal halves. Ask that he choose a pile for you, and to show you (and only you) the top card of that pile and then to replace it on top of either pile. This selection (say, the Ace of Spades) will be the card you remember as your sunken key card. It is important that nobody sees your selection, as you are actually going to name a different card as your selection later in the routine.
You now need to estimate the number of cards in the packet (including the selection) that your card is in. Let’s say that you estimate that the packet contains twenty-nine cards. From that, you need to estimate the closest multiple of six that is larger than the number of cards in the packet. So, in this instance, you remember the number five, as 5 x 6 = 30. If you estimated twenty-three cards, you would remember the number four, because 4 x 6 = 24, which is the closest multiple of six larger than your estimated number. Assuming that the pack has been cut roughly in half, the number will always be five. Ask him to put the other packet on top to bury your selection in the middle of the deck. Now he will make his own selection. His instructions are as follows: “Please cut o ff about one third o f the deck and place it to the side. Then cut o ff about h a lf o f what’s left and place that to the other side o f the deck. ” You need to keep track of where the piles originated. The end position is marked in fig. 1. Point to the original top portion of the deck and ask the participant to shuffle it, and then look at the top card and place the packet back onto the table. Then, ask that he shuffle the original bottom portion and drop it on top of his selection. This combined packet is dropped on top of the original middle portion. This is the sunken key principle in action. Finally, ask that he cut the deck once. This ensures that your key card is somewhere above his selection, which will make this trick much easier to do without any calculations. Let the participant hold the face-down deck and deal it into six piles by turning each card face up, dealing the cards in rotation. Ask him to keep track of which pile his card ends up in, but caution that he should not give you any indication of when he sees his card. As he deals, you must look for your sunken key (the Ace of Spades in our example) and count it as one. The next time a card ends up on top of it, you think two, and so on, until you come to your secret number: five. Let’s say the Seven of Spades is dealt as you count five. You can now forget your sunken key and instead remember this card as this will be the card that you claim to be your selection later. The procedure is now complete, and you are ready to reveal the card. There are two possibilities for this, and the next few sentences tell you which you’ll use: “I said that I w ould show you an incredible coincidence and here it is. This p ile here has my card, the Seven o f Spades, in it. Please turn that p ile fa ce down. “Now, don’t tell m e the identity o f you r card, but simply turn over the packet with you r card, too. ”
The possibilities are now as follows: He starts to turn over the same packet as yours: Push all the other cards to one side and say, “/ told you it w ould be an incredible coincidence! But that’s not the only coincidence. Even though you shuffled the deck several times, and you d id everything throughout this procedure, there’s an even bigger coincidence. Please turn the packet fa ce down and deal through the cards one at a time until you g et to my Seven o f Spades.” Wait until he has done that and finish by saying, “And here’s the biggest coincidence. Please nam e the card that you picked and turn over the next ca r d ... now that’s a coincidences He turns over a different packet: Pick up the packet that contains your selection and ask the participant to do the same. Push all the other cards to one side. Holding your packets face down, take turns dealing the top card onto the table. There’s an important unspoken rule here: the person who has the packet that was dealt first (not necessarily the first packet in the row, but the first out of the two packets now in play) should deal his card first. This is just a case of either turning your card over before the spectator, or inviting him to turn over his card first. Stop dealing when you get to your selection, the Seven of Spades. Then, ask the participant to name his selection before turning over the next card in his packet. That’s a pretty big coincidence! Credits Charles Jordan published the sunken key concept as “The Nifty Key” in Four Full Hands (1922). It was perhaps popularized by Geoffrey Scalbert and published in Scalbert’s Selected Secrets (1981) and prior to that in Abra magazine (Volume 12, Number 13, January 1952) under the title of “Sunken Key Again.” The sunken key principle is combined with “The Card Miracle Abbott’s Version” from Jean Hugard’s Encyclopedia o f Card Tricks (1937), where a rough estimation becomes correct by dealing the deck in several piles.
This next look at the sunken key principle turns things on their heads a little, as you do not get your key card until after the selection is made. To make this possible, a second deck is used as an index o f key cards. Mathematically minded readers will see how this could be applied to other tricks, such as Simon Aronsons “Un-Do Influence. ” E ffect Tomas brings out two shuffled decks and allows the participant to choose one. He then has two selections made in an extremely fair manner from the chosen deck. One card is lost into the deck, and the other is placed into the participant’s pocket. Tomas deals through both decks at the same time; the cards from the participant’s deck are dealt face down, and the cards from the other deck are dealt face up. Suddenly he stops dealing. The last face-up card he dealt was the Jack of Spades. The participant is asked to remove the card from her pocket—it is also the Jack of Spades. But thats not it. When the face-down card that Tomas stopped on is turned over, it is seen to be the other selection. Rea uirements A red deck and a blue deck. Setup Shuffle one of the decks and then stack the second deck in the opposite order (for example, the top card of the first deck should be the same as the bottom card of the second deck). As the order of one of the decks is not changed during the routine, the decks could be stacked for a follow-up effect that requires a full-deck stack.
Handling Introduce the two decks, giving each one a quick false shuffle, and then spread both decks face up on the table in two rows to show that the order of each decks is completely random. Square up the decks and place them face down in separate piles. Invite someone to select one of the decks and explain that the other will remain completely untouched. The spectator will now select two cards from her selected deck. Say, “Since I could know the top card, I want you to cut o ffa small packet ofcards from the deck and to shuffle them. ” After the sh uffle, have her place the cards to the right of her deck and continue, “/ could also know the bottom card o f the deck, so please lift o ff all but a fe w cards and place the m iddle portion to the left. Now shuffle the bottom cards. ” As she shuffles, point to the big packet on the left and explain that since she took that out of the centre of the deck, you could not possibly know either the top or bottom cards. While she holds the bottom portion, have her peek at the top card of the big portion of the deck (the original middle portion, now to the left on the table). She is to place this card on top of the shuffled and tabled top portion, and then to drop the small packet of cards she holds on top to bury her selection. The deck is now in two piles. Have her drop either on top of the other. However, you must keep track of the unshuffled portion, which originally came from the middle of the deck, and remember whether it is now on top or at the bottom. Now to the second selection. You must ensure that the participant cuts the deck somewhere within the unshuffled portion that you are tracking. The easiest way to do this is to ask her to cut just a few cards, or a lot of cards depending on whether the unshuffled packet is on the top or bottom of the deck. Have her place the card that she cut to into her pocket. The bottom portion is placed on top, so the deck gets cut around the position where she removed a card. Pick up the other deck and place both decks face down in front of you, with the participant’s deck on your left. Lift off both top cards and peek at, and remember, the left-hand card (the top card from the participants packet). By way of example, imagine that this card is the Seven of Clubs. Deal the left-hand card face down and the right-hand card face up in front of their respective decks. Continue dealing in unison from both decks until you deal the Seven of Clubs with your right hand. Deal one more card with each hand, and then stop. You will have stopped at the duplicate of the card that the participant placed into their pocket. Build this up and have the participant remove the card from their pocket to show that it matches.
But there is more. Ask what card the first participant selected. Turn over the face-down card of the other packet to show that you have found that, too! Credits The procedure used here is somewhat related to Eddie Joseph’s “Staggered,” which was released in a book of the same name by Abbotts Magic in the 1950s.
Now we come to an unusual trick for Tomas: a stage or parlour routine. However, this presentation for the Ultra Mental or Brainwave Deck is typical Tomas—a small tweak (with a mathematical basis) that greatly heightens the impact o f the trick. It is a perfect “packs small, plays big” trick and is a great way for mentalists to fin d spectators who are apparently on the same wavelength. Effect Tomas gently tosses a sealed deck into the audience and asks whoever catches it to stand up. He then asks her to toss the deck to someone else, who also stands up. This is repeated until there are seven or eight spectators standing up. Tomas asks all of the participants to think of a card—not an easy or obvious card, but a difficult one. He explains that, at the same time, he will also think of a card, and he’d like them to try to get the same card as him. He asks the first participant to name her card and asks the rest of the participants whether anyone else was thinking of the same card. Nobody is. He asks the second participant the same question. It turns out that someone else is thinking of the same card, too. “ That could ju st be a co in c id e n c eTomas explains, “ But I have p ro o f that it isn’t. I turned over the card that I was thinking o f in this deck. ” He spreads through the deck to show that he had previously reversed the same card in the deck. Requirements Either an Ultra Mental or a Brainwave Deck.
Mental Deck into the audience. Have the spectator who catches it stand up and toss the deck to someone else. Repeat this until you have between five and ten spectators standing up. Take the deck back, but keep it in view. Ask the people who are standing up to each just think of a card—not just any card, you explain, but a “difficult one.” Once they all have decided on a card, tell them firmly that they are not allowed to change their minds from now on. Explain, “Some people are more sensitive than others when it comes to receiving thoughts and ideas from other people. I have discovered that in groups that ability tends to increase fo r some unknown reason. Earlier I reversed a card in this deck, and I was thinking o f it the whole tim e while you were each deciding upon a card." The reason for not mentioning the reversed card before the audience thinks of a card is that it would make little sense to ask them to make it a difficult card if presented in that order. But with the time misdirection, no one will notice the strange phrasing of your request. Address the first spectator: “I want you to loudly name the card you have on you r mind." After he has named his card, ask that people raise their hands if they thought of the same card. If no one raises their hand, instruct the next spectator to name his card loudly and again ask if anyone else has the same card in mind. Continue like this until you get at least one hand in the air. As soon as you see someone else raise his or her hand, immediately raise yours, too. You can now continue to ask the entire audience if anyone else thought of the same card, since many people will probably think of a card even though you only asked the few you addressed. Do not ask any of the others to name their cards, as you do not want to get multiple hits on more than one card. If you get through all the spectators and you don’t get a match, simply have another participant stand up and randomly pick one of the spectators. Then spread through your gimmicked deck to show that you correctly predicted the thought-of card. While this is an “out,” it is certainly not a bad one and is the bare bones of how many stage performers present the Ultra Mental Deck. Assuming two people are thinking of the same card (and I will explain the mathematics of why there is a good possibility of this in the Comments section), ask everyone but the matching pair to sit down. Continue, “ There are fifty-tw o cards in the deck, so the probability that you w ould think o f the same card is minimal. But was it a coincidence, or do you have the ability to amplify and receive images from other minds?' Handling Gently toss an U1
Remove the gimmicked deck from its case and spread the deck to show that a single card is reversed. Remove it from the deck and hold it up without showing its face. “I f this was no coincidence, this card w ould be the card you named,...” Name the card and turn it over to show a success. Comments It was an old paradox that led Tomas to this routine. The Birthday Problem asks the question: “How many children need to be in a class for there to be more than a 50% chance that at least two share the same birthday?” With 365 possible birthdays in a year, it sounds like many children need to be in the class for that to be true, but the fact is that if every day of the year has an equal probability to be a birthday, 23 children is enough. However, this assumes an equal probability for each day, when in fact statistics tell us that there are more people having birthdays in July and August than any other month. Therefore, the required number of children is even less. It was that so-called paradox that inspired Tomas to put emphasis on the participants thinking of a “difficult card” instead of obvious ones like the Ace of Spades or Queen of Hearts to force a skew of the probability distribution. Add to this the (unproven, but still relatively accurate) observation that when asked to think of non-obvious cards, people tend to steer toward even-valued Clubs and Hearts. However, it doesn’t matter what people tend to name; just by skewing the distribution, you will vastly increase your chances of hits. With regards to the statistics of getting a match every time, assuming there is a strong batch of ten commonly named cards and eight participants, you have a 98% chance of at least two of them naming the same card.
C \ ^ 1 1/ ' v ___ / l\ Here Tomas introduces a new concept: that o f adding additional dimensions to the classic Gilbreath principle. Traditionally, this is a one-dimensional principle that allows you to detect whether a playing card is red or black (it is, o f course, much more versatile than that, but alternatives have rarely been explored). Here we will add one, then two and then even three additional dimensions, ending with a blockbuster routine that Tomas created to be performed on Swedish television. Basic concept To illustrate the basic concept, stack two face-down packets as follows from the top down: Packet one Three of Hearts Eight of Clubs Seven of Hearts Two of Spades Nine of Diamonds Ten of Spades King of Hearts Four of Clubs Jack of Diamonds Queen of Spades Packet two Five of Clubs Two of Hearts Five of Spades Queen of Hearts Three of Clubs Six of Hearts Nine of Spades Eight of Diamonds King of Spades Four of Hearts
This setup allows a very basic example of Tomas’ principle. Buried within this stack are two predictable properties: whether the card is red or black, and whether it is odd or even. As an example, riffle shuffle the two packets together. You are now able to predict something about every card in the combined packet. Turn over the top card. It will be odd. Look at its colour; you can now accurately state that the second card is the opposite colour to this. Turn over the second card to check the colour. Now look at whether it is odd or even. Whatever it is, the next card will be the opposite. This chain continues throughout the entire packet: first the colour, then whether the card is odd or even. In mathematical terms, we have used two sequences or two symbols with an offset of one. This is very basic, and we will look at several more advanced concepts. Three sequences With the basic idea understood, I will now demonstrate how the concept works with three properties. The properties will be described in non-descriptive terms (ABC, XYZ and 123), but can be applied to many things. For example, the objects could be photographs of people, and property A could mean red hair and green eyes, B could mean tall, and C could mean that the person in the photograph wears glasses. I will shortly explain a full trick using this concept, but it is important that you understand how the sequences are created before continuing. First, this is how the two piles would look if none of the properties were offset: Packet one AX1, BY2, CZ3, AX1, BY2, CZ3 Each letter or number would be a property of the object, so the top object has the properties A, X and 1; the second has B, Y and 2; and so on. As usual, to make the Gilbreath principle work, the second pile is in the opposite order: CZ3, BY2, AX1, CZ3, BY2, AX1
But before the packets can work for “Interlocked Gilbreath,” we must re-adjust the order of this packet to allow for the offsets. To do this we shift the first property (i.e., A, B or C) once to the right, the second property (X, Y or Z) twice to the right, and end up with the final look of our second pile: Packet two AY3, CX2, BZ1, AY3, CX2, BZ1 After the piles have been riffle shuffled together, you can name a property for each object even before looking at it. First you name a property from ABC, for the next object you name a property from XYZ, then 123, then ABC again and so on. For the first object you always name property A. You w ill be correct. Look at it and see which property from XYZ it has. Always consider Z already used up for the second object, so only X and Y are options. If it is an X, you know that the next object will have property Y, and vice versa. State the property, and then look at this object. You now have two objects visible, and from now on you do the same for all new objects. Look for 123 amongst the two objects to simply see which one is missing. Name the missing property for the next unseen object. For the following object, you again look for property ABC among the last two visible objects. The next object will tell you the missing property. For the following object, you predict X, Y or Z by simply looking at the last two objects. You continue like this until there are no more objects, always looking at the last two objects to see which property is missing. The only thing you have to remember is if you are looking for properties ABC, XYZ or 123. PHOTO UIBRRTIONS Now we com e to a practical example o f the three-sequence “Interlocked Gilbreath. ” Effect Tomas brings out a large stack of photographs and invites a participant to mix them up. He then takes one face-down photograph at a time and describes exactly what is on it.
Requirements You will need to spend some time looking for photographs of people with very specific properties. Specifically, the properties are: Male adult Female adult Child (any gender) Blonde hair Brown hair Red hair Serious Smiling Laughing This means that your photographs must comply with the following properties in the two piles: Pile one Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Male Female Child Male Female Child Blonde hair Brown hair Red hair Blonde hair Brown hair Red hair Serious Smiling Laughing Serious Smiling Laughing Pile tw o Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Male Child Female Male Child Female Brown hair Blonde hair Red hair Brown hair Blonde hair Red hair Laughing Smiling Serious Laughing Smiling Serious
The piles can, of course, be made larger by just continuing the pattern. Assuming you just use the twelve photographs, you need the following images (you need two of each type of person, but the people in each photograph should be different): 2 x males with blonde hair and a serious face 2 x females with brown hair and smiling 2 x children with red hair and laughing 2 x males with brown hair and laughing 2 x children with blonde hair and smiling 2 x females with red hair and a serious face The backs of the photographs should be entirely blank and unblemished to remove any suspicions that they are marked. Setup Stack the photos face down as per the grids opposite, with the male with blonde hair and a serious face on top of pile one and a male with brown hair and a laugh on top of pile two. Put pile one on top of pile two, but remember both the face photographs, so that you can easily cut to either at the start of the trick. Give the packet a straight cut. of photographs and show them around, without disturbing their order. Give the photographs some form of false shuffle, ending up with either of the two remembered photographs on the face of the packet. Tomas likes to use Chariier/Haymow shuffles, stopping when either of the two remembered photos naturally ends up at the face. Split the packet at the other photograph that you remembered, forming two face-down piles. Place your fingers on top of each packet and spin the photographs around a little, putting them in position for a Rosetta Shuffle (fig. 1). Invite the participant to push the packets together to further mix them. Fomas does not use the word “shuffle” for this trick, as that makes it feel more like a card trick. Handling Bring out the pile
Hold out your hand, palm down, and look away. Ask the participant to take the top photograph and to place it under your hand so that you can apparently get a sense of what is printed on it. If you are performing for magicians, ensure that they know that you are not touching the photo, in case tactile markings are suspected. After a little deliberation, say something along the lines of, “I fe el masculinity and strength. It is definitely a man in this photo. ” Turn the photo over to show that you are correct, but make sure everyone knows that you are not looking at the rest of the pile. Now that you can see the photograph, you must look at the next property: the man’s hair colour. The possible hair colours are blonde, brown or red, but we always consider red to already be used up for the first two photos. So, if he has blonde hair, then the next photograph must be a brown-haired person. If it was a brownhaired man, then the next photograph would be a blonde person. As this is the first photograph, it is not possible for the man to be a redhead (because after the shuffle the top card can only be the top card of one of the original piles), but in all other instances you would need to consider redheads, too. Turn over the next photograph to show that you correctly described the next person. You now have two photographs on the table and can use those to identify the expression on the face of the person in the next photograph. If you have a smile and a laugh on the table, you know that the next will be serious. Take the next card from the packet and explain that you get the impression of a serious-looking person. Turn it over to show that you are correct. Now you start over with the properties again, so simply look at the last two to see who is missing of the male, female and child. The next properties you look for in the last two photos are hair colour, then expression, and so on, until you run out of photographs. Comments The key to the success of this effect is to never make it about the three properties, but about the people in general. For example, don’t just describe a blonde-haired person. Instead, say, “I sense that the next person isfairskinned. It’s a nice person, and I think they have blonde hair. ” By adding additional, non-important properties you really give the impression that you are describing the person instead of one of three distinct properties.
OLD DOUR GILBREATH This Dangerous Monte-style effect is a close-up version o f an effect that Tomas designed for Uri Geller’s Swedish television show, Fenomen. The stage version involved containers o f fake and real snakes, but this close-up version is adapted to use thumbtacks (or any other dangerous spike). WARNING: unlike other effects o f this nature, you will be required to use mathematics to decide i f you are at risk. Therefore, i f you are not good at thinking under pressure, you should not perform this effect. We cannot be held responsible for any mistakes or injuries caused by performing this effect. Requirements A large sheet of thick black art board, a box of thumbtacks (of different colours), eight small round paper containers (such as the typed used to hold ketchup in fast food establishments), a piece of chalk and an X-Acto knife or circle cutter. Prop construction Separate light-coloured thumbtacks from dark-coloured thumbtacks. This will be one of the properties of the Gilbreath principle that you use to indicate whether the next item is safe or dangerous. Therefore, ensure that you can easily identify the difference between the light and dark-coloured thumbtacks. Cut out eight matching rectangles with pointed tops (fig. 2). The rectangles should be approximately 5" long and 1" wide. Lay them out into two rows and use double-sided tape to attach two thumbtacks to each rectangle, one about half an inch from the point (this will be referred to at the front) and one an inch from