Thomas Baxter - The Open Prediction Project

Full text

(1)The. Project Copyright © December 1, 2008 by Thomas Baxter.

(2) i. TABLE OF CONTENTS i. iv. Pg. 1 Pg. 2 Pg. 9. Table of Contents Introduction Preface A Brief History of The Open Prediction Conditions for 51 Faces North. SOLUTIONS #1. Pg. 12. FATE. -- Mick Ayres (U.S.A.). #2. Pg. 15. UNANIMIS. -- Mick Ayres. #3. Pg. 18. MARKEDLY OPEN. -- John Barratt (U.K.). #4. Pg. 21. BRRR!. -- Thomas Baxter (Canada). #5. Pg. 23. SALARIUM. -- Thomas Baxter. #6. Pg. 27. 27 BELOW. -- Thomas Baxter. #7. Pg. 30. POW!. -- Tom Begley (U.K.). #8. Pg. 31. 51 FACES SAVED. -- Ben Blau (U.S.A). #9. Pg. 34. THE HIDDEN PERSUADER. -- Ben Blau. #10 Pg. 36. LEFT OPEN. -- Andrew Brown (U.K.). #11 Pg. 40. THE BROKEN PREDICTION. -- Andrew Brown. #12 Pg. 41. TRIBUTE TO S.J.. -- Andrew Brown. #13 Pg. 44. T.O.P.. -- David Bui (U.S.A.). #14 Pg. 48. CUTTING A KEY. -- David Bui. #15 Pg. 52. JOHNNY’S DILEMMA. -- Hector Chadwick (U.K.). #16 Pg. 62. ALMOST OPEN. -- Vernon Cosmiano (U.S.A.). #17 Pg. 63. A LITTLE MIRACLE. -- Vernon Cosmiano. #18 Pg. 65. SOMEBODY STOP ME!. -- Olly Crofton (U.K.). #19 Pg. 67. AN EXPERIMENT IN THOUGHT -- Iain Dunford (U.K.). #20 Pg. 70. PATH OF A SHERPA. -- Aaron Enyeart (U.S.A.). i.

(3) ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d). #21 Pg. 73. IMPROMPTU “L.A. OPEN”. #22 Pg. 75. SPONTANE EINSICHT. #23 Pg. 77. UnDONE. -- Joshua Giles (U.S.A.). #24 Pg. 88. MY GRANDFATHER’S CURRY. -- John Hacket (U.K.). #25 Pg. 96. HACKETING ALDO OPEN. -- Jon Hacket. #26 Pg. 99. UNABRIDGED. --Aaron Enyeart (U.S.A.) -- Sebastian Frieske (Germany). -- Bezalel Hermoso (Phillipines). #27 Pg. 109 SPEEDO PREDICTION. -- Claude Impiriale (U.K.). #28 Pg. 114. BRR! GONE MENTAL. -- Mislav Kovacic (Croatia). #29 Pg. 118. SUMO. -- Mislav Kovacic. #30 Pg. 120. YOUR O.P.. -- Mislav Kovacic. #31 Pg. 123. NORTHERN NIRVANA. -- Vincent Mara (Canada). #32 Pg. 126. AZTEC OPEN PREDICTION. -- Alexander May (U.S.A.). #33 Pg. 128. cOmPatibility. -- Hiro Okada (Japan). #34 Pg. 129. EVENING THE ODDS. -- Hiro Okada. #35 Pg. 132. DIANOLOGOUS. -- Hiro Okada. #36 Pg. 134. F = FATE, FEAR & FREE WILL. -- Hiro Okada. #37 Pg. 139. FINISH OPEN FROM THE START -- Miikka Pakarinen (Finland). #38 Pg. 141 SHUFFLE CHALLENGE TOO. -- Marc Paul (U.K.). #39 Pg. 144. OPEN UNCONSCIOUS. -- Matteo Perlini (Italy). #40 Pg. 148. DOPPELGANGER PREDICTION. -- Sheldon Peters (U.S.A.). #41 Pg. 149. O.P.P.. -- Joshua Quinn (U.S.A.). #42 Pg. 152. THE OPEN SECRET. -- Tom Ransom (Canada). #43 Pg. 159. ISOLATED TWIST. -- Patrick Redford (U.S.A.). #44 Pg. 161. ADVANTAGEOUS. -- Patrick Redford. #45 Pg. 163. THE O.P. SPREAD. -- Patrick Redford. #46 Pg. 165. STANDING PREDICTION. -- Patrick Redford. #47 Pg. 167. JAMESIAN MONTE. -- Barrie Richardson (U.S.A.). #48 Pg. 170. OPEN SENSATION. -- Tatanka Tan (U.S.A.). ii.

(4) iii. TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) #49 Pg. 171. TRULY FANTASTIC O.P.. -- Dominic Twose (U.K.). #50 Pg. 173. PARALLEL LIES. -- Michael Weber (U.S.A.). #51 Pg. 179. NARROWING THE WIDE O.P.. -- John W. Wells (U.S.A.). Pg. 182. APPENDIX I -- The Psychological Stop Trick. Pg. 183. APPENDIX II -- The Hofzinser Spread Cull. Pg. 184. APPENDIX III -- Conspiracy Theory. Pg. 197. APPENDIX IV -- Previously Published Open Predictions. REGARDING COPYRIGHTS & ALL OTHER RIGHTS While Thomas Baxter retains the copyright for this work in total as a collection, all rights pertaining to the routines contained in this collection are retained by the individual contributors.. iii.

(5) iv. INTRODUCTION The Open Prediction. Three words that have caused sleepless nights for magicians and mentalists around the world. I first became aware of the concept in my mid-teens, almost 40 years ago. I had become a student of the owner of one of North America’s oldest Magic Shops, now long-gone, sadly (both the owner and the shop). He told me about the night that he sat at his kitchen table with a fellow named Stewart James. Stewart performed an effect that he called: 51 Faces North. The effect sounded impossible. My mentor, Harry Smith, shuffled his own pack of cards. Up until that moment, Stewart had been amazing Harry with Stewart’s own pack, performing a series of dove-tailing effects where each effect automatically set up the cards for the next one. But for this effect, Harry used his own cards, and shuffled them himself. Stewart never touched the cards. On a piece of napkin, Stewart wrote the name of a card: The Four of Hearts. He asked Harry to deal the cards, one at a time, face up onto the table in a heap, and to watch for the Four of Hearts. Anywhere along the way, Stewart directed, Harry was to leave one card face down without looking at it, then continue dealing the rest of the pack face up. Harry did as directed. As he dealt the last few face-up cards, the tension was unbearable. The predicted card didn’t show itself amongst any of the face-up cards he had dealt. Harry watched for a move, a switch, ANYTHING. But nothing was done. Stewart never touched the cards. Stewart told Harry to turn over the face down card. It was the Four of Hearts! Harry was not often fooled by a card effect, but this one floored him. I insisted that he must have left something out of the telling of the tale, and he was just as insistent that he had related it exactly as it had happened. Stewart James and his 51 Faces North became mythic images in my mind. Little did I know then, as a rolly-polly 15-year-old wannabe magician, that years later I would meet Stewart and become his friend, and even have to opportunity to ask him about his legendary effect.. iv.

(6) v Somewhere between the time that Harry told me of Stewart’s performance and when I actually met Stewart, I learned of the true origins of The Open Prediction and Paul Curry’s Unsolved Card Problem. I scoured the published lore regarding Open Predictions, and even published a few of my own solutions to the problem. 51 Faces North (with the fabled “conditions” Stewart attached to his effect) is almost universally considered to be the ultimate manifestation of the Open Prediction, but others have worked out fine solutions, both before and after Stewart James created his legendary effect. Is 51 Faces North the “Holy Grail”? In fact, no one really knows, since Stewart chose to never reveal his method. Oh, there is a solution published purporting to be Stewart’s actual method for 51 Faces North, but there are some - myself included - who wonder if it is truly what it is purported to be, and even if it is -- is it honestly the ultimate solution? In my opinion, the ‘Grail Quest’ continues, and hence this collection of 51 unique and thoughtful variations of The Open Prediction. Contributors whose solutions you will find here are from all over the world and from all walks of life. Some are well-known professionals in magic or mentalism, and others are hobbyists or accomplished amateur performers. All have one thing in common: They have flexed their creative energies to their limit to meet the challenge of inventing something unique by way of an Open Prediction. If my invitation to contribute to this book has been a catalyst for that massive creative effort, then I feel that this work is already a success for everyone involved.. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Tom Ransom made his vast Magic Library available to me, yet again. Without his generosity this work simply would not exist. In addition, he spent many hours of his own time searching for obscure mentions of Open Predictions, checking time-lines re: the evolution of the concept, and acting as a sounding-board for my wild flights of fancy. He is a quiet hero in the realm of magical literature. David Britland shared his own history of the Open Prediction on his internet blog: Cardopolis. It was very helpful in filling in a few blanks. A personal thank-you to Patrick Watson who, despite being a bit under-the-weather, made some inquiries on my behalf that almost helped to land an unpublished solution by Martin Gardner. Unfortunately, Allan Slaight says that the solution is no longer in his files, and neither he nor Martin can remember the method. Finally, my gratitude to all those who shared their creativity and efforts in the pages to follow. Thomas Baxter, December 1, 2008. v.

(7) 1. PREFACE In structuring this collection, I was faced with a number of hard choices: How to create Order from Chaos? Should I place contributor’s solutions in the order in which they were received, or perhaps place them by Country of origin? Perhaps they should be grouped by methodology (gaffed; un-gaffed; sleights; subtlety; mathematical; etc.). The fact that this collection would also be a competition of sorts, created even more questions: As Editor, should I include my personal comments on each solution? If I did, would that influence the readers’ votes? Should I re-produce each contribution exactly as I received it, or should I edit judiciously? In the end I was forced to make some executive decisions. In order to avoid bias, I’ve listed the various solutions by their creator’s name, in alphabetical order. I thought this the fairest answer to that problem. I chose not to comment on each solution, so as not to ‘curry’ (pun intended) attention for any particular contribution. I have interjected Editor’s Notes here and there in order to help clarify or to add historical perspective. Editing this book was more of a task than I had expected it would be. In all, I edited, formatted and worked through the handlings of over 70 submissions. For each submitted solution I went through a mountain of research material, attempting to make sure that no solution was an exact copy of anything that had been published by someone else. Despite my best efforts, I suspect that upon reading this book, someone will point out a reference I’ve missed. If that happens, I’ll do my best to send updates to those who buy the book. Some contributions fell by the wayside because they were obviously copied from previously published solutions. Some were left out because the methods could not work reliably. Still others hit the editing room floor because another contributor had already thought of and submitted the same exact idea. While there are cases where the same basic method was used by various contributors (i.e. Three people have used the Cut-Deeper Force as part of their method, each in very different ways), if the individual presentation or handling was unique, I allowed it to stay. Any photos you find included in the book were submitted by the contributors. I hope that all who purchase this collection will find that they’ve received excellent value for their money. My hope is that this book will inspire you to stretch your own creative muscles and will “Open” your mind to possibilities not imagined before reading The Open Prediction Project.. 1.

(8) 2. A BRIEF HISTORY OF. THE OPEN PREDICTION The Open Prediction, now a classic plot in magic with playing cards, was a challenge created by Performer Paul Curry, originally shared only in private discussions and through correspondence with a very small group of performers. It was originally known as The Curry Unsolved Card Problem. In his challenge, Curry suggested an effect wherein a prediction of the name of a playing card is announced or shown openly at the start of the effect. A spectator then shuffles a pack of cards and deals the cards face up onto the table, one at a time, until they choose to stop at a random point and deal the next card face down, without looking at its identity. They then continue dealing the remainder of the pack face up. Everyone watches the deal, looking for the predicted card in the face up cards dealt. It does not appear. At the end, the participant turns up the sole face down card. It is the card that was openly predicted at the start. Some historians have erroneously recorded that the first appearance of an “Open Prediction” in print was in Ed Marlo's The Cardician in late 1953. However, an earlier mention of the card problem, together with a possible solution, found its way into print in December of 1949 in Phoenix magazine, when a letter written to Bruce Elliott by Gerald Kosky appeared. In his letter, Kosky mentions a card problem being worked on by Elliott, Dai Vernon, Paul Curry, Bill Simon and Martin Gardner. He then describes the concept of writing down the name of a card, having the spectator deal cards face up from a shuffled deck, handing you one of the cards face down, and the face down card matching the prediction. In his letter, he doesn’t use the words “Open Prediction”, and indeed, doesn’t make clear that the prediction is shown at the beginning of the effect. But this early mention throws suspicion on events to come a few years later, with regard to who knew what about the Open Prediction concept, and when they knew it. More solutions and discussion of the problem saw the light of day with the publication of two solutions to the Open Prediction challenge in the March, 1953 issue of Pentagram magazine. Peter Warlock’s Angle on Marlo and Stewart James' Angle on Angle on Marlo were introduced in the article by a piece from Francis Haxton that describes how he became aware of the Open Prediction problem and how he had then “tipped” the notion at an ‘exclusive gathering’ of Performers in London.. 2.

(9) 3 So how, then did Curry’s idea become credited to Ed Marlo, even prior to Marlo’s having published any work on the card problem? And how did Marlo’s idea in turn inspire Francis Haxton, Peter Warlock, Stewart James and subsequent generations of the best minds in Magic and Mentalism to wrestle with the challenge of The Open Prediction?. MARLO TIPS IT Turns out it was all Percy Abbot’s fault. Percy, with Harry Blackstone, Sr., had co-founded The Blackstone Magic Company in Colon, Michigan, in the year 1929. Blackstone owned properties in Colon, and used the town as a base to store and build equipment for his famous touring illusions shows. He would rehearse his new shows in the Colon Opera House before taking them on the road. The idea was that Blackstone would finance the Magic Company and that his name would act as a selling tool for what they manufactured. Percy would run the shop, overseeing the building of props and tricks for sale, filling orders, etc., while Blackstone was on the road with his shows. This relationship lasted for only two years. Blackstone came off the road from a long tour and apparently was incensed at the state of the Magic Company’s business affairs. An angry confrontation took place, and the partnership was dissolved on the spot. Two years later, in 1933, Percy Abbott and a new partner, Recil Bordner, opened a new company, named Abbott’s Magic Manufacturing Company. For the first several months, business was pretty bad. In an effort to attract some attention to their products, Percy decided to throw an “open house” and invited Performers from neighboring states to attend. About 50 people turned up for the first “Abbott’s Get-Together”, and it did seem to help in getting the word out about the company, so they repeated the party the next summer, and drew an even bigger crowd. The next year the Get-Together was opened to the public, and business took off. The Get-Together consisted of public magic shows; lectures for Performers; a large showroom of demonstrators showing the newest Abbott products; and most importantly for those who attended, the opportunity to meet other Performers and magic hobbyists and to talk magic long into the night, either in someone’s rented room or at the local American Legion hall. The Abbott’s Get-Together became an annual magical institution, and continues to this very day.. 3.

(10) 4 The story of The Open Prediction began when Paul Curry shared his challenge idea, in confidence, with a small group of Performers in late 1948. Among those who were “in” on the concept and who were working on their own solutions were Martin Gardiner, Dai Vernon, Bill Simon and a Performer named Oscar Weigle. Weigle, without Curry’s knowledge (but crediting Curry with the idea), shared the concept with Ed Marlo during a late-night session at Abbott’s Get-Together, in August of 1949. Marlo’s imagination was fired by the problem. After considerable experimentation and thought, Marlo devised what he thought were a number of fair solutions for the challenge. He kept the effect to himself for a short period of time, but in August of 1952 he found himself again in Colon, Michigan to attend the Abbott’s Get-Together. Also attending the 1952 Get-Together were good friends Stewart James and Francis Haxton. Haxton, a building engineer by trade, was an enthusiastic and accomplished amateur Performer, specializing in Magic with playing cards. Stewart James was well-known at Abbott’s, having invented a number of their best-selling apparatus tricks, and even having run a “branch office” for Abbott’s in his home town years before. The British Francis Haxton had met Stewart James while James was posted in England while serving in the armed forces during World War Two. The two became good friends and they continued to correspond when Stewart went back to Canada. In the Summer of 1952 Haxton, with a contingent of British Performers (nick-named “The Flying Sorcerers”), had come to attended the convention in Colon. Stewart re-united with his old friend Haxton at the event.. During the Get-Together, James and Haxton met up with Ed Marlo. Stewart James and Ed Marlo had corresponded frequently, and the three men instantly “hit it off” and shared a love for card magic, so it was natural that a card session would ensue that lasted into the early hours of the morning. During this session, Ed Marlo told the others about a card problem that he had been working on. An Open Prediction. Marlo expressed the following concept: The unusual effect would begin with the performer openly making a prediction of a card, say, the Queen of Hearts. This prediction could be spoken aloud or written down, but the essential thing is that everyone was aware of the predicted card before the effect would proceed. Marlo went on to explain that in his effect a shuffled deck of cards is handed to the participant who is then directed to deal cards face-up, one at a time, onto the table, or onto a participant’s hand. The Performer directs the participant to randomly choose a moment during the deal when he will leave one of the cards face-down, a card of his choosing, and then continue dealing through the rest of the deck turning the remaining cards face-up. Everyone else is requested to. 4.

(11) 5 watch for the predicted card as the face-up cards are dealt. As the last card is dealt, it’s obvious that the predicted card has not been seen. When the card that the spectator chose to leave face down during the deal is turned over, it is seen to be the predicted card, the Queen of Hearts. Marlo performed one of his solutions for Haxton (and possibly James). What he did not do (according to Haxton and James) was tell them that the concept for the challenge belonged to Paul Curry. Later, upon his return to England, Haxton wrote to James (11th Oct.,1952) excitedly announcing that he had devised a solution of his own for the Open Prediction challenge. In his reply James revealed that he too had invented a workable version. They went on for the next several months corresponding and sharing ideas about what they referred to as: “The Marlo Problem”. At that time, Francis Haxton met regularly with a small group of magical neighbours and friends in the U.K., meeting informally in each other’s homes. Named "The Six", the original members were Haxton, Peter Warlock, Jack Avis, Dr. Nicholls Harley, Eric de la Mare and Brian McCarthy. At one of these meetings, Haxton shared the concept of The Open Prediction challenge, demonstrating his solution, and describing his meeting with Ed Marlo and Stewart James. In explaining the concept, not knowing the true origins with respect to Paul Curry, Haxton credited Marlo with the creation of the concept. Peter Warlock, a member of The Six, immediately began work to devise his own version of The Open Prediction, and came up with a very good effect that he ironically entitled Angle On Marlo. Warlock shared his routine, through correspondence, with Stewart James. Warlock’s solution involved a sleight of hand move that caught Stewart’s fancy. Stewart named the move “The Triple Turnover Reverse Concealment”, and immediately devised his own twist on the move, incorporating it into a routine to demonstrate how it might be used. He mailed this routine off to Haxton and Warlock, never meaning for it to be tied in print to The Open Prediction, as he had quite different thoughts about the Open Prediction problem. Through miscommunication, Angle On Angle On Marlo was the name given to Stewart’s effect by Haxton and Warlock. With a foreword by Haxton describing “Marlo’s” challenge, Warlock published the two solutions as solutions for The Open Prediction challenge in his magazine, Pentagram (March, 1953).. 5.

(12) 6. EMBARRASSMENT Haxton took a lot of ‘heat’ for “outing” the concept of the Open Prediction in print. Shortly after publication of the effects in Pentagram, Haxton received word from those close to Marlo that Marlo was very upset that others had tipped what they had discussed in a private “undeground” session. In Marlo’s view, Haxton was responsible for making it public. Haxton realized, too late, that the man he thought responsible for the concept – Marlo – had not yet published any of his own work on the idea. He immediately wrote to Marlo to apologize and to attempt to ease the embarrassment between himself, Warlock, James and Marlo. Even at this point in time, Marlo had still not made it clear that the concept of The Open Prediction was not his own, but rightfully belonged to Paul Curry. It was Stewart James who learned shortly thereafter that Curry was the creator of the Open Prediction concept. He shared this knowledge with Warlock and Haxton. Marlo’s response seems to have been that it was all a misunderstanding. He explained that while he may not have made clear that the idea was Curry’s, he (Marlo) had never claimed that the idea was his own, only that the solution that he demonstrated at the Colon Get-Together was original with him. The misunderstandings that resulted, he explained, were due to false assumptions made by James and Haxton, which were then perpetuated by Haxton sharing the information with “The Six” in England and Warlock’s subsequent publishing of the material in Pentagram. This “misunderstanding” and the ensuing drama is somewhat of a mystery to me. If you’ll remember, the card problem had been published in The Phoenix back in 1949, and although the source of the card challenge was not credited, the article did mention several very well known card men who were working on the problem at that time, including Paul Curry. Why James, Haxton and Warlock wouldn’t already know the creator of the idea, and why Marlo took Haxton to task for “outing” the concept, isn’t clear. A clue perhaps, is a frequent mention in print that Marlo would re-issue the card challenge, year after year, at Abbott’s Get Together. It may very well be that Marlo didn’t include credit to Curry at these sessions, and so folks like Vernon, Gardner, Simon, and Elliott associated the idea solely with Marlo. The publication of The Open Prediction concept, attaching Marlo’s name to it as the creator, would have caused Marlo some embarrassment with those who knew the true origins of the card problem.. 6.

(13) 7 The question of why Paul Curry (whose name was mentioned in The Phoenix along with the others) didn’t speak up at that time and claim credit for the idea, also remains a mystery to me. Curiously, Curry’s own solution to the Open Prediction problem didn’t appear until many years later, in his book, SPECIAL EFFECTS (1977). Perhaps someone reading this work knows the answer and can fill in this gap in my understanding of the history of this effect. Marlo later acknowledged his debt to Curry in his book, THE CARDICIAN (late 1953), where he published the version of The Open Prediction that he had demonstrated to James and Haxton in Colon. Ironically, Marlo’s first solution was made possible only through the use of another Paul Curry idea, a card switch from Curry’s effect called A Cur (r) i-ous Prediction (MORE CARD MANIPULATIONS, Vol. 3, 1940). The publication of the two solutions to the Open Prediction challenge in Pentagram seems to have caused a minor rift between Stewart James and Francis Haxton at the time as well. Haxton had written up the solutions for Pentagram himself, and according to James had missed one of the key elements of the problem, that the prediction is shown openly and not written down unseen by the spectators on a folded piece of paper, as it was in the versions published in Pentagram. Haxton took the stance that the open nature of the prediction was the weakest part of the problem. He argued that it lessened the suspense and would lead to the audience believing that the predicted card was not in the deck to begin with. James vehemently disagreed, and it was an issue between the two of them from that point on.. Ibidem # 3 STEWART JAMES SHAKES THINGS UP At last the problem of the Open Prediction had been made public, and the rightful creator of the concept had been given credit. Stewart James felt free now to share his thoughts on the problem (which was now being referred to as The Curry’s Unsolved Card Problem) with the magical fraternity. Well, perhaps not quite ALL of his thoughts. In August of 1955, in issue number 3 of Canadian Howard Lyons’ Ibidem magazine, Stewart published a lengthy article dissecting what he called The Open Prediction. Although in his introduction to the issue Howard Lyons makes a brief reference to “what once was called the Curry Unsolved Card Problem”, no mention is made of Paul Curry and his creation of the Open Prediction concept by Stewart in his dissertation on the Open Prediction, even though by this time all parties involved were well aware of the situation.. 7.

(14) 8 Stewart goes so far as to thank Marlo for allowing him to quote the basic description of the concept of The Open Prediction from Marlo’s book, The Cardician, but despite Marlo’s crediting Curry in that book, Stewart James makes no mention of Curry in his contribution in Ibidem. I find this lack of crediting very odd, especially given the misunderstandings and hard feelings that had occurred earlier. Stewart was usually meticulous in his crediting. Later, in the mammoth tome: STEWART JAMES IN PRINT (1989), in a chapter discussing The Open Prediction, Stewart does credit Curry as having originally suggested the idea, and points out that The Open Prediction was originally known as The Curry Unsolved Card Problem (p.667). In his article in IBIDEM #3, Stewart details 25 complete variations of The Open Prediction, with explanations of the workings of each version. Howard Lyons then goes on to list 11 more of his own routined solutions for the problem. The wide range of approaches, combined with a two-page over-view of Stewart’s thinking in approaching and analyzing the problem make IBIDEM #3 a wonderful resource for anyone exploring the Open Prediction problem. As if these 36 intriguing and provocative versions of the effect were not enough to set readers’ heads spinning, Howard Lyons then includes a description by Stewart of the conditions under which his favorite version can be accomplished. 51 Faces North makes its first appearance in print, although without an explanation as to how it might be accomplished. Stewart later claimed that the notes and conditions regarding 51 Faces North that Howard published in IBIDEM were meant as a private note to Howard, and were not sent for the purpose of publication. Amazing to think that this card effect, which to magicians has become arguably the most famous card effect in history, was accidentally made known and might otherwise have been kept a secret forever.. Stewart James and I ‘openly’ disagree on which card should Face South. 8.

(15) 9. CONDITIONS FOR 51 FACES NORTH By now it is likely that anyone who has purchased this e-book will be familiar with 51 Faces North, almost universally regarded as the penultimate version of the Open Prediction, along with the infamous “conditions” that Stewart laid out for the effect. For the sake of completeness, I include them here:. 1. Borrowed cards may be used. 2. The deck is ordinary, and might even have cards missing. You don't have to know which cards, or how many are missing. You only have to be sure that the card you predict is there. 3. You do not need privacy with the cards to set something. 4. The deck is never out of sight for a moment. 5. No card or cards are stolen from or added to the deck. 6. Borrowed writing materials may be used. 7. It is described as a prediction at the time of writing. The prediction is the name of a card. It is known to all before the first card is dealt. 8. Strictly impromtu. No time alone to set-up the cards or special tools necessary. 9. No alternative meanings or effect. 10.Nothing but the borrowed articles used. 11.When the spectator starts dealing, the performer does not know where the predicted card is. It would not help to know with this method. Nor does the performer know the location in the pack of any other card. 12.The performer never knows when the spectator will leave a card face down until after they have done so. 13.The spectator deals straight through from top to face, the only variation is when he leaves a card face down. 14.It is not a once-in-a-while trick. If the instructions are followed, it cannot fail. 15.The cards are never handled by the performer from first to last, at any time immediately before, during or after the trick. 16. The spectator checks that the face down card is the predicted one. 17.This method could be used by someone for criminal purposes. 18.While part of this method is already used in Magic, it is not a wellknown method for use with cards. It could be used for other than cards.. 9.

(16) 10. TAKING THE SECRET TO HIS GRAVE Stewart James chose never to reveal the secret to his effect, 51 Faces North. He deliberately refused to perform the effect when magicians were present, apart from possibly two notable instances. One such occurrence happened when Stewart performed the effect for his friend Al Richards, in an attempt to go on record to show that the effect could indeed be done as he said it could. Another, less-well-known performance of 51 Faces North was for my mentor, Harry Smith, at Harry’s home in Toronto. More on that later. Stewart kept the secret of 51 Faces North from EVERYONE. Even when the books STEWART JAMES IN PRINT and THE JAMES FILE (Vol.’s I and II) were being prepared and published, Stewart angrily refused to discuss or give further hints to the workings of what had become his legendary masterpiece. He chose to die without revealing the secret. Knowing this, I was somewhat taken aback when, shortly after Stewart’s death, individuals who had been close to Stewart announced that they had discovered Stewart’s notes on 51 Faces North while searching through some personal papers, and would publish a copy of this single page of notes, 47 years after Stewart’s description of the effect in IBIDEM. This “revelation” was to take place in the inaugural issue of a new magazine, Penumbra (May-June 2002) *.. * (For a description of the routine that appeared in Penumbra, and some of the reasons why I don’t believe that it IS Stewart’s final solution for 51 FACES NORTH, see Appendix V at the end of this book.). 10.

(17) 11. SOLUTIONS. 11.

(18) 12. MICK AYRES. (U.S.A.). Two Solutions BIO Mick Ayres has been entertaining professionally since the early 70's...and for the past decade with the Walt Disney Company. In addition to baffling resort guests with mentalism and magic, he also shares tall tales and plays plantation-era fiddle tunes. He is the author of several books and manuscripts, including the acclaimed Act-series. Mick is 49 years old and lives with his two daughters among the sea-islands of South Carolina.. 1.. FATE. EFFECT From a shuffled deck, a single card is removed and openly shown to the audience. A second card is fairly selected by a guest. When revealed, it is the same color and value of the prediction card.. PERFORMANCE I confess this effect does not meet all the stipulations Paul Curry put forth in his well known Open Prediction challenge—besides, Stewart James’ 51 Faces North already does that beautifully. Nonetheless, with little effort Fate hits the target pretty close to the bulls-eye. Though the handling for Fate is original with me, it is such a simple, easy idea that I'm willing to bet others may have walked this path, too. To begin, remove the deck from your pocket and uncase the pack. Say, “This time I will use a playing card for a prediction.” As you search through the deck, quickly note the top card and find its mate within the pack. For the sake of explanation, assume the top card is a red Seven of Diamonds. Therefore, the mate would be the other red Seven of Hearts. Openly move this mate to the top of the deck. Turn the deck face down and double-lift the top two cards as one. Note: you do not have to do a double turnover. With your right hand, just lift the two cards as one from above. Turn your hand palm up or towards the audience to clearly display the face of the card(s), in this case the Seven of Diamonds. Say, “This time, I’m going to show you my prediction so you know what I’m thinking right up front.”. 12.

(19) 13 Name the displayed card and table this doubled card face down off to the side, taking care to leave it aligned. Two simple things will help you accomplish this easily: first, do not look at the cards while you are tabling them. Remember, in the eyes of the audience, this is not an action that should require your full attention. Second, when performing the double-lift, grip the edges of the double card between your right thumb and middle finger. This allows your right index finger to curl gently against the back of the cards. As you table the cards, press gently in the middle of the cards with the edge of your index fingernail while your thumb and middle fingers release the edges of the cards. Your fingernail comes straight up off the cards a half-beat later and will leave the cards aligned close enough to pass a casual glance from the audience. This is easy to do and will probably work the first time you try it. Hand the deck to your volunteer and ask her to give it a quick mix. When she is done, say, “Please cut the deck in half and hand me one of the portions.” Once she has done so, say, “In a normal deck of cards, there is a four of a kind for every value. That means each card has three other mates. I have used the Seven of Diamonds as my prediction. In this experiment, you will locate the remaining sevens for us. With you calling all the shots, we will eliminate cards by turning them face up. It is time for you to choose: which half gets turned face up—mine or yours?” It doesn’t matter which half she chooses. Turn over the indicated portion and spread them saying, “Do you see any other sevens here?” She may see one of the black Sevens. If so, point it out for the audience. Either way, you will table these cards face up in a loose pile in front of you. Do the same thing with the remaining half of the deck—have her cut it in two portions and select a half, which is turned face up and spread as well. “Do you see any Sevens here?” Again, whatever her answer, leave these cards face up on the already tabled pile. A fourth of the deck remains face down in your hand. Say, “Your choices so far have left us with just a handful of cards. I will deal them face up one at a time. Please tell me to stop dealing at some point.” Stud deal the cards face up onto the loose tabled pile until she says, “Stop.” Immediately move your hands to a spot just to the left of the doubled-cards on the table and pretend to straight-deal the next card on top of them. That’s right— although you go through all the same motions of straight-dealing a card, you don’t actually deal a card at all. You ‘mime’ the deal instead. In fact, when your. 13.

(20) 14 right thumb pretends to place the nonexistent card on top of the tabled pair, the top card will automatically slide generously over to the right and the illusion is perfect. Do not rush this motion. Instead, maintain the same rhythm you had during the stud dealing. You will not get caught because the eye can perceive motion but it cannot perceive detail within that motion. Or to look at it another way, the hand is not quicker than the eye — but it is far quicker than the brain. Please don't think of this as sleight-of-hand because it hardly qualifies. Basically, this is not dealing a card. Think of it like that and you'll likely do it perfectly the first time. Watch in a mirror, you'll be amazed at how easy and clean this falsedeal appears. Once you have done the false deal, immediately return your hands to a position over the loose pile and continue stud dealing the remaining cards face up until they're gone. Say, “Other than those two black Sevens, did you see any other ones? No?” By this time, the audience will anticipate where this effect is going. You provide a little doubt by saying, “That means one Seven has yet to be seen. Now, don’t get ahead of me here… because a thinking person would quickly realize that I might have simply removed the perfect mate to my prediction card from the deck before the show. That would explain everything so far, wouldn’t it?” “As you know, every card has three mates. But every card also has one perfect mate—matching in both color and value. I knew you'd find the mates to my prediction...” Turn over the bottom card of the pair to display your original prediction card and hold it displayed high in your left hand. Finish your sentence by saying, “...I just hoped you would save the best for last.” With your right hand, turn over the last face down card and hold it up high (in applause-cue position) showing both red Sevens—perfect mates.. 14.

(21) 15. Second Solution – Mick Ayres. 2.. UNANIMIS A Direct Handling for Curry's 'Open Prediction'. EFFECT You openly write down a prediction. A guest shuffles the deck fairly. She now deals through the deck and turns each card face up. At any point, she deals one card face down without looking at it. She continues to deal the remainder of the deck face up. The predicted card does not appear. The guest turns over the face down card. It matches your Open Prediction! Bear in mind, the prediction is made openly before the guest shuffles the deck. The guest deals the deck straight through and honestly deals any card she wishes off to the side. There is no sleight of hand. Nothing is gimmicked or prepared in advance.. METHOD You will need a deck of cards, an index card and a marker. Place these items on the table and ask a guest to come up and assist you. Pick up the deck in your left hand and introduce this experiment by addressing your audience: “Do you know what question I get asked the most? 'If you can really predict the future, then why haven't you won the lottery yet?'” “It's a good question—and one that is easy to answer: It is because there is too much riding on the outcome. Everyone knows the worst thing a person can do is make life-changing choices based on intense feelings. Emotions cloud the issue. With the chance of winning millions of dollars at stake, there is no way I can distance myself emotionally from those hopes and dreams. Trust me, I've tried! So I am limited to predictions about things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. That being said, any predictions made tonight are certainly important for the purpose of this show—but beyond that? I will be content if you simply remember your experience years from now.” To perform this routine, you need to know the top card of the face down deck. To obtain this easily, simply spread the cards face up to display them and glimpse the top card. Let's say it is the Jack of Clubs. Say, “For our first experiment, we will use this deck of cards…”. 15.

(22) 16 Close the spread and turn the deck face down in your left hand. Pick up the index card and drop it on top of the deck while saying, “…and this note card. Now I must predict something you will do — something trivial but important enough to offer undeniable proof of the future.” Openly write: “I PREDICT YOU WILL STOP ON THE JACK OF CLUBS” on the index card. Pick up the index card and blow on the ink as if to dry it more. Lay the index card face down on top of the deck in your hand, and on this other side, write your initials. Hand the marker to your guest and ask her to write her initials next to yours by saying, “Witness this, please?” She is to do this while you are holding everything—that is why you only want her to scribble her initials quickly and not to write her full name. Again, pick up the card and blow on the ink (I realize this is technically unnecessary but it is good for staging purposes). Turn the index card over on the deck so the prediction is showing again. Touch the writing with your finger and check your finger quickly for ink marks. This innocent action provides the unseen opportunity for your left thumb to push the index card and the top card of the deck over about one inch. Once you have confirmed your fingers are ink-free, your right hand takes the index card (with the playing card hidden underneath) and lays it on the table. Say, “Our prediction of the future is made and unofficially witnessed. Now, to keep everything fair and random, please shuffle the deck.” She does so. Continue giving her instructions by asking her to hold the deck face down and begin dealing cards face up into a pile on the table. At any point, she is to stop. When she stops, say, “Please remove the next card and, without looking at it, deal it on top of the prediction card.” Once she has done so, instruct her to keep dealing the remaining cards face up on to her pile. When the last card has been dealt, say, “Do you feel you were influenced at any point to stop at any particular card?” She will answer, “No”. Pick up the deck and, without squaring it, turn it face down and hold it in your left hand. With your right hand, pick up all three cards while keeping them flat so you do not expose the hidden card below the index card. This may seem awkward, but explain by saying, “I want to be careful not to touch your card.” Bring your hands together and allow her dealt card to slide off to the top of the un-squared deck. Drop the index card and the hidden card together onto the top of the deck.. 16.

(23) 17 Point to the message on the index card and say, “Earlier, before you even shuffled the deck, I wrote: “I PREDICT YOU WILL STOP ON THE JACK OF CLUBS” on this card.” Pick up the index card and turn it over. Point to the initials and say, “You and I provided our initials just in case someone wanted to challenge the legitimacy of this experiment.” Lift the index card away from the deck and use its corner to tap the top card of the deck. Say, “Other than being a human-table for these cards, I have not handled this deck at all. But if your card matches my prediction—would you agree that we have accomplished something memorable?” She will nod her head. “Please turn over your card.” The Jack of Diamonds is revealed. Smile and say, “I won't forget you either, ma'am.” Present the prediction card to your guest as a souvenir of her experience.. NOTES To give credit where it is due, other performers have used the idea of a playing card hidden beneath a larger item for the purpose of accomplishing a predictioneffect. For instance, Don Alan did so with a regular deck and a pack of miniature cards. But Don Alan's clever effect was in not based on an Open Prediction presentation. Stewart James used an envelope to hide things with his 'Solution Number 24' to Curry's Open Prediction. However, Stewart's method required considerable deck handling by the performer — plus the prediction card was gaffed. In Unanimis, the script, the logical choreography and the theatrical blocking combine to simplify the method and minimize the handling of the deck by the performer. In fact, every time the deck is in the performer's hands, it is during a relaxed, no-heat moment. So Unanimis comes very close to meeting all of Paul Curry's original conditions for his Unsolved Card Problem. The title Unanimis is old Latin for 'of one mind'. 'Unanimis' copyright 2008 by Mick Ayres. For performance use only. All rights reserved.. 17.

(24) 18. JOHN BARRATT. (U.K.). BIO United Kingdom, Bedhampton; Age – 24. 3.. MARKEDLY OPEN. WHAT YOU’LL NEED - A deck of cards; - Depending on what way you want to mark the back of the gimmick, you’ll need either a glue stick, a marker matching the back color of the deck, some Tipex (correction fluid), or some of those little sparkly Sprinklies you get a stationary stores (they come in all sorts of colors and can be used to sprinkle on things such as a birthday card to make them seem or shiny and sparkly).. SETUP Pick a card from within the deck to be your prediction card. This is the card that you will openly announce or write down at the beginning, and thus the one that the participant will stop on. For explanation purposes we will pick the 8 of Clubs. Remove the 8 of Clubs from the deck; we will be marking the back of this card. One way is to take a glue stick and on the back of the card draw something such as a big X, a star, or something you can tie into your presentation. Allow to fully dry, you don’t want this to be sticky etc, but be a symbol/marking that has dried to a solid. Though I’m saying glue stick, I actually mean the type where you squeeze out the glue, as this is the type that will dry to a hard clear solid. Once complete, you’ll have a normal looking card except that on the back will be a clear, hard marking of your choosing. Another way to mark is by using a marker. For this you need a marker matching the color of the back of the deck, so red deck = red marker; blue = blue etc. Basically for this you will do the exact same thing you did with the glue, but with the marker... but try to leave bits of the white still on the back of the card, don’t just draw the mark as a solid as it will stand out way too much, and though this can easily be passed over with patter, it’s better to make it more subtle. Another option is to use correction fluid. It’s best to use a correction fluid pen, but any will do. For this the marking will be the same color, etc. as the white. 18.

(25) 19 detailing on the back design. This allows for you to make the marking as subtle or bold as you like since you can either outright draw something or make the mark hidden within the back design so it’s not noticeable at a quick glance. Yet another choice is to use those sparkly card decorations you find in stationary stores. For this you will only want the same color sparkles as that of the back design of the card, so red with red; blue with blue etc. Though this may seem silly, it does the job just fine. Simply carefully place a few sparkles on the back of the card, making sure to keep the white of the design completely intact, with the sparkles only on the coloring. As you will see, this also makes the patter much easier as I don’t need to tie a star or word etc into the presentation. When done, you’ll have a card that if moved will glisten in parts due to sparkles, and it will stand out as different due to this fact. So, there you have a brief description of the markings... I won’t tell you what to do as the mark as this will depend on your style. Just make sure the back of the card is marked in a way that it can be noticed, but at the same time remain hidden from casual glances. There are many options, just use one you’re comfortable with. I mean, if you really wanted you could simply write, in matching marker, the card suit etc. This is bold, but will work... though then you’ll have to be extremely confident in your presentation to make this seem like it’s just in their mind. Once you have the card marked, place it back into the deck and you’re set.. PERFORMANCE Hand them the deck and allow them to remove the cards from the case and look through, etc. Now name aloud the prediction card (the one you marked), or write it down to show to everyone. It’s up to you whether or not you tell the participant the prediction at this time, that’ll be left up to personal preference. Have them shuffle, and then when ready you’ll go into the patter that will lead them to finding the card. I’ll give an example of what you might say if you were using say, hmmm, how about the sparklies... “I’m sure many of you have heard of woman’s intuition.... do you believe in such things? Well I believe there is more to this than what at first appears... and believe we can experience this here now.” “I have openly named a card, and you have been shuffling and mixing that deck this whole time... and so there is no way to know at this moment where in that deck this card lays... would you agree? If anyone does not, I offer this chance to once again mix the cards until you are all completely happy that everything is as I say.”. 19.

(26) 20 “Ok, now… What we are going to try to achieve is a more direct version of what some call ‘woman’s intuition’, but where that is thought to be a natural reaction to certain situations, we are going to try and harness this for us to use right here and now.” “I’d like for you to drop your hands to your sides and just allow yourself to relax… Close your eyes, breath in.... and out...and try to have an open mind towards what I’m about to say. Now no one knows how this ‘intuition’ phenomena works, or why it does... but all we need to know is that it is real, and that it will show us the way if we let it...” “I’m going to ask you, in a second, to start dealing cards off one at a time onto the table. I’d like for you to turn each card you deal face-up so that we can all see which cards have fallen... At some point you will deal a card off keeping it face-down, this will be placed to the side and then you’ll continue to deal through the rest of the cards until all have gone...” “Now, I don’t want you to think too much about what card to stop at. This is not something that we can guess or plan, it’s something that you have to let happen... Let yourself be led, wait for that feeling to bubble up inside... If you open your mind to this, you will be shown the way. You will know when the time is right... if you believe you will know... Maybe you’ll feel something strange, maybe hear something... even see something... wait for this moment, it WILL happen... You can begin whenever you are ready.” They do. It is seen that the card they leave face down matches the prediction. The above was simply to give you an idea. Just make sure they understand that they will be shown the way etc, and to not be hasty, but to wait for the sign etc.. Basic description in bullet points: • • • • • • •. Card marked on back. Card replaced in deck... deck now ready to perform. Cards given to specs and they can shuffle etc till there hearts content. Name/write down prediction. Patter and make them know that they WILL see something, be shown the way somehow. Sit back and let the effect take it’s course. After congratulate and let them know how well they’ve done and that they must be a very perceptive and open person etc.. 20.

(27) 21. THOMAS BAXTER (CANADA) BIO I am have been a full-time professional performer for the last 32 years. I am married, and live in Oakville, Ontario, Canada, on the shore of Lake Ontario. I became interested in magic and Mentalism when I discovered a magic shop in Toronto when I was 13 years old. Through the shop’s owner I made and got to know folks like Doug Henning, Sid Lorraine, Dunninger, Kreskin, Randi and a number of other top pro’s who influenced my professional approach. For the last 10 years I’ve performed only Mentalism, in theaters and for corporate functions around the world. I enjoy writing, and in my spare time, when the weather cooperates, I love to sail.. 4.. BRRR!. Several years ago, Allan Slaight wrote to 21 people whom he considered to be “top thinkers” in Magic, and asked each of us to come up with an original solution for Stewart James’s version of The Open Prediction, a version that Stewart called: 51 Faces North. Allan included a list of rather daunting conditions that Stewart claimed his version encapsulated. This was my solution, which was subsequently published in THE JAMES FILE (2000).. EFFECT Spectator shuffles a pack of cards while the performer writes the name of a card on a piece of paper. When the shuffling is done, the name of the card on the paper is openly shown to the spectator. It reads, for example, the Ten of Diamonds. The performer instructs the spectator to deal cards, one at a time, face up onto the table, and to stop when the Ten of Diamonds appears. The spectator begins dealing, and as he does so, the performer informs him that he should, in the course of the deal, leave one card of his choice face down. When he has dealt a card face down the remainder of the pack is dealt face up in an attempt to find the Ten of Diamonds. The situation builds up as the cards become fewer and fewer. Finally the last card is dealt face up. The Ten of Diamonds has not appeared. It sounds impossible, but the Ten of Diamonds turns out to be the one card that was dealt face down by the spectator.. 21.

(28) 22. PERFORMANCE An audience participant takes a borrowed pack of cards face down in his hands and shuffles the cards. The Performer states that he wishes to make a prediction, and asks to borrow a pen and a piece of paper. He writes something on the piece of paper, then suddenly stops before revealing the prediction. Since this is a borrowed pack of cards, to be sure that his predicted card is in the pack, the performer asks the spectator to spread the cards from hand to hand, faces toward the performer, so that he can spot that the card that he has predicted is indeed in the pack. When the performer is satisfied that the card he wishes to predict is in the pack, he initials the prediction, letting everyone see the name of the card which he has predicted. The paper is set aside, in plain view. The Magician states that, for this experiment to succeed, it’s necessary that the participant NOT be thinking of the predicted card. Everyone else present will watch for it, but if the participant thinks of it, it just won’t work. Instead, the performer wishes for her to focus her thoughts on a random target-card, so he asks that person to perform the following actions in order to select her target: “Cut off a portion from the top of the tabled pack. It can be as many or as few cards as you would like. When you have done that, with the cut-off portion still in your hand, tip up your wrist so that you can see the bottom card of the part of the pack you have cut off; in other words, the card that you freely cut to. Remember that card. It is your target card, a card that you and only you know.” “Now to bury that card fairly, cut the cards in your hand a couple of times. Replace the cards that you hold onto the tabled cards. Cut those a few times, and if you’d like, give them a quick overhand shuffle. Are you satisfied now that no-one, including you, knows the position of ANY card in the pack, not alone your target card, or my prediction card? Great. Now the deal can begin.” The participant is instructed to start dealing cards from the top of the pack, face up onto the table. When they spot their target, thought-of card, they are to stop dealing, slowly deal the next card face down to one side of the other dealt cards, and then proceed to deal the remainder of the pack face up as before, until all the cards have been dealt. The other spectators are reminded throughout the deal to look for the Magician’s prediction card. After the final card has been dealt, everyone will agree that the prediction card was not seen during any of the face up dealing. The assisting spectator is instructed to turn the sole face-down card face up (the others already having “51 Faces North!), and show that it is the card predicted by the performer at the start of the trick, committed on paper and witnessed by all present.. 22.

(29) 23. METHOD For those who haven’t already guessed, the answer is simply to spot the top card of the pack as the spectator spreads them before your eyes to verify the existence of your prediction card. This top card is the one that you predict on the piece of paper. It is the ACTING exercise of pretending to look for the predicted card as they spread them that sells this effect and that hides the method, even from those who know the KEY Card principle. The spectator’s target card becomes a Key Card of sorts, even though you don’t know which card they are thinking of. In the action of cutting the cards as described, their thought-of card is placed on top of the prediction card. The prediction made when you first write on the paper is merely your own initials. As if an afterthought, you ask to see that your predicted card is in the pack. Once you’ve noted the top card, you write that on the paper, saying that you’ll initial your prediction to “make it official”. As you finish writing AC or 5D (or whatever your prediction is), tip the paper forward and circle your initials, as if you’ve just written them. This “pre-writing” could, with some imagination, be used for criminal purposes. Later, the audience will remember that you made the prediction BEFORE the cards were shuffled and before the effect began. The rest is self-working. The spectator deals through until they spot their “target card”. They deal the next card face down, and then finish as described. Read this again carefully, matching each step against the conditions set out by Mr. James, and you will find that it meets each requirement for “51 Faces North”.. Second Solution – THOMAS BAXTER. 5.. Salarium. EFFECT Two members of the audience take part in this effect. Let’s call them Andy and Sue. Sue turns her back or goes out of the room while a prediction card is named by the Performer. Andy shuffles a deck of cards. The cards are spread before the Performer’s eyes so that he can be sure that the card he wished to predict is indeed in the pack. Once he is sure, he writes his prediction (i.e. The King of Diamonds) on a piece of paper, which is openly shown to everyone except Sue, who has her back turned.. 23.

(30) 24 Andy then cuts the cards, making sure that no one knows the location of any card in the pack. The Performer turns the prediction down so that Sue can’t see it, and then asks her to join him at the table. The Performer recaps for Sue: A Prediction has been made. Everyone present except Sue knows what it is. The cards have been mixed by Andy. The Performer has never touched the cards. In a moment, Sue will deal through the pack, turning the cards one by one, face up on the table. While she does this, the entire audience will be “yelling” the name of the predicted card in their minds. Not out loud, you understand, just in their thoughts. Along the way Sue will leave one card face down, without seeing its identity. Andy will watch to see if the predicted card shows up in the face-up cards. Sue cuts off some cards and begins dealing them face up onto the table. She finishes dealing the cut-off portion, and the predicted card has not shown up. The Performer directs Sue to deal the next card on the pack, the one that she cut to, face down on top of the face-up cards she has dealt. Sue does this, and then continues dealing the remainder of the pack, face up on top of the others. Andy verifies that the predicted card has not shown up. Sue spreads the cards on the table and removes the sole face-down card. It is the Predicted Card, The King of Diamonds. The Performer never touches the cards. Borrowed cards may be used.. METHOD The word “Salarium” is used in economics, and its Latin meaning is “Salt Allowance”. Now you know the modus operandi for this effect – a few grains of salt. Many readers will be familiar with the ancient concept of sprinkling a few grains of salt onto a deck of cards, so that when the cards are cut, the salt acts as an obstruction between the two halves of the pack. Now, if the pack is nudged to the side, it will automatically break between the two “salted” halves. This effect utilizes a refinement of that principle. The participant shuffles his pack of playing cards. You ask him to spread the back before your eyes so that you can ensure that the card that you wish to predict is indeed in the pack. (If you like, you can use the post-writing dodge that I used in BRRR! a few solutions back.) During this spread you note the top card of the pack. This is the card that you predict, writing its name in large letters on a piece of paper or cardboard. Andy squares the cards and sets them face down on the table.. 24.

(31) 25 What the audience doesn’t know is that before your performance you dropped a few pinches of salt inside the cap of your Sharpie marker. When you remove the cap in order to use the marker to write your prediction, lay the marker across your palm-up left hand for a second, with the cap at the top of your hand. Using the left thumb and pointer finger to grasp the cap, pull on the pen with your right hand, un-capping the marker and taking it away in your right hand, leaving the cap in your left hand. As you are writing the prediction with the pen, simply tilt your left hand back slightly, allowing some grains of salt to fall out of the cap into your left fingers. All attention is on the writing of the prediction at this time. Just don’t stare into your left hand to see if the salt is really there. It will be. Once the prediction is written down, re-cap the pen, and as you hand the prediction to Andy so that he can show it to everyone but Sue, it’s a simple matter to turn your left hand (which holds the pen) palm down as it passes above the deck of cards, allowing a few grains of salt to fall onto the top of the pack, directly on top of the Predicted Card. Don’t be too concerned about how few actually stay on the pack. If even one or two grains are on top of the pack, this will be sufficient. Direct Andy to cut about half of the cards off and to set them to one side. Then ask him to complete the cut and square the cards. This will place the bottom half on top of the salt grains. By using the above directions when telling Andy how to cut, and by miming the actions you want him to follow, his movements will be restricted and he won’t dump the salt from the pack accidentally. Ask Sue to turn around and join you and Andy at the table. Recap what’s gone on, and then ask Sue to rest her pointer finger’s tip on top of the pack and to close her eyes. She is to try to pick up the thoughts being screamed at her by the entire audience, telling her which card was predicted. Instruct her to open her eyes and to cut off a block of cards. The reason for asking Sue to place her fingertip on the pack (apart from a little presentational build-up) is that by doing so, no matter how well the cards were squared by Andy, when Sue removes her finger from the pack she will slightly jostle the pack, causing the cards to break minutely at the point where the salt grains are. This may not be visible to the naked eye, but it works. Now, when Sue cuts the block of cards off of the pack, she will cut directly to the salt grains, with the predicted card now on top of the lower half of the pack. Have Sue deal out the cards in her hand, face up, onto the table. Have her take the next face-down card, the one she cut to, and leave it face down on top of the. 25.

(32) 26 dealt face-up cards. Then ask her to deal the remainder of the pack face up onto the cards already dealt. For the finish, instruct Andy or Sue to spread the cards and remove the sole face down card. They turn it over, and the audience and Andy will react strongly, knowing that it matches the Prediction. Sue won’t know exactly what has happened. Show her the prediction, too, and you will get a second strong response from Sue, with attending amusement for the rest of the audience.. TIPS This method is perfect for an impromptu performance while sitting at a restaurant table. In such a case, you don’t need to prepare the salt in the marker cap. At the appropriate moment, just obtain some salt sprinkled from the salt shaker without anyone being aware that you’ve done so. Leave the salt in a little pile on top of your leg. When the time comes to “do the dirty work”, just clip some grains of salt between your fingers and proceed as directed earlier. You might also “accidentally” sprinkle some salt onto the table earlier, so that if the lighting is bright, the few grains that might fall onto the table as you dump the grains onto the cards won’t be apparent. Try this “salted” cut of the cards for yourself to see how dependable it is. Don’t use Sea Salt. The grains are huge and unless your audience is visually impaired, they’ll see what you’re up to.. 26.

(33) 27. Third Solution – THOMAS BAXTER. 6.. 27 BELOW. EFFECT An experiment in numerology. The Performer asks the participant’s birth date, their favorite color, the number of times a months they eat broccoli, and then appears to make a mental calculation, finally settling upon the name of a playing card, which he writes down on a piece of paper and openly shows to everyone. The participant deals through the cards, one at a time, face up. At one point he stops, at a place of his own choosing, and deals the next card face down without looking at the face. He continues dealing the rest of the pack face up. The predicted card hasn’t shown up. The participant turns the tabled card face up. It is the predicted card. A borrowed deck of cards can be used, and the Performer never has to touch the cards.. METHOD This effect is based upon a self-regulating principle that I hit upon by accident years ago. Since that time, I’ve found that Stewart James used the same sort of principle, in a different way, in a packet type of trick, but to my knowledge this hasn’t been used (before my discovery of it) as a force of a particular card from a full deck. Take any deck of cards. It doesn’t even have to be a full deck (which seems counter-intuitive to this working, but it does still work). Count to the 27th card from the FACE of the pack. Note that card. That’s your entire set-up and method. You predict that card, and the rest is self-working. In an attempt to meet Stewart James’s fabled “conditions”, I start by borrowing the pack, if possible. I ask a participant to shuffle the cards thoroughly. As if an afterthought, I say that I have a card in mind that I’d like to predict, but since the cards were borrowed, I’d like to make sure that my prediction card is indeed in the deck. I direct the participant to spread the cards face up in a row on the table. In appearing to look for my prediction card, I really just quickly count the cards from the face of the pack, finding the 27th card from the face. That is the card that I will predict. (Counting the cards in groups of three speeds the count up considerably, by the way.) Have the deck squared on the table, face down. Turn your back to the participant. Direct the participant to begin to deal cards into a pile on the table, face up, off of the top of the face down pack. All other spectators should watch to see if the predicted card shows up. As they count, you listen carefully and. 27.

(34) 28 when they reach about the 10th card, you tell them that they should stop dealing anywhere they like. They will deal several more cards and then stop. The point at which they stop is absolutely their free choice, and you don’t know where they will stop until they do. The audience will verify that the predicted card has not appeared. State that the calculations that you made earlier were based upon numerology. Remind the participant that they had a free choice as to where to stop dealing, and ask them to silently count the remainder of the cards in their hands. Ask them to count by spreading the cards from hand to hand, so as not to change the order of the cards. When finished counting, they will have a two-digit number as a total in their mind. Let’s say the number of cards they left behind after the cut is 35. Explain that, for whatever reason, they were drawn to leave behind exactly that amount of cards, one fewer would leave 34, one more would have been 36. Either choice would have changed the final outcome. They have 35 cards. A 3 and a 5. Direct the participant to deal 3 cards (for the “3”) from the top of the cards they hold in their hands, face up onto those they have already dealt onto the table. They do, and again, the predicted card doesn’t show up. Ask them then to deal 5 card, for the “5”. They do, and again there is no sign of the predicted card. Patter: “You’ve arrived at this time and place by virtue of your own actions. You could have stopped dealing anywhere in the pack –deeper or more shallow -- but you chose to stop exactly where you did. That resulted in a seemingly random number of cards being dealt face up. One card either way, more or less, would have resulted in a different, but equally random outcome. Deal the next card face down, without looking at its face, over to one side. Then deal the remainder of the cards face up onto the pile you’ve already dealt.” The participant does as directed, dealing through the entire remainder of the pack. The predicted card does not show up. Finally, the participant turns over the face down card, to reveal that it is the predicted card. As I said, this effect is based upon a self-regulating principle. A shallower or deeper deal will regulate the number of cards being dealt after the first block is dealt off, resulting in the arrival of the original 27th card from the face of the pack as the next card. The goal is to time things so that, when you give the direction to "stop somewhere along the way", they will deal to a point between 13 and 22 cards. The ideal is if they stop at between 16 and 22 cards. If they stop between 16 and 22 cards, you use the "bring the number to the simplest form" notion, adding the two digits together to get a single digit. You can tell by listening if they go shorter or further. If they stop at 13, 14, or 15 cards, just have them deal the. 28.

(35) 29 number that they arrive at by counting the remaining cards, which will be (with a full deck) either 39, 38, or 37 respectively and dealing the number of the first digit first, then dealing the number of the second digit. This will bring them to the predicted card. With practice, the timing is such that they won't stop until between 16 and 22 cards. If you want to be sure they get the right range, instead of dealing cards at the first, you can ask them to cut off about a third of the deck to begin, then start dealing those cards face up. This will always bring them within the ideal range. If you choose to do this from a new, sealed pack of cards, using Bicycle playing cards the 27th card in new deck order will always be the King of Clubs. This comes in handy if someone pulls out a new, sealed deck and asks you to do something magical.. 29.

(36) 30. TOM BEGLEY. (U.K.). BIO I'm 18 years old, my home is in Poole on the South coast of England, though I am currently at University studying a masters in Math’s at the University of Bath. I dabble in all forms of Close-Up magic as a hobby, but have a special interest in card magic (as common as it is). In terms of other hobbies, I am very interested in math and logic, as well as music, and I play the piano.. 7.. POW! (Prediction/Open/Wow). REQUIRED PROP Masuda's Wow Gimmick*. SETUP Before you begin, secretly remove the card that matches the WOW gimmick card from the deck.. PERFORMANCE Have the spectator shuffle the cards as you take out a written prediction and the WOW gimmick, which is in 'empty mode'. These are placed on the table for all to see. Your written prediction should match the removed card and the gimmick. Instruct the spectator to deal the cards face up, one at a time, stopping whenever they feel like it. They should also stop if they see the predicted card. When they stop tell them to place this card face down into the face down WOW gimmick. The need for this is justified by the performer saying he wants the spectators to be sure that he can't switch the cards. Once the card is placed in the WOW holder, the spectators continue dealing the remainder of the deck, but the prediction is not seen. The performer then turns over the WOW gimmick, at the same time activating it to show that the card that was stopped at is in fact the predicted card. To clean up, just remove the indifferent card from the gimmick and shuffle it into the deck. That's it, I hope you like it. It is, after all, a very different approach than most. I didn't go into to much detail because it's fairly self-explanatory to anyone familiar with the gimmick.. *. (For a Video Demo of the WOW Gimmick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS2FiMnR2-M). 30.

(37) 31. BEN BLAU. (U.S.A.). Two Solutions BIO Ben Blau is a musician, recording engineer, and college professor in Michigan. He has never worked as a professional magician or mentalist, but has always had a love for close-up, intimate performances among friends and family. Ben's philosophy is that the word "amateur" doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation. He believes that informal performances have unique challenges that can be every bit as demanding as "professional" presentations. Ben has been an "underground" writer of magic and mentalism since 1998, and hopes you enjoy his contributions to "51".. 8.. 51 FACES SAVED. This is my first attempt at working out a method for Stewart James’ legendary 51 Faces North. What follows is a description of exactly how the audience experiences the effect. This routine is impromptu, given that the necessary items are at hand -- a deck of cards (which can be borrowed), a pad of paper, and writing implement. There are no other items used.. EFFECT One spectator assists. The performer writes something down on a piece of paper, folds it well, and places it in the spectator‘s shirt pocket. The deck is then given to the spectator, who is instructed to deal through the cards face up, leaving one card face down at any random location, and then continue dealing through the rest of the pack to the last card (the same procedure as outlined in the original description for 51 Faces North). Having done this, the pack is squared and left face up on the table. The performer picks up the pack and comments that obviously, since every card is different, there is no way anyone could have known which card he’d leave face down. He then spreads through the deck until the one reversed card is found. The spectator is asked to hold out his hand, and the card is removed and placed face down onto his outstretched palm. He is then asked to cover it up with his other hand (i.e., to “sandwich” it between his two hands), so as to prevent any tampering. As both of the spectator’s hands are now occupied, the performer (in helpful fashion) reaches into the spectator’s shirt pocket and retrieves the piece of paper placed there earlier. Without saying anything (though the impending outcome is clearly telegraphed), the paper is unfolded, and seen to bear the name of a. 31.

No results found