Free Magic Trick: “Two Card Transposition”

July 22, 2008 · Filed Under tricks 

Readers of the olde blogge might recognize that I’ve written this one up before. As I think it’s still a good trick and it fits the mandate for the series, I’m bringing it back, but with a few extra thoughts. As before, all roman numerals represent sections in the Royal Road to Card Magic, so (for example) II.1 would be the riffle shuffle, maintaining a card at the top.

2 Card Transposition: a trick to practice the VII (from the Royal Road to Card Magic)

Introduction: Here’s a fun Two Card Transposition. I’ve not seen it in print but I can only assume that somebody else came up with it first, since the handling is so ridiculously bare-bones. If somebody can confirm a previous source I’ll be sure to credit it appropriately, but honestly, I believe this belongs with Rapid Transit and Do As I Do in the realm of tricks that shouldn’t belong to anybody at this point, simply because all the knowledge needed to accomplish this trick is already in the public domain anyway.

The deck can be a borrowed one (you can use that to point out the lack of duplicates) and it’s a great way to practice using a VII, because of the massive built-in misdirection. If VII’s are intimidating to you, this sort of trick should help you attain some of the necessary confidence, as the conditions are pretty much ideal.

Effect: The spectator shuffles the deck, and hands it to the magician. The top card is looked at. It’s the King of Spades. The magician takes the King of Spades and places it in his pocket. The next card is looked at. It’s the Five of Diamonds. That card is given to the spectator to hold. The magician snaps his fingers, and tells the spectator to look at their card, and it’s now the King of Spades. The magician reaches into his pocket, and pulls out the Five of Diamonds.

Explanation: Two XIs and then a VII. That’s pretty much it. In more detail…

The performer hands the deck out for shuffling, before taking it back. The performer does a XI to show the top[?] card, and makes sure the identity of the card is burned into the audience’s memory. We’ll assume it’s the 4 of Clubs. He turns it face-down, saying, “Now this is my card. I hope you remember it, because that’s the last we’re going to see of the 4 of Clubs until the magic is done.” He takes the top face-down card openly off the deck and places it into his right pocket.

The performer then performs another XI to show the top[?] card, and makes sure the identity of the card is burned into the audience’s memory. We’ll assume it’s the Jack of Diamonds. He turns it face-down saying, “Again, I hope you remember this, because that’s the last we’re going to see of the Jack of Diamonds until the magic is done.” He has the spectator hold out one hand palm-up, the top card is placed on the palm, and then the performer instructs the spectator to place their other hand on top of the card and keep them securely together.

The performer says, “Now, all that’s needed is a bit of magic…” The performer snaps his fingers (or whatever magic-moment ritual is preferred), before saying, “Do us a favour and show everybody the card in your hand.” The spectator opens their hands and looks at the card, it’s the 4 of Clubs, the performer’s card that was just seen going into the pocket. The magician takes advantage of this revelation to act as misdirection to perform a VII, before reaching into his pocket and producing the Jack of Diamonds.

That’s pretty much it from a handling standpoint, but there’s a lot to examine here.

Notes: Revelations are GREAT misdirection, and so long as you didn’t louse up your XI, the misdirection is strong. The use of a revelation as misdirectional cover from another sleight is nothing new — it goes at least as far back as the Cups and Balls, and probably further. The attention-grabbing nature of having the spectator’s card change in their hands is great cover for performing the VII — you’ll need to do it quickly, and while you won’t get away with flashing the card itself, you should be able to cover the usual VII tells in that moment. For me, personally, it was the possibility of the audience seeing the tells that scared me when doing the VII, and that fear is the sort of thing that sticks around even when you know you aren’t actually flashing the item. Misdirection works most effectively when the audience has something of interest to look towards — they are far less likely to feel that they’ve been hoodwinked into looking where they shouldn’t. A card change such as this one accomplishes this nicely. You might want to hold off on this routine until you’ve identified a spectator whom you know is going to be expressive and eye-catching. I can’t imagine any better misdirection than a really attractive woman giving out a yell of surprise when she turns over her card and shows it to everybody with a look of shock on her face. If you can’t VII a card in that situation, you’re never going to be able to VII.

But let’s assume your hands are being burned when they shouldn’t be. Go back to the presentation and find the spot just after you’ve placed a card in your pocket. At this point, you could go into a full deck false shuffle of some kind so as not to disturb the order of the cards. RRTCM describes plenty of simple methods for the overhand shuffle. Why do this? Two reasons: First, it’s always nice for the spectator to believe that randomness is a part of the equation. Shuffles help. Second, and more importantly, is the benefits of conditioning. Right after the fingers are snapped and the magic has happened, you can use the XVI as cover for the VII. Again, this is not new. Many resources on the topic show how to enter a VII under cover of beginning a XVI, which adds a little bit of extra concealment of the sleight just in case the misdirection doesn’t work.

Here’s the basic idea. Your right hand is holding the deck from above (as if it had earlier lifted the deck from the left hand’s dealing grip). Your left hand comes over, you perform the VII, and then immediately the left hand takes the deck, rotates it to the left (counter-clockwise) and the right hand regrips it with the right thumb and forefingers along the long edges. At this point, begin to casually XVI, taking packets with the left hand, before finally taking the rest of the deck, and letting the right forearm drop and the right wrist drop a little as you relax. At this point, go to the right pocket and produce the card.

There are those who might say this is not the best VIIing technique out there. They’re probably right. If you’re in a situation where you’re being burned really closely, then you’ll want something with a better steal. I do not advise people to end their education with the VII based on this trick, unless you never plan on doing another trick using a VII, and even then I’d try to explore better, more invisible methods than the one described. So many people have good work on this subject — John Carney, Michael Close, etc.

For what it’s worth, though, the routine construction here helps. For the initial revelation, all eyes are on the card in the spectator’s hand. That’s where the initial hit of magic happens. What’s more, they know there’s a card in your pocket that you have to produce, so that’s already motivation for going to get it. It’s different from those situations where your hand has to retreat from the deck for no apparent reason (and some great effects involving the VII require that).

Incidentally, I have a thought on producing the card from the pocket as well. People like the idea of having the VIIed card be produced at the fingertips. I think that’s cool, but to add to it — another idea that I’ve not seen bandied about (surely it must be out there) is to actually have the card come out at the fingertips and rotated 90 degrees. I think it’s another nice throw-off to the VII, since by all appearances you shouldn’t be able to VII with the card in that orientation (one can, but that’s a technique for another time). If you do decide to use that method, then make sure you place the initial card in your pocket in that orientation as well. Also, don’t make a big deal out of retrieving the card. Just go to the pocket and pull it out. Again, they already know that a card is in there.

The ironic thing about an effect like this is that, despite being crafted for the VII, it actually needs much better technique for the XI since (a) you need to do it twice, and (b) you’re not misdirecting away from the deck at that point. So be sure you’ve polished your XI. If you can’t do an XI very well, then you’ll need to look into some other form of switching.

Also, this trick does not really solve the standard XI problem of having the card turned face down before taking it from the deck. It tries to deal with it through a variation of “calling the card face down” (read Whit Haydn’s essay), to gain agreement that the card you’re pointing to is the one they just saw. Notice the patter line immediately after turning the card face down, both times. Still, it’s a tell for those who know about the XI, so don’t do this trick for them unless you’re supremely confident in your XI.

Now, technically, you can do this with signed cards. If you have a borrowed deck that might seem like a moot point, but one advantage of this is that you’re not handicapped by FASDIU-dictated randomness — ie: having two entirely dissimilar cards swap places makes for a clearer effect than two overly similar cards, and signatures can help with that differentiation. I probably wouldn’t do it myself though, even if I was using my own cards. In the unfortunate situation whereby FASDIU randomness had made my card a Six of Hearts and the spectator’s card a Six of Diamonds, I’d probably go out of my way to stress the suits. If you were going to use two signed cards, you’d need to do a little bit of additional setup in order for the XIs to actually work properly. I can think of a way involving having the cards signed first and then doing a preliminary two-card ACR effect to get ahead, or else VIIing an indifferent card before the trick even starts, but that sort of pontificating is outside the bounds of this trick. Arguably there’s nothing preventing you from fanning through the cards after they’ve been handed back to you to look for two contrasting cards — if you do this, just patter about how you want two cards that look different, and when you find them, ensure an extra card is above them, cut at that point, and head into the trick.

The patter has been scripted so as to get ahead before tipping the effect (notice it says nothing about cards changing places). For beginners, I think this is often a good idea, because one side effect of telling them what’s going to happen is that they become a lot more interested in the proceedings than they should be. Since you’re working ungaffed, that means that you’ve technically got to do sleights during what Darwin Ortiz has described as the “Critical Interval”, and that means that they’re probably more likely to pick up on handling tells, or wanting to sneak a last glimpse of the face-down cards before the requisite magic moment, which would spell death for this trick.

Astute readers will note that you end dirty at this point. Well-researched readers will note that this can be used as a setup for a number of other very strong tricks (think Stars of Magic).

Tags:

Comments

7 Responses to “Free Magic Trick: “Two Card Transposition””

  1. MagicJack on September 14th, 2008 10:34 am

    Hi, As I have just joined this forum and I am a newby as they say…I am not a newby to magic…however as a newby to this forum I don’t wish to alienate myself but I feel I can’t let this one go..so I must say something…this trick the Two Card Transposition (TCT) is Rapid Transit from the Royal Road to Card Magic…pure and simple it is the same trick…the author of this post who submitted this trick even mentions Rapid Transit in the introduction but says and I quote…I believe this belongs with Rapid Transit and Do As I Do in the realm of tricks that shouldn’t belong to anybody at this point, simply because all the knowledge needed to accomplish this trick is already in the public domain anyway…unquote Don’t mean to be rude…but this is rubbish…Rapid Transit and Do As I Do is in the Royal Road to Card Magic so they do belong to Jean Huggard and Fredrick Braue…This variation of Rapid Transit as that is what it is…is identical in every way except that in place of three XIs

  2. MagicJack on September 14th, 2008 10:55 am

    Sorry didn’t mean to post that as I wasn’t finished saying what I had to say….here is the rest of what I had to say….Two Card Transposition is a variation of Rapid Transit from RRTCM…not a new trick…it is identical in everyway except in the original three XIs are used in this variation two XIs and a VII are used that is the only difference admittedly this new variation is in my humble opinion an improvement on the original as the use of the VII and the elimination of using the table to put the top indiferent card onto allows it to be used in a walk around situation, however it cannot be claimed to be a new trick and I fail to see how the author can use references for the sleights used from the Royal Road to Card Magic and even mention the original trick in the introduction and then say this is a new trick that he has not seen in print before…total rubbish…if it had been submitted as a variation on the original I would not have got so uptight about it…and given it the praise it deserves, as I already stated it is a great variation on the original but I feel too many people change small details on original tricks and then try to claim they have invented something new….

  3. andrew on September 14th, 2008 10:46 pm

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that any 2 card transposition that uses XIs is Rapid Transit? It’s not like Hugard and Braue introduced the concept.

    RT was an attempt by Hugard and Braue to do a simple 2 card transpo that didn’t require duplicates. It has significant disadvantages in the fact that a key move must be used three times (mine eliminates one of those moves, and in fact, you can switch in other means of switching cards if you want, such as the XVII or something else), and the deck remains in play throughout. That said, it did fulfill the basic requirement, that of doing a 2CT that involved no duplicates. I’ve not seen my particular solution to dealing with those problems before, which is why I offered this one. Like I said, it wouldn’t surprise me if somebody else came up with this approach to the plot before, but it’s an approach to the 2CT that really should be out there, especially when you consider that all the building blocks (the XI and the VII) are out there. Given the simplicity of the effect described above, I don’t really think it should belong to anybody, including myself. If you want to say it’s still Hugard and Braue’s, well, that’s your right, but I think they committed themselves to the version that’s in print, including its weaknesses.

  4. MagicJack on September 22nd, 2008 12:02 pm

    Andrew, I am not saying any 2 card Transposition that uses XIs is Rapid Transit, as each would have to be looked at to see how close they are to the original, what I am saying is YOUR 2 card transposition is a VARIATION of Rapid Transit not a new trick as you claim it to be…for the following reasons…(by the way, your statement, that you haven’t seen it in print…is a claim to be the originator, therefore your claiming it as a new trick)…

    Your variation is exactly the same as Rapid Transit (almost word for word, and I am not talking about the patter here, I mean the description of the trick) except at the beginning you put the first card in your pocket RT puts it on the table…in both versions the deck is in play the whole time…you use two XIs during the trick, up to the last reveal of the cards, so does RT, now the final reveal…the spectators card in RT is turned over and is seen to have changed to the one you should have, which is exactly the same as your version, now to reveal your card has changed, in RT because the original top card is on the table you have to do another XI, however in your version, because the original top card is in your pocket you do a VII which in my humble opinion makes it an improvement on the original but that’s all it is, an improvement on the original not a new trick with a new name, it’s a minor variation of Rapid Transit…regardless if as you say it does or doesn’t belong to Hugard and Braue, as the original idea belongs to someone and they should be given credit for thinking of the original idea, you didn’t even acknowledge that and are still trying to say your version is different, when it is obvious to anyone who cares to look at RT more closely that your ‘solution’ as you call it is the same…except for a minor move change…or as I am increasingly thinking the more you wriggle out of giving credit where it’s due…that you were counting on that fact…that nobody would check…too closely. In fact on further checking, Jean Hugard published More Manipulations Series No 1 in 1934 and shortly after that he published Series No 2, 3 and 4. In Series 2 Jean Hugard published a trick called Invisible Transit which is exactly the same as Rapid Transit from the RRTCM, so I think we can safely say this idea is Jean Hugards…don’t you think…

    The cardinal sin you committed is as I said, you didn’t credit where it is due, you are even wriggling about crediting it now when it’s pointed out to you, when you said that you would…

    As I said Andrew, your Variation is a good one…and it deserves praise for thinking of it, I wish I had thought of it…but what makes my blood boil is that too many people take other peoples effects, make minor adjustments give it a new name and claim it’s a new trick…If you had offered it as a variation of Rapid Transit I would have been singing your praises and not trying to get you to credit the originators of the idea that you seem to think YOU came up with…which you didn’t, you took RT, made a minor adjustment, renamed it and claimed it to be your ’solution’ to an ongoing problem.. your ’solution’ to the problem Andrew, is too similar to one already thought of to be another new ’solution’ as I already said your 2 Card Transpo is a variation of RT nothing more…

    Just incase your not getting the reason why I am so uptight about this…Here is a scenario, suppose you had invented a trick and someone changed a small detail and them claimed it to be theirs, and even made lots of money from marketing this ‘new’ trick…wouldn’t you be at the very least annoyed…..well Jean Huggard whom we now know is the originator of this idea is not around to answer for himself..and there is lot of people who will remain nameless in this post, who have written whole books and made lots of money by doing just that…and I think its scandalous… So I am sorry Andrew, but your version is too close to the original to be a new trick, it’s a nice variation as I admit your variation is more versatile, but that’s all it is….and its called Rapid Transit…not 2 Card Transpostion…

    Also you say Huggard and Braue committed themselves to the variation in print, theirs is not a variation of anything it’s a trick called Rapid Transit…there has been many variations of this effect since the RRTCM was published, and I admit I haven’t seen your variation in print before…but most have all credited Rapid Transit and claimed them to be variations of the original which you fail to do…

    To be honest Andrew…what got me about your post was the fact that you named Rapid Transit in the introduction and then go on to describe your 2 Card Transpo…then say you have never seen it in print…when its quite obvious that you must have read the trick in RRTCM and copied the description from there and only changed one of the XIs for a VI and submitted it….. If a trick is so similar it can only be a variation of the original…

    You could have quite easily said in your introduction, I have been looking at Rapid Transit from the RRTCM and come up with this variation which I believe is an improvement in the handling…and I would have thought…that’s nice, I wish I had thought of that…and I would not be so annoyed about this…as you would have been crediting where its due…which so many fail to do…I am just disappointed to be honest that, yet again archived magic is taken for granted…because the originators are not available to answer for themselves…

    Here is another analogy…if you were writing an essay in an exam and you took someone else’s essay and copied it to your exam paper exactly as written, except you changed for example, the place names, and those changes did make the essay more interesting, but otherwise you copied the subject matter exactly to your sheet…wouldn’t that be called cheating or would you say, oh Jim’s essay was his solution to the question and this is mine…Do you honestly think your excuse would wash with the examiner…I don’t think so…All I will say is I like your version Andrew, but I don’t like the way you failed to credit the original…as the original belongs to someone and that someone deserves the praise for coming up with those original thoughts…end of…

    So much for you saying you will credit where it’s due, now I think you should be getting what I am on about…

  5. andrew on September 22nd, 2008 1:31 pm

    I honestly don’t understand where you’re coming from on this.

    Rapid Transit is a poorly-routined solution to the 2 card transposition plot, a class of effect that Hugard and Braue did not invent. Any proper 2 card transposition is going to need card switches, and the use of XIs to effect card switches is OLD. RT represents an overuse of the move, and involves bringing a card back to the deck in order to show it again, which makes no sense. It’s plain to anybody who reads the effect with a clear head that it’s meant to be a way for beginning magicians to do a 2 card transposition using minimal sleight-work and without having to do something as bold as the XVII. Their version is pretty obvious and frankly, weaker than it could be.

    Hugard and Braue published a wonderful book that many beginning card magicians can learn from, but that book contains a bunch of material that isn’t of their own invention, and some routines that they credit to nobody, because they were in use by many magicians at the time before the book was even published. Give the book a proper read and you’ll find examples of that easily. If either of them were alive today they’d look at their version of the 2 card transposition plot and say it’s a fairly obvious idea. They’d also look at my own version of the 2 card transposition plot and say it too is a fairly obvious idea, and that’d be fair comment. They’re both pretty obvious approaches to dealing with the 2 card transposition plot.

    Now, if they were alive today and if RRTCM weren’t in the public domain, I might consider asking their permission for the variation on “The Insidious Dr. Fu Liu Tu” that I published elsewhere on this blog, as it borrows heavily from a novel idea in the text — and because of that fact I made a specific credit for it. But the use of 3 XIs to pull off a 2 card transposition is hardly novel, nor is the use of 2 XIs and a VII. Frankly, they’re rather obvious applications of the moves, which is why I was surprised I didn’t see my version involving a VII out there before writing mine up. If I were to want to credit somebody for the trick, I’d have to figure out whoever it was that invented the first ever 2 card transposition and talk to them. Problem is, that person, whoever they are, is (a) unknown and (b) deader than Hugard and Braue.

    In your insinuation that I am trying to wriggle my way out of anything, the suggestion seems to be that I’m somehow afraid to credit people. For that, I refer you to the other tricks written on this blog to see how they are credited. Start with “Magic Wand”.

    The rest of your post, particularly the part where you suggest that I had read RT and turned around to rewrite it as my own trick, isn’t worth responding to, except to say this: In future, I’d take great care before accusing somebody of that.

  6. MagicJack on September 23rd, 2008 7:31 am

    Andrew, I’ve been polite to you, now I am being blunt your just fobbing me off with utter rubbish, yes the plot is older than Rapid Transit or Invisible Transit, however Jean Hugards version was first published about 1934 and first submitted with those sleights by him….in More Manipulations No 2 under the name Invisible Transit….now if there was another version available with those sleights he would have mentioned it and as there are many other tricks in this book credited to other people, this version would have been credited to someone if it wasn’t Jean Hugards….if you can prove any different go ahead, but I know you wont be able to…as you say the plot is older than Jean Hugard, I agree but his version of this old plot is called Invisible Transit and then renamed Rapid Transit….now you prove to me that this version isn’t his…..your version is only one move different from Jean Hugard’s version in the RRTCM and it is exactly the same word for word and I have asked a few of my magician friends some very famous, and they agree with me…I have emails to prove it…now I don’t care, take me to court…but any judge will only need to look at your version and the version in RRTCM and see they are almost exactly the same word for word, except the minor change of the substituted move, so I should think you’re the one that should be giving Rapid Transit a proper read to see that I am right..your suggestion that I give RRTCM a proper read…I studied RRTCM from the age of 15 yrs for quite a few years and I know it inside out….as it was the only magic book available to me at the time…I didn’t join my first magic society until age 21, when I then had access to other magic books so I know RRTCM like the back of my hand as they say….I am not saying you should credit the person who invented the 2 card Transpo plot because I agree, he is a lot deader than Jean Hugard. But if you invented a new 2 card plot that would be different but you didn’t, you came up with one that is exactly like Jean Hugard’s version…only you, as I said, substituted one move for another move that’s all….and that to me and a few other magicians I’ve asked to take a look at this argument agree, yours is not a new version at all but a variation on Rapid Transit…which you failed to credit, so you credited other tricks so what. Why didn’t you credit this one…???

    You know. Jerry Sadowitz is right, you guys over that side of the pond are all the same…I don’t know how old you are but I imagine your quite young and if your not you should be ashamed of yourself as I have to say it’s blooming typical….of you guys over there, why don’t you take more tricks from the archives and substitute a move here and there and call them something else….and while your at it why don’t you get a book published of your own versions of tricks that are exactly the same as other tricks invented by other people but with just a move changed here and there…who knows maybe you will make your fortune..

    In fact I could go down to my library of about 400 books and try that….but I won’t because I seem to have a bit more respect for archived magic than you seem to have. do what you like with what I have said as I won’t back down from the fact that your version is too similar to Jean Hugards version to be something new…and as I have already done so with some of my magic friends, I will be pointing quite a few more of my magician friends in this direction to look at it for themselves and give me their opinions, but as I already said I’ve had a few emails back that agree with me on this one. Why don’t you do the same with some of your magic friends, and see what they think! The friends I have chosen to give me their opinion have either got an extensive working knowledge of RRTCM or are old enough to know of it and have studied it at some point…I hope the friends you choose have similar backgrounds in magic….so that the opinions you get back are at least relevant to the argument. But to be honest your boring me now as it’s clear to me no matter what I say you are going to wriggle out of crediting anyone for this and so I am wasting my time and energy even pursuing this, or replying to your feeble attempts at justifying yourself…as I said I like your variation but I unfortunately don’t like you at all…and as I said you should be ashamed of yourself…

  7. andrew on September 23rd, 2008 1:20 pm

    Jack,

    I suppose once you’re finished here you’re going to find everyone who’s published an Ambitious Card Routine without making a credit to Jean Nicholas Ponsin, and give them similar flack? That would be no less ridiculous than what you’re doing here. Incidentally, you won’t find a reference for that even in Royal Road to Card Magic — perhaps because they understood the concept of ideas becoming ubiquitous over time. All the same, perhaps you should conduct a seance to get in touch with Hugard and Braue and give them a stern talking to about that.

    As for the rest… What can I say? Trying to pick a fight with me over what part of the world I come from? It’s amusing that you’d accuse me of being young given the immaturity of that line of thought.

    You’ve worn out your welcome on this site. Bye bye.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.