© Copyright 2020 Fraser Parker

Jinn
Spectator as mind reader Card Calling

The following method is my solution for a

spectator as mind reader card calling routine.

Those of you not familiar with the classic

“card calling” effect, it is essentially a
routine where the performer has a group of
cards taken out of the deck at random and
then looked over by a spectator after the deck
has seemingly been shuffled.

The shuffle itself is a false shuffle and the

deck is cut at the point where the multiple
cards are selected together.

Then because the deck is in a known stacked

order the performer is able to call off the
cards held in the spectator's hand by
referencing the card previously cut onto the
face of the deck. This card and each
subsequent card follows a certain pattern that
allows the performer to name each and every
card that was taken from the deck.

The main difference between this classic

effect and the following routine is the fact a
second spectator can perform the mind
reading instead without the need for them to
learn a stack which allows for a spectator as
mind reader situation to occur at a moments
notice during your normal performance.

I wanted to be able to have a deck of cards

shuffled by a spectator then have them take
out a group of cards at random from out of
the deck. These cards would then be shuffled
further and spread faces towards themselves.

This would happen after I teach another

spectator how to read minds with a brief
whisper of seven to eight seconds in length.

Then this second spectator would be able to

successfully name each and every card held
in the first spectator's hand as the first
spectator focuses on each of the cards in turn
thus proving it is possible to gift someone else
the ability to read minds temporarily.

I am pleased to say that I have managed to

meet my requirements for this effect and have
found an as close to perfect method for it that
is both simple and easy for the spectator to
follow.

Naturally, I didn't want to have to teach a

spectator any stack work or difficult
memorization to achieve this effect.

Initially, I considered performing this as a

two person style routine where I would
employ the use of a secret assistant. However,
I wanted a way to teach this to an assistant at
a moments notice in a way that was as quick
to learn as my previous two person coding
method “yoke” that allowed for single cards
to be coded with a shuffle.
It was this need for simple instructions that
could be learnt as quickly as possible by my
helper that lead to the following break-
through in method.

Not only could these instructions be taught to

an assistant before a performance they were
so simple and succinct I realized they could
also be delivered to a spectator in a whisper
in real time during a performance.

This became the perfect effect.

I could teach a spectator how to read minds

by whispering the secret of how to do this in
their ear within literally a few seconds.

Then they would from that point on have the

power to be able to read multiple cards
merely thought of by the first spectator
nailing each and every card held in the other
person's hand.

The first break-through came when I realized

that within classic card calling routines
where the performer would be doing all of the
work, it didn't matter what order the cards
were called out as long as it follows a
cyclical order known only to the performer.

This is due to the fact the group of cards

taken out of the deck are shuffled in the hands
of the spectator before the performer begins
to attempt to guess the cards held in their
hands.

As well as this the performer typically tells

the spectator to look over the cards
continuously which creates the illusion that
the performer is picking up on cards in real
time as they are thought of and glanced over
by the spectator.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if the performer

names the cards in a predetermined order as
the illusion of real time mind reading will still
hold up due to the fact each card will be
taken out of the group at cards from
seemingly random positions.

It was this notion that lead to another in my

mind.

Instead of trying to teach a spectator a

cyclical order that ascends in some
mathematical way I could just use the order
numbers naturally occur in and instead get
the spectator to think of each of these
numbers in whatever order they wish.

Then I can create simple rules in order for

the spectator to create the correct suit
associations with each number they randomly
think of.

This would create the illusion of actual

specific cards being read because each card
called out would be considered as its own
separate entity or singular identity of a
playing card.

A value and suit together will always appear

to be its own object and this is what creates
the illusion the spectator is in fact, reading
the other spectator's mind instead of just
following simple rules that can be taught with
a few lines of scripting.

Here is the instruction I whisper in the ear of

the spectator who will be performing the
mind reading.

“In a moment just allow the numbers from 2

to 6 to come into your mind at random, one at
a time. If it is an even number put a diamond
suit with the number and if it is an odd
number put a club with it. And at some point
also say the Ace of Spades and the Queen of
Hearts”.

That's it!

If you are concerned your spectator might not

be familiar with the suits Diamonds or Clubs
then you can add a safety measure of asking
who plays cards at the beginning of your set
and then using one of the spectator's who is
familiar with a deck of cards and knows all of
the suits later on when it comes time to
perform this routine. I don't feel this is
necessary as the spectator will still be able to
name either Diamonds or Clubs regardless of
whether they know what these suits look like
and the trick will still work.

These are all the instructions the spectator

will need to be able to perform a perfect card
calling of each of the cards that will end up in
the other spectator's hands.

My first idea was to use all twelve values in

the deck but soon realized it was too difficult
to create rules that would bring all of the four
different suits into play not to mention twelve
cards being too much for the spectator to
follow. They would too easily lose track of
which numbers or values they had already
named during the performance.
I knew I had to limit the number range from
one to six as well as keep the rules to a
minimum. I decided to only deal with two
suits and attribute these to odd and even
numbers.

It was during a jam session with my good

friend Nathan Chandler that the final
solution fell into place. He suggested naming
a few cards myself and these cards could be
when the remaining suits would be brought
into play. It was a great idea because you
would be able to create the illusion that all of
the suits were being utilized without having to
muddy the already simple rules the spectator
would be following.

I also wanted to include at least one picture

card to help with the illusion the cards have
been taken out of a truly shuffled deck.

Instead of naming cards myself I realized I

could just give the spectator two cards to say
at a random point in the card calling process
and this would create the illusion for me. I
feel this is the best solution as all of the work
will seem to be done by the spectator and
they will name each and every card held in
the other spectator's hand perfectly from start
to finish.

The cards I decided to include to cover the

opposing suits were cards that I know would
be easily remembered by the spectator
namely the Ace of Spades and Queen of
Hearts.

These are well known and memorable cards

within my culture based on well known
literature as well as being included in songs.
They are deeply routed in our collective
cultural psyche which is also the reason these
are often used as psychological forces.

The fact these are easier to remember means

they will less likely forget which additional
cards they are supposed to name during the
process of following your instructions.
These cards help to create the illusion a
larger range of cards due to the fact a picture
card as well as a card that has an obscure
value are used. The fact they will be named
out of order and each card will appear to be
its own unique object also helps with the
illusion that these cards have no inherent
order and must come from a shuffled deck.

I have also played with the following stack of

eight cards as opposed to seven:

Ace of Spades, Two of Hearts, Three of

Spades, Four of Hearts, Five of Spades, Six
of Hearts with the additional cards of: Nine
of Diamonds and King of Clubs.

You will notice that the odd cards now

become Spades with even cards attributed to
Hearts and the range is from one to six.

I then include a nine with the opposing suit of

Diamonds to further break any pattern
concerning the use of specific suits and a
limited range of values. The nine obviously
doesn't fit in the range of one to six and
therefore helps break this pattern. I also
include one picture card and this gives me a
chance to express yet another suit to ensure
all of the suits make an appearance.

This is possibly the more deceptive of the two

stacks but may be harder for the spectator to
remember due to the fact the additional cards
are not as familiar and easily remembered as
the Ace of Spades and Queen of Hearts.

If you feel this is still not too much for your

spectator to remember then feel free to use
this eight card stack alternative.

I feel the seven card stack taught before is

seemingly random enough to fool everyone.
In fact, you would expect cards within a
limited range as well as a stray picture or
number card to some times be naturally
present in a group of cards taken out of a
truly shuffled deck. Those watching are also
not looking for a pattern and won't find one
so you really have nothing to worry about.

I suggest using the seven card stack to ensure

your spectator has no trouble following your
instructions and remembering the additional
cards. There are also less cards to remember
in this arrangement which will ensure they
don't lose track of which values they have
already called out.

The audience at large will not believe it was

possible for you to whisper all seven cards in
the ear of the spectator or that it would be
possible for the spectator to remember seven
separate and distinct playing cards that
quickly.

They will therefore be entirely fooled when

the spectator appears to name each and every
seemingly random card held in the other
spectator's hands.
It will seem impossible for you to have been
able to give the spectator any information
that would allow them to be in on it or just
playing along as there was not enough time
to for you to simply give them all of the
information they would need to know all of
the details about the cards in a random
group.

I also give my whisper before the deck is

shuffled and cards are taken out of the deck
for this reason. If they cards haven't been
selected yet then how would it be possible for
me to tell the spectator anything about the
cards that would help them at all? It stands to
reason that I wouldn't be able to and
therefore, couldn't have done so.

The second part of the method that makes this

so deceptive is the fact the group of cards are
taken from a deck of cards that has been
genuinely shuffled by a spectator and must
therefore be truly random.
Here is an outline of the routine in terms of
its structure and how it plays.

I begin with my stack secretly on top of the

deck. This consists of the following cards
already in a shuffled and random order with
the Ace of Spades (which acts as a sort of
key) furthest from the top of the deck:

Two of Diamonds, Three of Clubs, Four of

Diamonds, Five of Clubs, Six of Hearts,
Queen of Hearts and the Ace of Spades.

To recap I say out loud to everyone in the

group that I am going to teach the spectator
how to read minds.

I lean in and whisper my instructions already

outlined in the ear of the first spectator.

I then give the deck a false overhand shuffle

retaining top stock.

This creates the illusion the deck has been

genuinely shuffled once by myself yet keeps
my stack on top of the deck. This is done as a
way of demonstration as to what I want the
second spectator to do.

As I shuffle I say to the following words to the

spectator I want to shuffle the deck.

“Give the deck one complete shuffle like this

…”

It is at this point I perform my false overhand

shuffle.

This is said casually as if I mean for the

spectator to just give the deck a quick shuffle
to ensure the cards are in a random order.

I hand them the deck and as soon as they

have performed a single overhand shuffle I
take the cards back from them. It is important
you don't let them cut the deck or shuffle a
second time. If you act casual and free of
guilt as if you are being openly fair then
taking the deck back won't seem like a
restriction in any sense. All you need to do is
watch them shuffle once and immediately
hold out your hand to take the deck back.

Taking the deck back I turn over the deck and

spread with the cards facing away from the
spectator who will be performing the mind
reading.

“Good, so we need a few cards for this … we

can take these from the bottom of the deck”.

I now spread through the cards and count six

cards past the Ace of Spades that will now
have been shuffled to the face of the deck
along with the rest of the cards in the stack.

Now I take all of the cards away from the

deck and place the deck face down on the
table whilst saying:

“In fact, we don't need that many cards”.

Here I take away the cards that were in front
of the Ace of Spades nearest the face of the
deck and discard those cards face down on
top of the rest of the deck on the table. Then I
immediately hand the cards left over which
should be my stack face down to the spectator
who shuffled the deck previously and instruct
them to further shuffle these cards face down
giving an example as I say the following line.

“Give these another mix like this …”

That's it!

You have successfully got the stack of cards in

the hands of the second spectator whilst
making it appear they came from a genuinely
shuffled deck.

This is to be done casually as if you are being

as openly fair as possible which in a sense
you are.

It won't matter if you seem to be counting a

little as it will seem as if you are just ensuring
you have enough cards to make the
demonstration compelling then you realize
you have too many cards and put some back.

Obviously, you don't want to be too obvious

about counting and should be able to just
spread past the ace without it seeming like
you are actually counting any cards.

If you don't want to have to count then you

can place another key card at the top of your
stack such as the Two of Diamonds and
simply look for this card and then use the Ace
of Spades as the other break point for when
you discard the rest of the cards.

Because the spectator genuinely shuffled the

deck after you have also seemingly shuffled
the deck and you immediately take cards from
the face, it will appear as if you are simply
using whatever random cards happen to have
been shuffled onto the face of the deck and
these are cards you couldn't have known in
advance which creates a logical disconnect
and makes it impossible for your audience to
back-track what it was that may have been
whispered to the spectator previously.

Now all that is left to do is introduce the

effect proper and provide the context for the
effect to play out.

This is achieved with the following scripting

which not only serves to set up the premise of
the effect but also provides a theatrical
context for what takes place.

My scripting will not only be understood by

the audience at large in terms of effect but
will also complete the spectator's
understanding of what was whispered to them
previously.

The fact we are going to expand on the

meaning of the first whisper this way means
that the whisper itself can be short and to the
point. If they are slightly confused as to why
we want them to act a specific way,
everything will now come full circle in their
mind and they will begin to fully understand
what it is we want them to do thanks to the
following scripting.

I address the second spectator who is holding

the stack of cards. I do this openly and in
front of everyone else as I say the following.

“I want you to look back and forth over your

cards continuously and if they name any of
the cards in your hand correctly then take it
out show everyone that they've got it right
and place it face up on the table”.

I now turn to the spectator who I whispered

to earlier and say the following.

“I want you to take your time and slowly

build each one of these cards in your mind
one at a time and when you feel you are
thinking of the correct card say it out loud”.
This language ensures the spectator
understand they are to still build up a card in
the way you have described previously in the
whisper whilst at the same time create the
illusion of a pseudo process.

It will look to everyone else watching as if the

spectator is genuinely picking up on thoughts
in stages and using the information they
receive intuitively to build up a playing card
before eventually naming it out loud.

Any hesitation from the spectator or

insecurity before they answer can be
countered with you reassuring them with the
following scripting.

“It's okay, just trust your feelings and say

whatever card you have just built up in your
mind …”

The only hesitation that may occur would be

because of the spectator not being sure
whether the other spectator is in fact focusing
on the same card in real time.

Of course, we are only creating the illusion of

this being the case so we may sometimes need
to nudge the spectator to simply name
whatever card they have built up in their
mind as per your original instructions.

Then the illusion will come full circle when

the other spectator takes out the card just
named as confirmation they have successfully
picked up on their thoughts.

If they begin to look like they are confused or

begin to ask questions about what it is they
are to do then simply cut them off and mute
them with the following script.

“It's okay, just trust your feelings and go with

whatever you think is correct …”

This plays into the dual reality of the

spectator seemingly trusting their intuition
but also tells them in a direct manner to just
do whatever they think they should be doing
without questioning the process.

If they now only get close with a few of the

cards or fail completely it won't matter
because the effect is a test of their intuition
and not yours.

In fact, it will just act as further proof as to

how difficult using your intuition to read
minds really is which will make everything
else you perform appear that much more
impressive as the audience have now got a
base line to compare what it is you are
attempting to do based on how difficult it was
for one of them to do.

If you are using the face down shuffle method

taught in a moment this moment of failure
from the spectator will allow you to name the
rest of the cards yourself as a way to wrap up
the effect and create a solid outcome to the
routine.
The fact the spectator failed to read minds
previously will make your subsequent ability
to read the spectator's mind that much more
impressive as what you are attempting will
seem more impossible now that they have
seen how difficult it is to do normally.

Typically, the spectator will be able to follow

your previous instructions perfectly and their
will be no problem getting this to work. If it
doesn't then I simply say “It's Okay … This
just shows you how difficult something like
this is …” and then I move onto a different
demonstration where I successfully read
someone else's mind.

The reason we get the spectator holding the

cards to place the correctly named cards face
up onto the table is so that they other
spectator has a natural crib if needed to act
as a reminder of the cards they have already
named to ensure they don't say the same card
again.
Most of the time however, the spectator won't
need to refer to the cards already discarded
due to the fact the stack is small enough not
to cause any problems in terms of the
spectator remembering which numbers they
have already utilised.

To the audience at large any casual glance

from the spectator at the cards on the table
will be interpreted as the spectator simply
checking if the card in their head has already
been named by them.

If you are worried about this tipping the

method or looking suspicious then you can
paint this action red and make it appear to be
part of the pseudo process the spectator is
using to read minds by openly stating this at
the start of the routine.

“ … we will leave cards you have already got

correct face up so that you can check if
you've already named the cards you are
picking up on”.
Naturally, the spectator will be checking if
they have already said specific numbers as
opposed to the entire card already named out
loud.

I mentioned earlier that there is a variation

on the shuffle that allows you finish the
routine if the spectator begins to get cards
wrong.

This arrangement allows you to hand the

spectator an amount of cards from the top of
a face down deck sight unseen which may be
preferred by some. I feel that the way this
effect is structured means that it is not a
problem if the performer briefly sees what
cards are handed to the spectator from a face
up deck orientation. However, some of you
may prefer it if the performer never appears
to know any of the cards given to the
spectator. The following shuffle serves this
purpose.
Instead of having the spectator shuffle
through the deck face down once you instruct
them to shuffle face up.

“Shuffle all of the way through the cards face

up once like this … just so that everyone can
see each card is different”.

I demonstrate with a false overhand shuffle

which retains my stack on the face of the
deck. You may want to place an indifferent
card on the face so that none of the cards
from the stack are burnt into the memory of
your spectators.

The spectator will now shuffle the cards once

face up in an overhand fashion. Typically, the
spectator will shuffle by taking a larger block
of cards from the back and shuffling these on
top of the smaller block remaining which
contains your stack. This is exactly the same
process as when the spectator shuffles face
down yet the stack is moved to the top of the
deck along with a few indifferent cards, as
opposed to its face.

Now if you have marked the back of the

beginning of your stack the Two of Diamonds
and the end card in your stack The Ace of
Spades with an identifying mark in their top
left corners you will be able to spread off an
amount of cards containing your stack very
easily on sight.

All you have to do is spread off cards up to

the second mark the Ace of Spades and then
after taking these out of the deck simply put
back the excess cards you don't need using
your the other marking of the Two of
Diamonds as your break point.

Now the cards remaining in your hand can be

shuffled face down by the spectator and then
spread faces towards themselves and you will
appear not to be able to know any of the
cards just brought into play – as you have not
had a chance to glimpse them in any way.
If you want to take any risk out of the shuffle
being performed correctly in a spectator's
hands then you can simply perform the
shuffle in your hands instead or opt to
perform a false overhand shuffle and a force
of some kind that appears fair and feels
entirely like a free choice to everyone
watching.

Those of you familiar with my other work will

know that my favourite force for one or
multiple amounts of cards is the Eddie
Fetcher Drop force. Other forces such as a
Classic force or Cut Deeper force are
possible alternative methods.

The only other thing to mention is how you

stop the spectator from revealing what was
whispered. I keep it simple and use a line
from my mentor Kenton that ensures they are
not likely to reveal anything after the
performance.

I simply say the following at the end of the

routine.

“Don't tell them how you do it!”

This is usually enough to get the spectator not

to say anything.

It will appear to everyone else as if you are

being playful and joking about keeping the
secret – as all mind reading and magic relies
on secrets but to the spectator what you say
will be taken literally to mean don't tell
anyone how it was done.

They will not want to take away from their

newly acquired abilities and will revel in the
fact they have been let in on a secret and
know something no one else does and will
therefore, likely keep the secret to themselves
and even tease others with their knowledge.

In this routine they are made to look good

and will not want to diminish that by telling
everyone how they were able to read the mind
of the other person.

Thank you for purchasing this manuscript. I

hope you get enough enjoyment out of
performing this feat! And if nothing else you
enjoy thinking about what this breakthrough
in method now allows us to achieve in
performance.

Fraser