• Author / Uploaded
• Was Waz

Citation preview

Bluff By Aire Allegro

Introduction We all tell lies, but some of us are just better at it than others. Me? I remember always being able to get my younger brother in trouble for crimes I’d committed. Well, not crimes but things that parents deem as criminal, like eating the last biscuit in the jar after being told not to as my dad had “claimed it”. Don’t think badly of me. What can I say? I loved chocolate, I loved biscuits and I totally loved getting one over on my brother – who doesn’t enjoy a bit of sibling rivalry? When chocolate and biscuits were brought together and also gave me the opportunity to one up ‘the worm’ (which is what I affectionately nicknamed my brother), I didn’t mind doing time. By time I mean – the naughty step. Yeah, my parents used to put me on a step and make me sit there until I’d ‘cooled off’. I got my own back though. Every time I was there I pulled strands out of the carpet. After months the carpet looked as bald as my father! I was a good kid in every other way, polite and helpful. What was this introduction about again? Ahh yeah... Bluff! Good actors tell the truth by lying. The better they are at it, the more willing we are to accept and forget that they ever told us a lie in the first place. If you asked an actor to play the role of a mentalist, I feel that they would do a much better job than a magician. I came to this realisation a long time ago and started to approach my mentalism as though I was getting into a character and playing a part. I worked hard, learning what makes other mentalists look and feel real, and I also swerved what I considered bad habits. This made it very easy to separate my private life from my mentalism. It made it easy for me to see my progress and also to objectively view my faults and become

better myself. I expressed during my zodiac divination ‘I Told You So’ that I am not particularly a fan of ‘propless’ mentalism. I don’t strive to create propless mentalism and I don’t claim to be well read on the subject. In fact, the opposite is true. I’ve attempted to avoid anything that has been marketed as ‘propless’. It’s often convoluted, too much work for the participant to begin to follow and IT FAILS too often. When it does fail, and anyone verbalises the fact that it failed, they are slammed for “ . . . not getting it” or “. . . not working it enough.” If something doesn’t work it doesn’t work – that’s it. I get it, I understand it. Let’s look at it from another perspective. If my TV is smashed to pieces and won’t turn on then it’s broken – it’s not going to get any better or come back on, no matter how much I fiddle with the buttons. So why have I created this system? I never set out to create a propless piece of mentalism. I never wanted to. It just happened and I use it. It doesn’t fail, it’s not broken and you will ‘get it’. Why is this different to any other propless effect? I can use it any place and anytime to divine pretty much anything I want (with a little thought) and there are no language restrictions. In this book I will share with you 3 ideas that I use this system for and I will outline a list of other things that you could also use it for. I believe that I have created the ultimate propless system. I’m not bluffing, Aire

Here are a few of the effects possible with this system.

Effect 1 Bluff! The participant is asked to think of a playing card. The performer explains that the best card players know how to bluff. The participant is directed to either decide to be a liar or a truth teller and to not let the performer know which they have chosen. The participant is asked a couple of questions (they can be truthful here or decide to bluff) and the performer can instantly reveal the playing card that the participant is thinking of.

Effect 2 A leopard never changes its spots The participant is asked to think of their star sign. The performer explains to the participant that no matter how hard we try to hide who we are, our characteristics always surface at some point. The participant is directed to either decide to be a liar or a truth teller and to not let the performer know which they have decided upon. The participant is asked a couple of questions (the participant can be truthful or they can lie) and the performer can instantly reveal the participant’s star sign.

Effect 3 Tangled voices Everyone at the performer’s table is asked to think of a drawing, and all to imagine transmitting their drawing to the performer. The performer selects one of the participants at the table and explains that they are to keep a poker face, and not to give anything away if they hear their drawing. The performer explains that she picked up on a few drawings from the group. She lists the drawings that she picked up on. Then the performer asks the

participant to confirm that they heard their drawing. The performer explains that half of the battle is picking up on the drawing, and the other half is separating the participant’s thought from the rest of the group. The performer directs the participant to decide in their mind alone whether to be a liar or truth teller – it’s completely up to them. Whilst the spectator plays their role (unknown to the performer) you ask a couple of questions (remember the participant can lie or tell the truth) and from these answers you can instantly tell them with certainty which drawing they are focusing on! Then as a kicker the performer turns to the rest of the group and asks them to raise their hand if they heard their drawing listed earlier. Everyone raises their hand, proving that the performer picked up on all of their thoughts.

The How? Let’s first discuss the credits and inspiration for this system. Robert Parish is one of the main inspirations for the effect. His routine ‘Slate immortality’ was published in Annemann’s ‘Sh-h-h !! It’s a secret.’ Ned Rutledge's ‘Voice print’ (out of print) and Ted Karmilovich’s ‘Voice print plus’ (available on his penguin lecture). Stuart Robson’s ‘Horrors’ - which was the inspiration for ‘Power ball 60’ (a favourite of mine). The ‘liar / truth teller’ plot (original credit unknown). Barrie Richardson was the inspiration for that aspect in this routine.

Each of these artists / routines provided the inspiration for what you are about to read. I applied my own twists, turns and subtleties and it’s now become something that is completely different to the billeted version I first used. I have also tried to make this as simple and straightforward for the participant to understand as possible. Let’s take a look at the system. The easiest way to explain this is to start in the middle of a routine and work backwards, then go through to the end. This sounds counterintuitive, but trust me that it’s easier this way. In this example we will pretend that the participant has mentally selected the 9 of hearts (but the performer does not know this). Let’s imagine that the performer has started making their way through the routine and has found out that the participant is thinking of a heart and that the value is an 8 to a king (again all of this will make sense in a moment). The performer then says: “Up until this point it’s not been difficult, and the reason is that you have not attempted to lock me out. Your thoughts have been truthful. The best card players know how and when to bluff. I want you to imagine you are sat at a table with three other players. I’m going to tell you what cards they have. All you have to do is remember which players are holding the same value playing card as you. Don’t make it obvious; keep a poker face.” (Play along at home. The participant is thinking of the 9 of Hearts – so your job is to remember the players that hold a 9.) “The first player has an 8, a 9 and a 10. The second player has a 10, a Jack and a Queen and the third player has a Queen, a King, and we’ve run out of cards so let’s say a 9.

You know which players are holding the same value as you now, right? “This is where you get your opportunity to obscure things. I want you to imagine you are a liar or a truth teller. Pick which character you wish to play and stay in that character. If you chose to be a liar always lie. If you chose to be a truth teller always tell the truth. The first question: Was more than one player holding the same value as your card?” (In this example we will imagine the participant will lie. We know that the first and third player is holding a nine, and we have asked if more than one player is holding that value. The participant is about to lie.) Participant: “No.” Wonder worker: “Remember to stay in character. Which player was holding your card?” (The participant is going to lie again). Participant: “The second.” If the participant was telling the truth there is only one player holding their card and that player was the second player. The card would have to be the Jack, as the only card in the second player’s group that solely belongs in that group is the Jack. If the participant was lying after telling us it belongs in one group, then we know their card actually belongs in two groups and because they said it was in

the second group and they were lying we would instantly know it’s in the first and third group. The only value BOTH in the first and third group is the number 9. By looking at both options we know that the card will either be the Jack or the 9. We never know if the participant in actual performance is lying or telling the truth. We just sum up both options based on the participant’s answers and are ALWAYS down to two cards (or two items if using this system in other effects). The easiest way to visualize the groups in this system is to think of placing 6 items into 3 different groups of 3 and repeating certain cards in each group. For example, when dealing with playing cards from 8 to King we would simply list them as follows: The first group contains an 8, 9 and a 10 (the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd items). Next, we repeat the last number just named in the second group. So these items would be a 10, Jack and Queen (the 3 rd, 4th and 5th items). And finally, we repeat the last item of this group in the third. So the third group would contain a Queen, King, ... and the last item is a repetition of the second item in the first group ... a 9 (so the 5th, 6th and 2nd items). We are now in the position where each group has 1 card that is unique to that group and 2 cards which are repeated in other groups.

This is what allows us to ALWAYS be down to 2 outs (2 possible items the spectator could be thinking of), after asking the previous questions. It does NOT matter if they are telling the truth or lying and we don't need to know if they are or not. We simply look at it both ways, as if they are telling the truth and as if they are lying, and arrive at our 2 outs. To make this process as easy to understand as possible: (Remember that during actual performance we never know and don’t need to know whether the participant is telling the truth or lying.) Note For those who are logically minded, you may like the following way to remember the stages. Let’s go back to the description of the groups and number the cards named in order. The first group contains an 8, 9 and a 10 (the 1st, 2nd and 3rd cards). Next, we repeat the last number just named in the second group. So these items would be a 10, Jack and Queen (the 3rd, 4th and 5th cards). And finally, we repeat the last item of this group in the third. So the third group would contain a Queen, King, ... and the last item is a repetition of the second item in the first group ... a 9 (so the 5th, 6th and 2nd cards). The first question is always “Was more than one player holding your card?” The second question is either: a)

“Remember to stay in character. Which player was holding your card?” if the previous answer was ‘No’.

b)

“Remember to stay in character. Which player was not holding your card?” if the previous answer was ‘Yes’.

If the answer to the second question is the first player, then the thought of card is either the 1st or 5th card (so the 8 or Queen in the above example). If the answer is the second player, then the thought of card is either the 2nd or 4th card (so in this case the 9 or the Jack). If the answer is the third player, then the thought of card is either the 3rd or 6th card (so in this case the 10 or the King). This will work for all of the versions in this ebook, once you understand that it relies on you listing the signs, playing cards or drawings in a sequential order.

Bluff! Full performance The performer addresses the group: “I want you all to follow what I am asking. Listen to what it is that I say and make your own decisions.” The performer selects one member of the group at random and then addresses them: “If I asked you to nominate a suit that was your favourite playing card, what would it be?” Participant: “Probably Hearts.” Wonder worker: “In a moment you are going to combine this suit with a random value. When asked to think of the value of a playing card most people will go for a lucky number, a 3 or a 7 or one of the cards most people choose, a 5 or a Queen... I don’t want you to do that. Please don’t just go for an Ace as that’s too obvious and also what most people would choose. Think of the value of a playing card, and now you have one let’s make this more random. Change your mind one more time so you have a brand new playing card in mind. Stick with whchever playing card you are thinking of right now.” This is beautiful. They have already told us the suit they are going to combine with their free choice of value but the words make it seem, to everyone watching, that they could have also changed the suit of their card (which of course isn't the case).

The spectator will follow your instructions to change the value and will assume you only mean for them to modify that part of their card. You then create a false memory and convince everyone (including the spectator) that they had a free choice to completely change their card. This is done with the following slight reframe: “There is obviously no way I could know the playing card you are thinking of, the suit or the value, because you just changed your mind. Stick with whatever card you are already thinking of as I am starting to get a sense of what this could be.” The performer looks at the group and says: “Everyone, get a value in mind. It’s going to be important later on... again please don’t go for the obvious cards that I mentioned earlier.” The performer again addresses the selected participant: “Everyone is transmitting to me the playing cards that they are merely thinking of. Let me tell you the cards that I am picking up on but before I do... please keep a complete poker face and don’t give away whether you hear your card or not. I’m picking up on a 6, a Jack, a 4, an 8, a King and a 9. Saying just 'yes' or 'no', did you hear your card?” Participant: “Yes! I did.”

Wonder worker: “Good. Half the battle is with deducing the thoughts of the group, and the other half is separating your one thought from the group. I want you to imagine that you are sat at a table with 3 of the world’s best poker players. I’m going to tell you what cards these players are holding in their hand and all you need to do is remember which players hold the same value card as yours in their hand. Please don’t give away which players hold the same value card as yours. The first player is holding a 4, a Jack and an 8. The second player is holding a King, an 8 and a 6 and the third player is holding a 6, a 9 and a 4. You now know which players hold the same card as you, correct? Things have been easy up until this point but the best card players have the ability to bluff at will. I want you to pick one of two characters. You can either choose to be a liar or a truth teller but don’t tell me which you decide upon – if you choose a liar you must always bluff or always lie, and if you choose a truth teller you must always tell the truth. Give me a nod when you have a character in mind.” The participant nods. Wonder worker: “Pause before each of your answers so you don't give away if you are lying or telling the truth. The first question... did more than one player hold a value that matches your card?” Participant: “Yes.” Wonder worker: “Which player did not hold the card you are thinking of?”

Participant: “The second player.” The performer moves into the revelation and closes by asking the group to raise their hand if their card hit. The reason that most of the cards will hit for the rest of the audience is that if you look at what we have eliminated in the script (the 3, the 5, 7, the Queen and the Ace) you will realise that almost half of the deck is eliminated from the beginning. The audience would have thought of a different card to the ones they were directed away from previously. Unlike the spectator, they would usually not have changed their mind again as this instruction was given directly to the spectator and not to them (at that point they are only casual observers in the effect). If you want to be sure they don't change then simply address the entire group with the directions not to pick a lucky number or a card which is considered obvious, and tell them to stick to it. Then turn to the spectator and direct only them to change their card again. What is beautiful is: if the spectator answers with a “no” when you ask if they have heard their card or not then you can still follow up with the exact same script: “Good, half of the battle is with deducing the thoughts of the group, and the other half is separating your one thought from the group.”

It will seem as if you meant to separate their thought all along by not including it in the cards you named for the rest of the group. Now you simply group the cards you have not already mentioned out loud, and continue with the effect. For example: “The first player is holding a 2, a 5 and a 7, the second player is holding a 10, a 7 and a Queen and the third player is holding an Ace, a Queen and a 2.” I have purposefully staggered where the repeat cards appear in each group to further hide the method and make it appear that these are random hands in a game of cards. Note: if anyone from the group doesn't put their hand up when you ask them if you picked up on their card then you instantly know they are thinking of a 2, as this is the only card not eliminated in your script. You can play this however you want and even call it a coincidence if more than one person has their hand up. I prefer not to reveal their thought but instead use one or more (if more than one doesn't have their hand up) spectators in my next effect, saying: “You are difficult to read... I feel you may work better with images as opposed to numbers and abstract designs.” Now I go into a drawing duplication or whatever direction I wish to take my performance. Before moving on I would like to give a wink to Mr. Hoy for making this group reveal of cards possible ;)

A leopard never changes its spots Full performance Wonder worker: “Have you ever heard the expression ‘a leopard never changes its spots?’ ” Group: “Yeah.” Wonder worker: “That expression suggests that no matter how much we try to hide who we are, our true characteristics always come to the surface. I’d like you to think of your zodiac sign for me. Focus on a few of your characteristics and specifically focus on whether you were born in the first half of the year (January to June) or the second half of the year (July to December). I feel with you that you were born in the first half of the year, right?” Participant: “Yes!!” Wonder worker: “But of course that’s easy because you’re not trying to hide the information from me. I’m going to list the star signs I’m picking up on from all of you here, and group those signs based on their characteristics.” Address the spectator: “All you need to do is remember which groups you hear your star sign in. You will notice that there are a couple of repeated signs – that's simply because the same characteristics exist within more than one group.

In group 1 there are: Aquarius, Pisces, Aries. In group 2 there are: Aries, Taurus, Gemini. And in group 3 there are: Gemini, Cancer and Pisces. You know which group or groups your star sign exists within, right?” Participant: “Yes.” Wonder worker: “This is where things get interesting, and you get to play one of two characters. You can either choose to be a liar or a truth teller. If you choose to play the part of a liar you must always lie but if you choose to play the part of a truth teller you must always tell the truth. Commit to a character – when you have one in mind, give me a nod and we are ready to begin.” The participant nods. Wonder worker: “The first question... remember to pause before you answer so you don't give anything away and to stay in character... Did you hear your sign in more than one group?” Participant: “Yes.” Wonder worker: “Which group did you not hear your star sign in?” Participant: “The first.” Wonder worker: “This process is about trying to discover whether you are telling the truth or if you are lying. Like I said earlier we can only hide our

characteristics for so long. Let me tell you the feelings I have had about you, so far. I feel you are a totally relaxed person by nature who bottles things up. I also feel you are the sort of person that goes out of your way for everyone else. This leads me to believe that I know the exact characteristics you have chosen and I believe I also now know your exact star sign.” Try to use the logic taught previously to work out the two possible signs they could be thinking of. Remember it does NOT matter whether they are lying or telling the truth. You can still know the 2 possible signs without needing to know if they are lying or telling the truth. To help you: The answer to the last question was ‘The first’, so the 2 possible star signs will be the 1 st and 5th in order. Remember you will ALWAYS be working with 2 possible signs (or 2 items when using this system in other effects) and moving into the revelation from there. In this example, the 2 possible signs being thought of by your participant are: Aquarius (the 1st) and Gemini (the 5th). This is where you move into the revelation (taught later). After the revelation the performer turns to the rest of the group and asks: “Who else’s star sign did I pick up on?” The group members whose star sign was mentioned will then raise their hand. This gives you hits for free and confirms that you were picking up on signs.

Hopefully this is clear. It really is simple to work through in performance, once you are used to the logic that makes it work. I suggest you practise a few scenarios and make notes on paper until you have the system clear in your mind. What is nice about star signs is how they are already conveniently grouped into 6 signs for each half of the year. All you need to do is take a guess and ask if the spectator was born in the first or second half of the year and then work with those signs – relevant to which half of the year they were born in. If you prefer you can use a hanging statement to create the illusion you always knew which half of the year they were born in – no matter how they respond to your question. Here is how I handle the question in this routine. If they respond with “yes” then that’s great and I continue with: “I feel with you that you were born in the first half of the year, right?” Participant: “Yes!!” Wonder worker: “But of course that’s easy because you’re not trying to hide the information from me.” If they answer with a “No” we simply respond with: “Okay, I feel you are going to be difficult to read which will make this interesting!”

It doesn't matter that you were wrong here because it simply serves to help illustrate the difficulty of reading someone and sets them up for what comes next. The only snag you may hit in this routine is when the spectator's star sign is one of the signs which crosses over from the first half of the year to the second half, or from the end of the year to the start. These signs are Cancer and Capricorn. When you ask if the spectator has heard their sign (after listing each of the groups and BEFORE you have them play the role of liar or truth teller) then if they respond with a “no” you are already finished and don't need to ask any questions! Simply pay attention to which half of the year they were born and now you immediately know their star sign. If they were born in the first half of the year and didn't hear their sign then it must be Capricorn. If they were born in the second half of the year and didn't hear their sign then they can only be Cancer.

Tangled voices Full performance The performer addresses a group of participants. “I want you to imagine being back at school. It’s a boring lesson and you start to make simple doodles on a piece of paper, like a dog or stick man... simple drawings that take only a few seconds and not much thought to draw. Don't draw a dog or stick man as I've mentioned those and stay away from simple designs like hearts or stars. Draw something we would recognise instantly that is not ambiguous. For example, if you went for a flag then all I would be likely to pick up on is a rectangle, and distinguishing between the exact details inside the flag would be difficult. After you have made a few doodles in your mind, scan over these doodles and mentally select one of them. Imagine drawing this image nice and large inside your mind. Have you all got a drawing now?” The group confirm that they have. “I want you all to imagine transmitting your thoughts to me, screaming the name of these images in your head. Imagine every single line and detail in your drawings. Imagine simply redrawing this image over and over in your minds. You, . . .” (The performer points to one of the members of the group) “I feel with you, that you changed your mind 2 to 3 times and settled on an image. You went for a drawing of something man-made.” Participant: “Correct.”

Wonder worker: “Great. Let me tell you what other man-made drawings people from within this group went for. I will include your drawing amongst that list of drawings.” The performer addresses the group: “Please keep a poker face and do not let me know which drawing you went for. A house, a car, a boat, a bike, a glass and a chair.” The performer addresses the participant. “You heard your drawing amongst those, right?” Participant: “Yes.” Wonder worker: “Good! Half of the battle is with deducing the drawings. The other half is separating your drawing from the rest. I’m going to list the drawings in terms of their size into three categories: small, medium and large. Any repeated drawings are merely repeated because they fit into two categories. For example, a car could be a real car or a toy car and would fit into two categories. I need you to remember which categories you hear your drawings in but don’t make it apparent when you hear your drawing. In the small category there is a glass, a car and a chair. In the medium category there is a chair, a bike and a boat. And in the large category there is a boat, a house and a car. You know which category or categories your drawing fits into, right?

This is where things become interesting. You are going to decide upon playing one of two characters: a liar or a truth teller. If you decide to tell the truth, then always tell the truth but if you decide to be a liar then always lie. Commit to a character and nod when you have one.” The participant nods. Wonder worker: “Did you hear your drawing in one or two categories... think about your answer and stay in character.” Participant: “One category.” Wonder worker: “Which category was it in?” Participant: “The second.” Wonder worker: “Remember, I don’t know which character you are playing. You could be lying or telling the truth.” You will now know which two possible drawings the spectator is thinking of and can reveal using any two way out you wish (more on this later). You will also be able to ask the rest of the group to raise their hands if you have named their drawing out loud and get your 'Hoy-esque' kicker! The way we ask this question at the end is important. Address the group: “If I have named one or more of the drawings you have thought of then please raise your hands.”

This is a 'catch all' statement and ensures that everyone is likely to raise their hands – as long as they have at some point during the process of changing their minds thought of at least one of the drawings you mention! Another point worth noting is, if some of your audience members do not lift their hand up at the end of the routine, this really won't matter as you previously stated that you were only going to call out the man-made objects members of the group were focusing on – therefore, everyone will assume those without their hands up must be thinking of a natural object. Now that you know the system, most of this should be obvious to you. I use scripting similar to Phedon Bilek's wonderful propless drawing duplication 'Proteus' to box the spectators into a restricted field of drawings. In fact, I hear purchasers now get a supplement that increases the amount of potential drawings to 27 from the original 14. I am comfortable most of the time being bold by only covering 14 of the most commonly thought of drawings, and with one of my handlings I don't even have to worry if they don't think of one of these – as you will see! This idea of using a restricted field, without it appearing to be restricted, is something I first read in Luke Jermay's book '3510'. In addition, Morgan Strebler has also used language and the idea of drawing something simple from childhood in his effect 'Sticky' and credit must go to both of these fine gentlemen. The scripting ensures that everyone thinks of one or more of these commonly thought of drawings. The reason we get everyone to allow a few different drawings to come to mind is to ensure we get a “yes” from the spectator when we ask if their drawing was one of the drawings we said out loud. It also ensures that most (if not all) of the group will raise their hands at the end of

the effect, due to the fact that there is more chance they have at some point thought of one of the named drawings. When we state that they went for a man-made drawing, if they respond with a “yes” then everything is good. However, if they respond with a “no” then all we have to do is continue with our script as if we haven't finished what we are saying. “I feel with you, that you changed your mind 2 to 3 times and settled on an image. You went for a man-made drawing.” Participant: “No.” “... and then changed your mind to a natural object.” Done! Now just adjust to the following commonly thought of natural objects / drawings and continue your performance, as you would normally: “In the small category there is a flower, a cat and a fish. In the medium category there is a fish, a tree and a mountain. And in the large category there is a mountain, the sun and a cat. Naturally, a cat could be thought of as a smaller house pet or as a lion. You know which category or categories your drawing fits into, right?” Note: If you are worried that the spectator will say “no” when asked if they have thought of one of the drawings you mention BEFORE listing them into groups, you might want to add the following piece of scripting (inspired by something Fraser Parker does in COG by Ben Seward).

“I am picking up on a few drawings...” List the 6 drawings from whichever category the drawing the spectator is focusing on falls into. “In fact, it is difficult if you keep on changing your mind... so just focus on one of these drawings.” The participant will understand your instructions as directions for them to now think of one of the drawings you just mentioned. This ensures that if they are thinking of a non-force item, you will always be able to get them back on track – whilst still maintaining the illusion of free choice. Before moving on to the two-way outs needed to complete each routine it would be unforgivable if I were to not give a tip of my bonnet to the brilliant Jerome Finley for his idea of asking a spectator to cycle through various different images – so they at least think of a few common force items. He got there first in 'True Telepathy' and even though we use this similar idea in different ways I feel I should give him credit.

2-way outs With this system you will always be down to two possible items the spectator could be thinking of. Here are a few ways of utilizing outs to always appear to know your spectator's exact thought. Each of the examples are for star sign revelations but can easily be applied to drawings. Playing cards are dealt with separately. If we have a deck of cards on us already, then we may as well use them! However, some will prefer to just use the following verbal out when dealing with revealing the spectator's playing card.

‘Repeat It’ Principle One way I do this is to use the 'repeat it in your mind' principle from Derren Brown's effect 'Smoke'. Let's say you are down to 2 signs and they are Aquarius and Gemini. Simply say: “Keep repeating your sign in your mind… like Aquarius, Aquarius, Aquarius…” IF they react, you've got a hit. If they don’t then just play it as if you were giving an example: “…or whatever your sign is, okay?” And you now know it must be Gemini. Done!

Written Two Way Out Peter Turner has some very clever work on 2 way outs, and a very simple version of these ideas is to write one of the signs on a piece of paper and then ask the spectator if they are thinking of the other one. If they are thinking of the sign that you say, then it’s a hit. You can now just place the card (sight unseen) away in your pocket, as if it is no longer needed. However, if they say “no” then they must be thinking of the other possibility, which is written on the card. In this scenario just say: “Good, I’m glad I committed to this sign instead” and turn over the card,

revealing the correct sign that you wrote down ahead of time. José Prager has a nice subtlety for this. Write one of the signs on a piece of paper and say: “My writing is barely legible.” Throw out the other sign as above and then proceed as described. Handling it this way means that the participant won’t feel the urge to see what was written on the card if you don't need to use the out – the logic is that they wouldn't be able to read it anyway. If they do ask to see it then just say “You can't read it anyway!” as you put it away in your pocket.

Two Way Verbal Reductive Out by Peter Turner This reductive out is always used at the end of the process, after we have given a reading to the spectator and whenever we are down to two possible star signs. Note: I feel that giving readings, and how each of us approaches readings, is something very personal to the performer and I am therefore not going to give you any example scripts as I feel ultimately this should be left to each individual performer to work out what works best for themselves. The reason for giving a reading is to bolster the effect. It is personal in nature and is often the thing most remembered by the spectator. The naming of the star sign is just the cherry on the pie! It also acts as time misdirection which helps the method and reveal become disconnected in the minds of the spectator and for those watching.

The scripting is as follows: “When I sat down I instantly got the feeling you were a XXX." (SAY OUT LOUD ONE OF THE SIGNS.)

This is where you will pause for a second. If you get a reaction then great, but if not then continue with: “I then felt the better of this, chased my own instincts and committed to my thoughts. I feel you are a YYY." (NAME THE SECOND SIGN.) That's it! What is nice about this out is its naturalness. It feels very conversational and not at all like anything tricky is going on, linguistically.

Playing card out If you wish to incorporate actual playing cards into the effect 'Bluff!' then you may want to put one of the outs on the top or face of the deck and simply reveal when it hits, and place the other out face up in a face down deck so that if that out hits all you need to do is spread through the deck and reveal their thought of card that way. I feel if you have cards on you already then you may as well just force the card you want the spectator to think of but wanted to share this as an option, so everything was covered.

Performing one on one With a little thought these effects can also be performed for just one person.

When performing the star sign divination one on one, a nice way of finding out which half of the year the spectator is born can be found in 'Ploy' by Fraser Parker (reproduced here with his permission): The way we do this is to use a closed question / statement which allows us to always appear as if we know the correct answer, no matter how the spectator responds. “You weren't born in the first half of the year, were you?” Due to the fact that we ask this question in the negative, either answer from the spectator can seem to be the correct one. If they answer with a “no” then we simply state: “I didn't think so. I feel right away with you, that you are someone who is very loyal and although you have a large amount of acquaintances, you only have a few close friends who you would trust to share your innermost secrets with. This would be indicative of someone who was born towards the latter half of the year.” No one is going to want to argue they are not loyal when it comes to their close friends – especially not in front of everyone during your performance. The fact that you tie this to the notion that these characteristics and traits would belong to someone who was born in the second half of the year wraps everything up beautifully, and ensures that you always appear to be correct whenever you have to ask this question. This is Peter Turner's ‘Confirmation’ principle at work, for those who know it. If the reading is correct then the rest of the statement this is based on must

also be correct. It logically follows that you must know whether or not they were born in the first or second half of the year – otherwise, your statement wouldn't make any sense – so it must be true. If they say “yes” then simply change the script to accommodate this answer, as follows: “I thought so. I feel right away with you, that you are someone who is very loyal and although you have a large amount of acquaintances, you only have a few close friends who you would trust to share your innermost secrets with. This would be indicative of someone who was born in the first half of the year.” Now, no matter what the spectator says, you can always respond in a way that makes it appear as if you already knew the answer. To perform the playing card presentation one on one, all you have to do is find out if they have thought of a high or low card. This can be done in a very clever way, using the following: “Don't think of an ace, as that is too obvious a choice. In fact, change the value a few times and when you've settled on a card give me a nod.” The spectator nods. “Good. The cards from 2 to 7 are generally considered to be low cards, whereas cards from 8 to King are considered high cards. I feel you went for a high card...” If the spectator reacts affirmatively then stop here. If they react with a “no” or you can see they are about to verbalize a negative response, then stop them and continue with the following words:

“... and then changed your mind a few times and are now on a low card, correct?” This hanging statement allows you to take back the hit. Naturally, this ploy of having them change their mind to give you some 'wiggle' room will also apply perfectly to drawings –

whenever you are

performing one on one. That's it for this time. I hope you enjoy this work and get as much out of it as I have. Aire.