(Close Window)
Topic: Gemini Twins - too perfect?
Message: Posted by: copterchris (Sep 18, 2003 11:12AM)
Hi all,

I've recently been revisiting "Gemini Twins" by Fulves after being reminded here of the great effect but I was wondering if it falls into the "too perfect" category? After the "prediction" cards are removed from the deck the performer doesn't touch the cards at all which, to me, reduces it to a "problem to be solved" rather than a magic effect.

I'm torn between leaving the presentation as it is, and touching the pack in some way once or twice more to sow the seeds of doubt that it isn't self-working......

I'm wondering if this doubt is just because of the magician in me though :)

I'd be interested to hear people's views on this.

Thanks in advance,

Chris
Message: Posted by: Mark Ennis (Sep 18, 2003 11:23AM)
I've used this effect for years and it plays very strongly. (I perform it a bit different than the Fulves write up).

This certainly should not fall under the too perfect theory. As a matter of fact, it should be considered a miracle. The spectator has a free choice of when they will stop and since there is no sleight of hand to speak of, they should be amazed when both selections find their mates.
Message: Posted by: cgscpa (Sep 18, 2003 11:37AM)
I agree. This is a very entertaining effect as well as easy to do. I have never had it recieved as a puzzle but as a mystifying "that's impossible" reaction. I do it anytime someone hands me a deck of cards and tells me to "do something".

I recently came across a nice presentation of this effect in, of all books, "Magic for Dummies" that I purchased at a yard sale for $2.
Message: Posted by: Mark Ennis (Sep 18, 2003 11:50AM)
I love yard sale finds. You got a real good bargain for $2.
Message: Posted by: cardguy (Sep 18, 2003 01:52PM)
Too Perfect?

First of all, I don't think any magic trick is "Too Perfect". If you find one, let me know cause then I want to use it.

Actually, there is a discrepency that you must hide in Gemini Twins. If you repeat the trick a couple of times, observant spectators will figure it out.

Saying that, I love this trick. It has served me well when people hand me a dog-eared deck and want to see a trick. This is the one I do, and it gets great reactions.
Message: Posted by: sashain (Sep 18, 2003 02:17PM)
To: copterchris

I think what is bothering you about Gemini Twins is not that it is too perfect, but is the fact that there is no point that it is clear where the magic happens, a necessary "magical moment".

In Fulves description, there is only a skeleton presentation, and an attempt to explain the magic happening as telepathy. The explanation is given after the fact of pairing up the cards. Telepathy doesn't seem to fit the effect anyway - since neither of you know where the matching cards are in the deck, how could you send a signal to the spectator?

As cgscpa notes, the presentation in Magic for Dummies is better in this regard. The effect is called soul mates and the idea that each card has a soul mate is set up from the start. The effect is clearer - the cards find each other, magically guiding them to come together.

You may prefer other ways to create a magical moment, but the effect needs one.

Steve
Message: Posted by: MField2000 (Sep 18, 2003 05:07PM)
Actually, Gemini Twins was the opening phase of a longer Fulves routine, "Impromptu Opener," which he marketed separately and which I perform.

The second phase makes the first part more deceptive, in my opinion.

But "too perfect"? Like most card tricks aren't too perfect?

MAtt Field
Message: Posted by: Mistro (Sep 18, 2003 05:40PM)
This is a good effect. I don't use it, but I read it in the Self Working Cards book by Fulves and it sounded like a Intresting Card effect.
Message: Posted by: copterchris (Sep 18, 2003 05:53PM)
Hi all,

Thanks for your replies.

cardguy : When I said that is was "too perfect" I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I wasn't saying that the trick was too good, just referring to the 'too perfect' theory that says (paraphrasing) :

"That if a trick is presented in a manner that has, from the spectators view, no 'possible' explanations it causes them to try to reconstruct the trick and work out how it worked."

(I probably butchered that explanation but I hope it conveys the theory)

As you noted yourself, it is not too difficult to reconstruct this trick and if I was shown such a trick where the magician does not handle the cards beyond the initial stages it would lead me to believe that it was self-working and to try reconstruct it.

I think Steve got me thinking with his reference to a "magical moment" and providing a motivation for the routine.

However, having said all that it is clear that there are many people using it to great effect. As marko suggests, maybe I should stop worrying and get on with creating a good routine :)

Chris
Message: Posted by: lperna (Sep 18, 2003 06:07PM)
[quote]
On 2003-09-18 18:07, MField2000 wrote:
Actually, Gemini Twins was the opening phase of a longer Fulves routine, "Impromptu Opener," which he marketed separately and which I perform.

The second phase makes the first part more deceptive, in my opinion.

But "too perfect"? Like most card tricks aren't too perfect?

MAtt Field
[/quote]

Matt,
Do you know if this "Impromptu Opener" routine is still available for sale somewhere? Google doesn't come back with anything.

Thanks,
Lloyd
Message: Posted by: marko (Sep 18, 2003 06:33PM)
Copterchris, opinions differ but I personally wouldn't recommend putting too much stock into the Too Perfect Theory. Remember, it's our business to do the impossible.
Message: Posted by: NJJ (Sep 18, 2003 07:02PM)
I hate the phrase 'Too Perfect". Perfect is an ulimate state not a state of being that can be defined by degrees. Moreover, if the trick is flawed then its NOT perfect not OVER perfect.

*getting down of my soapbox*

As for Gemini Twins, if audiences are not figuring it and they are impressed by the trick then don't mess with it. Audiences are so far behind what magicians can do they won't figure it out! (although I must admit I get the feeling of "this is too easy...it MUST be obvious" all the time)

If its not as good as it might be then I wouldn't suggest adding the illusion of skill. If you want people to think your skillful then take up juggling.
:rotf: :)

To make it appear more magical, I would let the cards do the work and baffle them with patter, character and strong presentation.
Message: Posted by: Hideo Kato (Sep 18, 2003 07:37PM)
I performed 'Gemini Twins' and 'Three Cards Catch' more than 100 times in last August when I demonstrated at the magic counter in the theaters Mr.Maric gave his show. I tried many presentations and handlings. I arrived at the conclusion Gemini Twins should not be done in Hands off presentation.

Gemini Twins is based on spectator's misunderstanding of the situation, or based on spectator's unclear image of the situation. So I rather proceed speedy until two face up cards are placed in the deck. Then, I take a time to review that the deck was well shuffled by the spectator and two face up cards were placed completely at random positions. Then I spread the cards and take out two pairs and proceed to show the result. All are done in my hands.

Maybe Hands off presentation would be better for a small audience.

As cgscpa and sashain pointed the importance of presentation on matching phenomenon, I think you'd better show matching pairs with an appropriate patter and/or impressive magical motion. I sometimes rubbed two cards to change face down card to match with face up card. Or you can simply admire spectator's inspration of finding matching pairs.

Anyway, Gemini Twins is not only a good impromptu trick but also one of strongest effects which I can use in my show. It depends on your presentaion.

Hideo Kato
Message: Posted by: joeKing (Sep 18, 2003 08:04PM)
I'm a little confused I thought Gemini Twins was a effect by Brother John that involved red king, red queen, black queen, and black king....and a story that goes along with it...it is on the ETMCM set...could someone clear this up for me?
Message: Posted by: Mark Ennis (Sep 18, 2003 08:08PM)
Joeking,

Brother Hammans trick is called "The Twins". The Karl Fulves effect (which is a double prediction) is called "The Geminii Twins".
Message: Posted by: copterchris (Sep 18, 2003 10:20PM)
Hi Hideo,

Why do you think a hands-off presentation is perhaps better for small audiences?

You imply earlier in the post that a 'hands-on' presentation is better so that you can move faster so that spectators don't have time to take everything in completely. Why would this be different for a smaller audience?

You certainly seem to have a lot of experience with this effect so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,

Chris
Message: Posted by: Hideo Kato (Sep 19, 2003 12:47AM)
Good question, copterchris.

I said "Maybe" as I am not sure.

But my point is this. If you are performing for 2 or 3 persons, it is very easy to control spectators' mind. So slower presentation by having spectator handle the cards may be suitable. Besides, Hand-off presentation can give a more friendly atmosphere.

Anyway, I should try both presentations in personal performances. But, I have very few chance to perform for a few people.

If you have much such chances, please try both and let me know the result.

Hideo Kato
Message: Posted by: copterchris (Sep 19, 2003 01:02AM)
Thanks Hideo, I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I'll try variations and see what the reaction is - I doubt I'll get the chance to try it 100 times in a month though :)

Chris
Message: Posted by: Hideo Kato (Sep 19, 2003 01:58AM)
BTW, I have posted trick No.119 Quadruplets in Secret Session, which is a variation of GeminiTwins. You take out two cards of a same value to place in the deck. So you will have four of a kind at last.

BTW again, you have been mentioning Gemini Twins is created by Karl Fulves as he published it in his More Self-Working Card Tricks (Without mentioning the creator). But, Allan Ackerman in his Lasvegas Kardma says, Gemini Twins is Martin Gardner's creation.

Can anyone clarify this?

Hideo Kato
Message: Posted by: Bong780 (Sep 19, 2003 06:58AM)
Presentation is very important here. If you rush too fast, smart people would figure the trick out (one of my gambler friend did, he's sensitive with cards). Check you patter.

Its a very strong effect and total impromptu if you present it well.
Message: Posted by: Phred (Sep 19, 2003 08:45AM)
Hideo:
Funny you should ask about the history of the Gemini Twins effect. I was asking myself the same question.

I don't have the Fulves book, but I am familiar with the effect. It sounds similar to effects in The Secret Ways of Al Baker and Paul Curry's World's Beyond. (I'm at work so I don't have the books to hand so I can't give you the names of the tricks.)
I expect that because the principle is rather basic, many noted cardicians have come up with the same idea.

Phred
Message: Posted by: Geoff Weber (Sep 19, 2003 09:49AM)
Gemini Twins falls under the category of "The Spectator Creates the Magic". I like to perform this trick as a prelude to a larger trick. I propose that the spectator has magic abilities of prediction, and offer to give them a test to prove it. Gemini Twins, because it is only 2 pairs, is a small test. After it has concluded, I say that perhaps they are still not convinced, so I move on to a bigger test. At which point I have them do "Out of this World". These tricks work well together, because they both work out of the spectator's hands, and together they create the notion that the spectator really has the magic abilities.
Message: Posted by: erictan8888 (Sep 19, 2003 10:33AM)
Hi, actually gemini twins is the same effect to the rainbow deck finding the soul mates.... except that in the rainbow deck, there are two added effects in that

1. the backs of the twins match, while the rest of the deck have different designs on the back

2. all the cards are ribbon spread to show that they are all ace of spade and the gemini twins are the only red cards in the deck....(assuming the gemini twins are jack of diamond with jack of hearts and queen of diamond with queen of hearts...)

I believe Lennart Green also has the same effect but his packet trick is called stolen cards...

I have no idea who came up with the trick, but I can tell you it is a great trick.... and karl Fulves' version allows you to do it impromptu...

but if not impromptu, I always prefer to do it with a rainbow deck....

eric :)
Message: Posted by: Paul (Sep 19, 2003 10:47AM)
Re;
"but if not impromptu, I always prefer to do it with a rainbow deck...."

Which was originally a Nick Trost variant and sold by him. Another with Rainbow backed cards is now manufactured in India.

I prefer the simple version from "Las Vegas Kardma" (which Ackermann says is his own favourite)and matches up four queens with four kings.

Lewis Jones has an impromptu variant in print also.

Paul.
Message: Posted by: cardguy (Sep 19, 2003 10:48AM)
[quote]
On 2003-09-18 18:53, copterchris wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks for your replies.

cardguy : When I said that is was "too perfect" I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I wasn't saying that the trick was too good, just referring to the 'too perfect' theory that says (paraphrasing) :

"That if a trick is presented in a manner that has, from the spectators view, no 'possible' explanations it causes them to try to reconstruct the trick and work out how it worked."

(I probably butchered that explanation but I hope it conveys the theory)

[/quote]

I understood what you were saying. I strive for effects that show absolutely no clues as to how it is achieved. That is why I disagree with the "Too Perfect Theory".

However, I DO think that giving an audience an "out" has it's place in certain situations, but not all.
Message: Posted by: MField2000 (Sep 19, 2003 10:49AM)
lperna asked about the availability of Karl Fulves' "Impromptu Opener." It's a couple of pages, stapled, no illustrations, and I doubt if it's available any longer.

But do yourself a favor (and everyone else as well) and send a stamped self-address envelope to Karl Fulves, P.O. Box 433, Teaneck, NJ 07666 and ask him what he has available (or about the availability of anything specific).

Matt Field
Message: Posted by: chrismatt (Sep 20, 2003 09:06PM)
I've used this as the penultimate phase in a "synchronicity" routine. See the trick of that name in the Jennings tome; think of other ways to force the matching of cards, such as Fan Forcing; and look at "A Paradox of Pairs" in the LePaul book, the Ackerman trick "Another Quick Coincidence" in the Ammar "Easy to Master..." series and Krenzel's clever fan prediction trick. There are many coincidence, matching and prediction tricks, including Open Prediction tricks, from which to fashion a tight, entertaining routine. My view is that "Gemini Twins" has a greater effect if presented in a series of other "soul mates" matching tricks accomplished via sleights.
Message: Posted by: pasteboardforbrains (Sep 21, 2003 10:42AM)
I own Magic For Dummies, and didn't see this trick in it. What is it called in the book?
Thanks.
Message: Posted by: sashain (Sep 21, 2003 10:51AM)
To: pasteboards for brains,

It is called soul mates in the Magic for Dummies book.

Steve
Message: Posted by: sir_hugo (Sep 22, 2003 06:12AM)
Far from thinking this trick was "too perfect", I thought it could be improved.

Rather than fish through the deck for the two prediction cards, I get two spectators to name a card each, and then I do the trick with their two chosen cards.

Tom
Message: Posted by: Ross W (Sep 22, 2003 07:22AM)
I do this trick regularly, but have twice been called, as the spectator spots the "discrepancy" and says, "but that's the card above it, not the one I stopped at."

It's a good trick, and worth risking!
Message: Posted by: pasteboardforbrains (Sep 22, 2003 05:15PM)
Thanks Steve. I have been looking for this trick, and was upset to find that most sources are hard to find. Now I know that I already have it.
Thanks.
Message: Posted by: Dave Shepherd (Sep 22, 2003 09:00PM)
I too rediscovered how great this trick is within the past year. I think the presentational frame is the key to alleviating suspicion. I don't want to tip my presentation, but I will say that it involves stating a premise (that doesn't have anything to do with a deck of cards) before handing the deck to the spectator to shuffle.

I agree with Hideo Kato that a "hands-on" revelation is probably stronger than a "hands-off" one. When you touch the deck, you introduce a possible false solution, which (I think) interferes with the audience's analytical process. I am very careful not to refer to "the card you stopped on," but rather I point out that, "you stopped in two places, here [outjogging out the first pair] and here [ditto for second pair]." It is easy to get their assent to that fact, because it's true.

Thank you, Karl Fulves!

(Incidentally, perhaps the confusion about this being a Bro. John Hamman trick is a conflation of the Gemini Count and The Twins.)
Message: Posted by: El_Lamo (Sep 23, 2003 11:58AM)
I posted a few weeks ago about Gemini Twins.

I have been playing with it a lot lately.

I like to snap my fingers over the cards to solidify a "magic moment".

In the warm up patter, I have usually already been handling the deck, so I know the target cards or in earlier chit chat, I get them to tell me their favorite cards. I have a book that tells the meaning of playing cards.

I don't have it here now, so I posted a similar web page if you are interested.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/terrir/playing_card_meanings.html

Either way, when I know the two cards, I start my patter talking about how much fun it is when the person helps you do something really magical and that sometimes we just have to create the opportunity for things to interconnect.

Once I've started the effect, I'll ask should I move one or two. Giving a choice that doesn't make a difference but thickens the misdirection.

When the deck is together and both cards have been placed, I'll ask what the two cards we put in were.

Then I snap my fingers, pause and spread the deck.

I get them to pull out the pairs with both hands, and I close up the deck. They now have the result in their hands to discover.

(I like putting things in their hands at the end).

Then I can do a bit of patter about the connectedness of the pairs, and how we worked together on it, that I couldn't have made that happen without their help, afterall they told me when to put the cards in. I marvel at the odds of it happening twice in a row.

Then I usually do something with the two pair. There is an effect in Fulves 2 (I think) where you use 8 cards, your important cards at 5 and 7 positions. After some flipping of cards, that pair winds up opposite to the rest (backs to fronts).

I like to do it after the Gemini Twins because it definitely shows the cards being manipulated.

cheers - el lamo
Message: Posted by: pasteboardforbrains (Sep 23, 2003 03:52PM)
Now that I've read this effect, I can comment that I also believe that this trick is too perfect. I also agree with Marko when I say that I don't believe too strongly in the too perfect theory.
Message: Posted by: DaveS (Sep 25, 2003 04:12PM)
[quote]
On 2003-09-22 07:12, sir_hugo wrote:
Far from thinking this trick was "too perfect", I thought it could be improved.

Rather than fish through the deck for the two prediction cards, I get two spectators to name a card each, and then I do the trick with their two chosen cards.

Tom
[/quote]
Tom,
I like your idea of using the spectators' cards, but don't you still have to fish them out along with culling their matching cards into place? Seems like it involves more deck handling then Fulves' routine.
DaveS
Message: Posted by: sir_hugo (Sep 26, 2003 04:40AM)
Yes, but the culling usually goes unnoticed. It's perfectly reasonable after all to ask for two cards to be named and then fish them out for the purpose of performing a trick with them.

Here's my sequence (sorry to moderators if this is "exposure.")

Working from the face of the deck, passing one card at a time from the left hand to the right, I keep going, past one or both of the cards named if need be, until I find one of the mates, and then I cut it to the face.

Now, I keep going until either I find one of the selected cards, in which case I up-jog it, or the other mate, in which case I cull it. I can then safely proceed to up-jog the remaining selected card (or cards) when it turns up.

With luck I will therefore have both mates in place before I encounter the two selected cards, which makes the whole process seem perfectly smooth and natural. I just have to put the two cards down in the right order.

Worst-case scenario is that I have to go past the second chosen card to find the second mate, in which case I square the deck leaving the first card out-jogged and pretend I missed the second card. Actually I know roughly where it is and I can find it quite quickly.

Hope this helps.

Tom
Message: Posted by: Hideo Kato (Sep 26, 2003 07:33AM)
In Secret Session, you can find my method of culling two matching cards while you are up-jogging two specific cards.

Hideo Kato
Message: Posted by: twistingtheaces (Sep 27, 2003 01:46AM)
Duffie has a version similar to Ackerman's in his 'Complusion' book. Can anyone comment on their differences?
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Oct 5, 2003 02:59AM)
Which Fulves book is this in? His Self Working Card Effects book has a trick just called "TWINS."
Message: Posted by: Myrddin (Oct 5, 2003 04:42AM)
It's the very first trick Fulves' "More Self-Working Card Tricks", p. 1. ;)
Message: Posted by: joeKing (Oct 7, 2003 11:56PM)
OH I was wondering why I couldn't find it in Self-Working Card Tricks!!! lol thanks! :bg:
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Oct 31, 2003 02:47PM)
Me too, thanks!
Message: Posted by: marko (Oct 31, 2003 07:06PM)
I'm certain I'm far from the first person to think of this, but it occured to me semi-recently that the Gemini Twins principle can be used (perhaps even more effectively) as a double location. Here's what I do:

Put a pair of easy to remember mates on the top and bottom of the deck (like the red aces). Shuffle maintaining the two cards in their place. Hand to the deck to the first participant. Turn your back and have them follow your instructions: They are to deal cards one at a time on the table stopping whenever they feel the impulse to. They are then to look at the last card dealt, memorize it, replace it back on the dealt-out pile and then place the remaining cards in their hand on top of them, squaring the pack. They can now give the deck as many complete cuts as they would like. Have them pass the deck to another person and have that person do the exact same thing as the first participant, once again cutting as many times as they want at the end. Only now do you turn around.

Two card have been memorized and lost in the deck under the fairest of conditions with your back turned the entire time. Now you take the deck back and run through it. Of course both selected cards will be under each of the red aces. Cut one of the selected cards to the top casually under the guise of looking for the cards. Upjog one of the selected cards. Remove it and show it to be one of the selected cards. This is effect #1. Now lay the first card face-up on top the deck (on top of the face-down second selected card). Have the other participant name their card aloud. As they do, lift the top two cards as one and do a snap change allowing the cards to flip over as one as you bring them up your arm to rub on your sleeve. An instant transformation of the first selected card to the second!

P.S. - If this should be in Secret Sessions instead of here, just let me know.
Message: Posted by: Hank Shand-Handy (Nov 1, 2003 09:30AM)
Marko

I don't see how the specs can cut the deck at any point.
Am I missing something?

Hank
Message: Posted by: marko (Nov 1, 2003 03:44PM)
Woops, my mistake. The deck can only be given complete cuts after BOTH cards have been selected.
Message: Posted by: David Le (Nov 1, 2003 04:17PM)
What's the effect of Gemini Twins? :bg:
Message: Posted by: van (Nov 19, 2003 06:40PM)
Las Vegas Kardma by Alan Ackerman has several variations of the Gemini Twins procedure using $bills and 3 or 4 matches.
Message: Posted by: MarkusT (Nov 20, 2003 02:33AM)
You can look up Gemini Twins at amazon.com with the 'look inside' feature
Message: Posted by: Ross W (Nov 20, 2003 03:50AM)
This is great trick! Yes the discrepancy is very occasionally noticed, but I find with a bit of what we magicians love to call "byplay", it's seldom remarked - rather like the delay in the x-cut force.

Talking of which, when I can be bothered, I sometimes force the two cards at the beginning rather than selecting them myself. It's a fab twist!
Message: Posted by: Mike Walton (Nov 23, 2003 01:38AM)
[quote]
"That if a trick is presented in a manner that has, from the spectators view, no 'possible' explanations it causes them to try to reconstruct the trick and work out how it worked."
[quote]

I just performed this effect tonight and experienced this reconstruction. Unfortunately, I've performed for stock analysts whose jobs are to find discrepancies with information in the market so their job IS reconstruction and finding discrepancies.

It is too perfect with the presentation and patter from More Self Working Card Tricks and I think it can easily be "figured out" if someone goes back through the motions patiently in their head.

This is a favorite of mine, so I like the idea of having them name two cards with a cull, or even the forcing of 2 cards. I may also just remove the two sets of cards and I'll take the deck aside out of site once the spectator if finished dealing from the deck to eliminate that prop for their mental reconstruction.

Great ideas. You folks are brilliant.

Good topic!
Mike
Message: Posted by: Picard (Sep 23, 2018 06:08PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2003, Ross W wrote:
I do this trick regularly, but have twice been called, as the spectator spots the "discrepancy" and says, "but that's the card above it, not the one I stopped at."

It's a good trick, and worth risking! [/quote]

[quote]On Nov 23, 2003, Mike Walton wrote:

I just performed this effect tonight and experienced this reconstruction. Unfortunately, I've performed for stock analysts whose jobs are to find discrepancies with information in the market so their job IS reconstruction and finding discrepancies.

It is too perfect with the presentation and patter from More Self Working Card Tricks and I think it can easily be "figured out" if someone goes back through the motions patiently in their head.

This is a favorite of mine, so I like the idea of having them name two cards with a cull, or even the forcing of 2 cards. I may also just remove the two sets of cards and I'll take the deck aside out of site once the spectator if finished dealing from the deck to eliminate that prop for their mental reconstruction.

Great ideas. You folks are brilliant.

Good topic!
Mike [/quote]

Sorry for resurrecting a 15 year old thread, but I think it may be of help to everyone who's still performing this effect. So here we have 2 cases of performers being caught by smarter folks in the audience who managed to reconstruct the trick. While Gemini Twins flies by most audiences easily I've also had cases where people realized I was showing the 'wrong' cards at the end. It's simply NOT 100% foolproof. If you are doing official performance most likely nobody will call you out (even if they realize what's going on) but do a casual one for a group of (intelligent) friends and you WILL be called out from time to time no matter how great you perform it.
Also I've had people ask me why are we taking the right card and not the other neighbour one (they didn't necessarily figure out the trick but just inquired why prefer one over the other).
My solution?
After the 2 deals have been done and before spreading the deck I ask them if they prefer LEFT or RIGHT and to think well because it's an important decision. If they say right I do the normal spread (from left to right) and take out cards to the right of the prediction cards (also showing that the left one wouldn't have been a match). If they say left I simply do reverse spread (from right to left) and take out cards to the left of the prediction cards (which will now be the correct ones). The emphasis is on right-left instead of top-bottom AND if they try to reconstruct it the right-left choice will throw them off completely. Also there is a nice convincer at the end when they realize that if they had said the other side the trick would have failed. I think this simple idea prevents any kind of successful reconstruction and also makes the overall effect much more impressive.
Message: Posted by: Vlad_77 (Sep 25, 2018 02:27AM)
Excellent thinking Picard!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 25, 2018 09:47AM)
Al Ackerman's work on this plot is required reading.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Sep 25, 2018 12:13PM)
I had a G Twins conundrum myself that produced some interesting ideas:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=595422&forum=2
Message: Posted by: Vlad_77 (Sep 25, 2018 04:13PM)
[quote]On Sep 25, 2018, magicfish wrote:
Al Ackerman's work on this plot is required reading. [/quote]

I absolutely agree my friend!
Message: Posted by: martyjacobs (Oct 1, 2018 03:30PM)
John Guastaferro also has some interesting work on this plot, based on Allan Ackerman's ideas.

Offering a choice between left and right, and then spreading the pack works well. But I usually perform in situations with limited table space. This makes spreading the cards impractical. This is my solution:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15vogJuOkNdlTw3H24XATlZTkNL05JWtLGBaWCWrlXzc/edit?usp=sharing

I shared it a while ago on my blog, which is no longer available. A few people have asked about it, so I thought I'd make it available again here. It has served me well and makes retrograde analysis difficult, if not impossible. It also emphasises the apparent random nature of the selection process.

Marty
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Oct 2, 2018 07:36AM)
Thanks for sharing this, Marty.
Message: Posted by: motown (Jun 23, 2019 05:35PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2018, Picard wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2003, Ross W wrote:
I do this trick regularly, but have twice been called, as the spectator spots the "discrepancy" and says, "but that's the card above it, not the one I stopped at."

It's a good trick, and worth risking! [/quote]

[quote]On Nov 23, 2003, Mike Walton wrote:

I just performed this effect tonight and experienced this reconstruction. Unfortunately, I've performed for stock analysts whose jobs are to find discrepancies with information in the market so their job IS reconstruction and finding discrepancies.

It is too perfect with the presentation and patter from More Self Working Card Tricks and I think it can easily be "figured out" if someone goes back through the motions patiently in their head.

This is a favorite of mine, so I like the idea of having them name two cards with a cull, or even the forcing of 2 cards. I may also just remove the two sets of cards and I'll take the deck aside out of site once the spectator if finished dealing from the deck to eliminate that prop for their mental reconstruction.

Great ideas. You folks are brilliant.

Good topic!
Mike [/quote]

Sorry for resurrecting a 15 year old thread, but I think it may be of help to everyone who's still performing this effect. So here we have 2 cases of performers being caught by smarter folks in the audience who managed to reconstruct the trick. While Gemini Twins flies by most audiences easily I've also had cases where people realized I was showing the 'wrong' cards at the end. It's simply NOT 100% foolproof. If you are doing official performance most likely nobody will call you out (even if they realize what's going on) but do a casual one for a group of (intelligent) friends and you WILL be called out from time to time no matter how great you perform it.
Also I've had people ask me why are we taking the right card and not the other neighbour one (they didn't necessarily figure out the trick but just inquired why prefer one over the other).
My solution?
After the 2 deals have been done and before spreading the deck I ask them if they prefer LEFT or RIGHT and to think well because it's an important decision. If they say right I do the normal spread (from left to right) and take out cards to the right of the prediction cards (also showing that the left one wouldn't have been a match). If they say left I simply do reverse spread (from right to left) and take out cards to the left of the prediction cards (which will now be the correct ones). The emphasis is on right-left instead of top-bottom AND if they try to reconstruct it the right-left choice will throw them off completely. Also there is a nice convincer at the end when they realize that if they had said the other side the trick would have failed. I think this simple idea prevents any kind of successful reconstruction and also makes the overall effect much more impressive. [/quote]In the December 2014 issue of Genii, Caleb Wiles had published the same approach of asking the spectator if he/she preferred left or right in his Paparazzi Packet Trick, p22. A small packet version of the Gemini Twins plot. I believe I read about this idea previous to reading Calebís effect.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 23, 2019 08:38PM)
Or if the spec names LEFT, spread the deck and ask him or her to take out the face-up card and the card to the left of it (from the spec's point of view it will be the mate).
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 25, 2019 02:34PM)
I pull and set aside both sets as a three-card sandwich.
When I flip the reveals the order is lost.

But GT is essentially a simple key-card trick, so presentation won't always save you from bright specs.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Jul 1, 2019 02:27PM)
Thanx Mr Salk! Flipping the reveals as a sandwich is a nice touch! Interesting that the topic has lasted so long. Such a simple effect that begs to be messed with. I love John Bannon's many ideas on this in Move Zero, eg "collusion" where 2 spectators create a card via countdown; yet, in the end, it's a simple Gemini Twins effect. If this effect can spawn so many variations, then is simply is not "too perfect". Lynn
Message: Posted by: ipe (Sep 17, 2019 05:27AM)
Am I the only one performing Gemini Twins with only one prediction? To me with only one card the effect is more elegant and pure. I must confess that I'm interested in mentalism though.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Sep 17, 2019 08:01AM)
That's Gemini only-child.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Sep 17, 2019 09:45AM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2019, ipe wrote:
Am I the only one performing Gemini Twins with only one prediction? To me with only one card the effect is more elegant and pure. I must confess that I'm interested in mentalism though. [/quote]

I would argue that, counterintuitive as it may seem, doing the placement procedure twice helps obscure the method. It's a two-layered deception.
Message: Posted by: ipe (Sep 18, 2019 09:57AM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Sep 17, 2019, ipe wrote:
Am I the only one performing Gemini Twins with only one prediction? To me with only one card the effect is more elegant and pure. I must confess that I'm interested in mentalism though. [/quote]

I would argue that, counterintuitive as it may seem, doing the placement procedure twice helps obscure the method. It's a two-layered deception. [/quote]
Hi Rupert,
I can see how doing it twice can be more deceptive. But I have found that with 3 small expedients the effect is still very deceiving also with only one match:
- time delay (I explain the concept of mate/twin cards)
- a question exactly one moment before I take both cards out of the spread ("which card is a mate of a seven of hearts?" or "which card is a mate of a joker?")
- bringing the two cards far from the spread one next to the other in full view (instead of one card on top of the other)

In this way you have a pure and elegant effect, difficult to backtrack. Plus, taking out only one match from the spread (during the question), you halve the time the spectator see the discrepancy.
Message: Posted by: The Burnaby Kid (Sep 18, 2019 10:16AM)
I think that if you're aiming for directness, there might be better ways to get it than just cutting Gemini Twins in half. A cross-cut force, the Bill Simon prophecy move, the psychological stop trick from Expert Card Technique, or one of the presenations for the R.W. Hull force would get you what you're looking for in a more expedient manner.

Really, if we're talking about an idealized version of the effect, it's that the spectator deals down a bunch of cards, and the card they dealt to matches. The insertion and square-up mandated by the Gemini Twins format takes away from this directness. With Gemini Twins, you can sort of motivate that retroactively because there's a second step to the procedure -- there was logic to inserting a card and then continuing because you were going to repeat again and reveal both at the same time. Cutting that in half makes a bit less sense than just switching the format -- you're relying on a discrepancy in any case, so if directness is important, why not use something more direct that still works despite the discrepancy?
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Sep 18, 2019 10:34AM)
I agree with Andrew. That's considerably weaker, in both effect and method.

I'm also not sure how it's a purer effect? It's certainly a less impossible effect. Why you would strive with less impossibility, for the same price as MORE, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Message: Posted by: ipe (Sep 20, 2019 04:55AM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
I think that if you're aiming for directness, there might be better ways to get it than just cutting Gemini Twins in half. A cross-cut force, the Bill Simon prophecy move, the psychological stop trick from Expert Card Technique, or one of the presenations for the R.W. Hull force would get you what you're looking for in a more expedient manner.[/quote]
I want as many direct effects as possible. :)

[quote]On Sep 18, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
Really, if we're talking about an idealized version of the effect, it's that the spectator deals down a bunch of cards, and the card they dealt to matches. The insertion and square-up mandated by the Gemini Twins format takes away from this directness. With Gemini Twins, you can sort of motivate that retroactively because there's a second step to the procedure -- there was logic to inserting a card and then continuing because you were going to repeat again and reveal both at the same time. Cutting that in half makes a bit less sense than just switching the format -- you're relying on a discrepancy in any case, so if directness is important, why not use something more direct that still works despite the discrepancy? [/quote]
I know that my approach is of course not perfect, but to me is better than the version with 2 matches. One discrepancy is better than two discrepancies for me. :D
About the reason to place the rest of the deck on the tabled cards: "please place the rest of the cards you are holding here, so none can touch the prediction card or mess with the deck. Meanwhile [blah blah blah]"

[quote]On Sep 18, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
I'm also not sure how it's a purer effect? It's certainly a less impossible effect. Why you would strive with less impossibility, for the same price as MORE, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. [/quote]
As a mentalist I love the maxim "less is more". Sometimes (now always) less impossibility is more believability.

Of course I don't want to impose my view, it wouldn't it make sense because it depends on what is the scope and sensibility of the performer. And sometime it is a aesthetic preference too. ;)
Message: Posted by: The Burnaby Kid (Sep 20, 2019 11:30AM)
Two questions...

First, if less is more, why bother cutting stuff out of Gemini Twins when you can cut even further and use something even more direct?

Second, if you're looking for as many direct effects as possible, why not keep Gemini Twins intact? This would add scope to what it is you're apparently able to do and give your repertoire more texture. Single card mental magic revelations are all over the place, but multiple-card ones are a bit more rare, and having one of those in your back pocket can be helpful for changing the dynamics of your performance and adding a bit more in the way of escalation, should the situation call for it.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Sep 20, 2019 04:17PM)
I'm not sure what is meant by "direct effects". In a singular Gemini Twins the effect points directly to the method.
Message: Posted by: ipe (Sep 23, 2019 03:26AM)
[quote]On Sep 20, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
First, if less is more, why bother cutting stuff out of Gemini Twins when you can cut even further and use something even more direct?[/quote]
If I had a different method to achieve the same effect but more directly, I would use such method. But I don't. You mentioned the psychological stop trick, but I would prefer a sure-fire method.

[quote]On Sep 20, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
Second, if you're looking for as many direct effects as possible, why not keep Gemini Twins intact? This would add scope to what it is you're apparently able to do and give your repertoire more texture. Single card mental magic revelations are all over the place, but multiple-card ones are a bit more rare, and having one of those in your back pocket can be helpful for changing the dynamics of your performance and adding a bit more in the way of escalation, should the situation call for it. [/quote]
Sure, I will try the original version of Gemini Twins and I will see my and spectators experiences.
;)

[quote]On Sep 20, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
I'm not sure what is meant by "direct effects". In a singular Gemini Twins the effect points directly to the method.[/quote]
As I told you, with the three small expedients I explained above, I found the method is very deceptive.

What is a "direct effect"? This is a philosophical question. :bg:
I can reply to that saying: I prefer to telekinetically move a pencil few inches for one second on a table than making ten pencils dancing in the air for some minutes. :)