Hi everybody,


I love the Braue Reversal because... I can do it! Jerry Mentzer, in his lovely "Cuts,..." book, says that the move passes as a flourishy cut. Call me paranoid if you like, but I'd think that the move would generate some suspicion -- "Why is he doing that funny cut where the cards turn from face-down to face-up?" Maybe it's because I know how the move works, but it seems to me that it would easy for spectators to intuit that a card turned face down during that "fancy cut," because that's where they saw half-decks rotating.


So... Does anyone have advice about ways to perform the reversal, or tricks in which to use it, without spectators having hunches I'd rather they didn't have?


Thanks,


Bob

You can deliberately call attention to the cut as Simon Lovell does in his popular Fingered Number Three, or, the cut is done casually on the offbeat.
Both scenarios eliminate any heat.
There should never be any suspicion. It's just a simple, casual, soft, in the hands cut.

Calling attention to the cut: interesting. I'll look up the Lovell trick. I like the word "soft." Can you define what that means in this context? Literally soft, as in, not slapping half the deck on top of the other?


Bob

Yes, literally soft, quiet...incidental.

Hi Bob,

Most clever spectators are able to reconstruct what had happened, if the routine lacks multiple phases. In other words, if the magician executes the classical Braue Reversal, and followed by immediate revelation of the reversed card (selection) in a table spread, they can more or less figure out what happened by thinking carefully about the obvious facts, i.e., the half-deck rotations, cut.

There many card reversal techniques. In Simon Aronson's book "Try the Impossible", an easy-to-do utility move called "Head Over Heels" can simultaneously control and covertly reverse a freely chosen card, literally right under the spectator's nose.

Most people do not have a set idea of what is a normal cut. Do it casually while talking and it's not going to set off any red flags.

Just don't say "and now I'm going to cut the cards"..Just do it.

"...if the magician executes the classical Braue Reversal, and followed by immediate revelation of the reversed card"

-then he'd be doing it wrong.

Hey Bob,

Just want to clarify that the Braue Reversal does not arouse the spectator's suspicion as long as the moves are justified in the routine.

It is often the case, where the magician inadvertently gives away the "secret" by enabling the spectator (layperson) to reconstruct what happened through a lousily crafted or a half-baked routine. You don't see any professional magician immediately reveals that the selection magically appears at the top of the deck after executing the Double Undercut, do you?

Suspicions generally arise when the audience processes the result along with what they witnessed prior to the result, and weigh that against the claim made by the magician. I can justify putting a card under the table, but if I come out with a different card than the one that went under it, they're going to see through the justification no problem.

If the aim is to handle audience suspicions, it really, really, really helps to start with the effect first and foremost.

Lots of really interesting ideas here; thanks so much, everybody! Clearly there are lessons here for all of magic, not just the Braue R.


A few responses:


A. Burnaby, I wasn't sure what you meant in your last sentence ("If the aim..."). Would you mind elaborating?



B. In a nutshell, here's what I'm hearing about various ways to avoid suspicion:


1. Create a delay between cause and effect.


2. Call attention to the move, making it part of the plot.


3. Do the move casually and softly.



C. MeetMagicMike, Interesting that spectators don't have a set idea of what a cut should look like. I imagine *some* do, especially if they play cards. Still, I find your thought heartening.


D. I got really lucky: the Lovell trick that you suggested, Fish, is in a book that's currently on sale. And Sam, it turns out that the Head Over Heels move is also described on a disc that I already own (Sessions with Simon 2). Great Happiness, as MacBeth said before he met the Witches.


See you,


Bob

Rather than trying to figure out how to get away with the Braue Reversal (or any singular method, for that matter), you're likely to get more mileage by trying to figure out how to execute the effect that you want.

So, what effect do you want to pull off? Forget method, and focus on effect.

For instance, is the desired effect to make a card mysteriously reverse itself? If that's it, you may find that you can get more from Elmsley Counts than the Braue Reversal. For one, Twisting the Aces allows the effect to happen four times, rather than just once. Second, the cognitive disconnect between method and effect there is enormous.

If, on the other hand, the focus is on how to get away with a sleight, you're risking becoming a slave to method, where rather than guiding a spectator towards an effect, you're merely running away from method.

That makes sense. I like what you said about Twisting the Aces. It made me see the trick in a new light.


There are zillions of "reversed card" effects, of course, but one that I'd like to learn is Walter Gibson's "Double Reverse."


There's a sense in which I'm already a slave to method. I learn sleights very slowly -- at least that's what I'm guessing, without much of a basis for comparison. (I do have a pretty good Elmsley Count, by the way. It took me many months to learn.) Many of the tricks that I'm most excited about are out of reach until I can learn the necessary sleights, and that could take years.


Back to Gibson: I could just make Double Reverse my opener and pull the deck, already faced, out of its box. But I love sleight of hand and would prefer to learn a sleight to do the facing. Braue would work for this, I think, but it depends on the timing. Somewhere in the trick the spectator and magician mix their own half-decks, and Braue could be my mixing, maybe even preceded or followed by a quick overhand shuffle if the spectator takes long enough to do his/her mixing.

Hi Bob, here are some justifications on the moves, but they shall comply to the effect that you are trying to achieve in the first place.

Approach #1: Half-deck rotation to show that the selection is not at the bottom, then followed by an "open" Gravity-Half-Pass-like move and flip the deck over (face down) to show that the selection is not at the top either. -- Easy to do...

Approach #2: In the act of squaring the deck (making a bevel), slide the top card (selection) to the bottom in a rotational motion, which naturally reverses the card in the process. Then casually perform the Herrmann Pass (aka Invisible Turnover Pass) to show that the selection is not at the bottom. Flip the deck over (face down) to show that the selection is not at the top either. -- Requires some practice but more deceptive.

If the trick is Double Reverse, then the Braue Reverse isn't ideal to get a faced card at the bottom. The very first trick in Royal Road to Card Magic offers a move that would work there.

Thanks, guys.


Sam, I doubt I'm anywhere near being ready to do a pass. Your first approach intrigues me, though. If you'd care to PM me the details of what you have in mind, without giving away Fisher's Gravity Half-Pass, I'd be interested to read them.


Burnaby, Ah yes, I now remember this trick from the book, and from Paul Wilson's video companion to the book. I'd forgotten all about this reversal, because at the time it seemed impossible to me that it could be hidden from the audience! That was before I was using mirrors and videos to see what my work looked like, so I'm going to try again. This may be the simplest solution.


Bob

Hi Bob, it is not exactly the Gravity Half-Pass. It is just an alternative way to show the bottom and top cards when the deck is turned face-up, but the approach can also be used to accomplish the reversal.

After openly rotating the bottom half about the left side of the face-down top half to show the bottom card, then the left hand separates the face-down bottom half from the face-up top half and casually flip it underneath the top half.

Drop the face-up top half on top of the face-up bottom half, and then in the right-hand Biddle Grip, use the left fingers to slightly glide-pull the face-up bottom card to show the value and suit of the card.

Hi Sam,


I'm not quite following your description. In paragraph 2, you say, "then the left hand separates...." That seems to imply that the two halves have been coalesced. But then isn't it awkward to separate the halves again? Also, when do you display the original top card? Most importantly, when does the reversal take place?


Let's say we call the *original* top and bottom halves A and B, respectively. I'm visualizing B being rotated around the left side of A, and being placed on top of A. So the two halves are flush now, and B is on top of A, with B face up. We point out that the original bottom card, now face up and on top of the pack, is not the selection.


Then we separate the halves, and casually flip -- A? -- B? around the other half... Well, I'm lost. Anyway, I'm still interested, assuming you have time to clarify.


Thanks,


Bob

Hi Bob,

I didn't point out that the selection is controlled to the top of the deck at the beginning (before the reversal process begins).

I also didn't describe that a pinky break between the selection and the deck is necessary for the reversal. (From the top face-down: Selection, A, B). Let the "original" 2nd from top and the bottom cards are denoted by P and Q, respectively.

After revolving B around the left side of A to show Q face up, the order becomes: face-up B, Selection, (pinky break), A.

Left hand can easily separate A due to the break (dropping A slightly for a clearance to flip), and then flip A at 180-deg about the centroidal axis parallel to its sides.

Merge both halves and now the order is Q, face-up B, Selection, face-up A, P. Show the value and suit of P.

Flip over the apparent "face-up" deck and now the selection is reversed in this order: A, face-up Selection, B.

Thanks for this detailed description, Sam. I haven't had a chance to read it carefully with cards in hand, but, when I do, I'll let you know how it goes for me.


Bob