The Pass Substitute

[Brown]

I performed a magic trick for a group of about ten people a few days ago. I fooled them all. The trick was a big hit.

Nearly every card magician performs this trick or a variation of it. In the standard performance, the magician makes use of a "pass," which is basically secretly cutting the cards so that a particular card (typically one chosen by a spectator) that was in the middle of the deck comes to the top of the deck. The "pass" is one of the standard card sleights, and one of the most difficult to do well. Magicians are often of two minds about the "pass": they never mention it to lay people, because they don't want lay people to notice it; but they are also known to talk extensively about it with other magicians, in the hopes of improving their technique or bragging about their skill.

It is important to recognize that the "pass" is not, in itself, a magic trick; but it is an integral part of many magic tricks. It is an aspect of "card control," in which a desired card is moved from one place to another in the deck. Techniques for performing the pass, and card effects that involve its use, are not within the scope of this thread.

I say with no shame that I cannot do a good pass. I've worked on it. I can do it in slow motion, sort of. But I cannot do it without being "caught." I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that card effect teachers such as the late Dai Vernon and Harry Lorayne say that performing an undetectable pass is very difficult. Even our pal Jamy Ian Swiss has written about the difficulties associated with performing an undetectable pass. (Jamy himself, as he demonstrated in his performance at TAM4, does a very nice pass indeed! It is very difficult to detect, even when you know that he is doing it. The lay people don't notice it, but those who know the trick can be in awe of how well he does the move.)

Nor can I perform false shuffles or smooth double cuts that operate the same as a pass. Or to be more accurate, if I were to perform one of these moves, I would almost certainly be "caught."

Therefore, I often rely on a "pass substitute" based upon a technique I learned in a book I read as a child. I do not recall the book or its author. Since reading of this technique, however, I have never seen any performer (amateur or professional) use it, not have I ever seen it taught in any other instructional material.

Yet my experience of a few days ago convinced me that this pass substitute is almost as good as a genuine pass.

In the "pass substitute," the card in question really is lost within the center of the deck. With a pass, by contrast, the performer keeps track of where the card in question is located, and the card is not really lost in the deck. There are many techniques for keeping track of a card, but those techniques are not within the scope of this thread. Suffice it to say that some of those techniques contribute to the difficulty of making a good pass.

Instead of using one of those pass techniques for keeping track of a selected card, I use another well-known principle of card magic. This principle really allows me to lose the chosen card in the middle of the deck. Nearly every novice card magician knows of this principle, but many pros seem to view it as childish or beneath their level of skill. (And consequently, according to Harry Lorayne, can be fooled when another performer uses this simple principle against them!)

Part of my technique involves performing a fake sleight. I square the cards quickly, or do a ribbon spread, or a spring, or I riffle the deck. Basically, I do NOTHING. But the spectator, being a distrusting observer, thinks I did SOMETHING.

When I "prove" to the spectator that I did nothing, that's when I do the "dirty work," cutting the spectator's card to a spot near the top of the deck. Not only that, but I do the dirty work openly, while asking the spectator a simple question such as "You card is in the middle of the deck, isn't it?" or "Are you sure?"

Even though I cut the cards openly, I do not do it obviously. I use techniques that are diversionary and virtually undetectable, unless one knows to look for them. I will not share my techniques here. But I will say that I have performed this cut right under the spectator's nose and have NEVER been caught at it, and the group for whom I recently performed never saw me do it, even though it was right out in the open.

There is a beauty in this technique in that the spectator's card is NOT at the top of the deck. In fact, it's better if it isn't. I can "prove" to the spectator that his card is lost in the deck by dealing some cards from the top of the deck and turning them face up, saying "Your card is nowhere near the top of the deck. None of these is your card, is it?" I then further "prove" to the spectator that his card is lost in the deck by dealing a roughly equal number of cards from the bottom of the deck and saying "Likewise, your card is nowhere near the bottom of the deck. None of these is your card, is it?"

When I'm done with this handling, the spectator's card is on top of the deck, but the spectator thinks it's lost in the middle.

I am now ready to perform miracles.

(The way I revealed the card a few days ago was to have the spectator cut and deal the cards, and use the "magician's choice" or "equivoque" so that the spectator ends up making a series of "free" choices that result in him choosing his own card. Techniques for the "magician's choice" are beyond the scope of this thread; suffice it to say that there is a bit of psychology involved, and the people for whom I performed had NO IDEA that this technique was in play. This method of revealing a chosen card is one of many. There are literally an infinite number of ways of revealing the spectator's card once it has been controlled to the top of the deck.)

Yes, a pass would have been faster and more "professional." But I can't do a pass well. If I'd tried to hide it, I would have called attention to it. This substitute required no particular skill beyond a simple use of verbal misdirection, led to the same result and was just as baffling to all of the spectators.

[Bob Klase]

I'm not sure if there's actually a question of suggested topic for discussion in there (although I do think several paragraphs of your post at least border on exposure for no apparant reason). But I will say:

Yes, a pass would have been faster and more "professional." But I can't do a pass well. If I'd tried to hide it, I would have called attention to it. This substitute required no particular skill beyond a simple use of verbal misdirection, led to the same result and was just as baffling to all of the spectators.

No, a pass is not necessarily faster than other methods, and there's nothing inherently more "professional" (or faster) about using a pass versus a side steal, Kelly Bottom placement, or any of the dozens of other methods around. It's more important to do one that: a) you can do well and b) fits the circumstances and the trick.

A pass is one of the most difficult card sleights and I'm jealous whenever I see someone who's spent the time learning to do it well (although if you see someone do it exceptionally well, even you won't know for sure it was done). But there are a very few card tricks that require a pass.

In almost 50 years of doing magic, I've never learned to do a pass and the only time I've ever missed it was when I was around other magicians showing each other how good their pass was. Even then, when it reached the point where I had more experience and knowledge than most of the ones around, I'd wait till they all showed their pass (which wasn't magic and wasn't fooling anyone), then fool the crap out of them with a almost-self working trick.

IMO, the best use for a good pass is to impress other magicians with how good your pass is.

If you want to spend the time and learn to do a pass well, that's fine. You can do it just for the satisfaction of doing it, or you can do it because you know it'll impress other magicians you meet. But if you do it because you think it will make you more professional then you're fooling yourself.

Jamie is one of a few magicians that does an almost indetectable pass. Several years ago he did a guest spot (I think on Penn & Teller's series) and he did a trick which used the pass several times with the camera burning his hands. I had some non-magician friends over watching, and as good as Jamie's pass is, by the time he'd done it 4 or 5 times most of them realized he was cutting the cards. They were impressed with his skill, but it was no longer magic. That's not to put down Jamie, but if he can't get away with it then most of us have no chance anyway.

On the other hand, if you've ever seen Tom Mullica (at the TomFoolery), he does a very simple control numerous times and it works great even though that's partly because he's very entertaining and people are too busy laughing to worry about the method.

[Brown]

If you want to spend the time and learn to do a pass well, that's fine. You can do it just for the satisfaction of doing it, or you can do it because you know it'll impress other magicians you meet. But if you do it because you think it will make you more professional then you're fooling yourself.You are quite right in that a pass is not absolutely essential to most card tricks. I was quite surprised to learn that some magic teachers don't even bother to teach the pass, because it is so difficult to do. They prefer to use other moves, such as the double cut, to achieve the same result. A few teach who do teach using the pass typically teach moves that are far from being undetectable, and which must be done fast to be effective.

But even some of these other techniques--double cuts, slips, steals, false shuffles--are sleights that require quite a bit of skill. One can get "caught" doing "the dirty work" if the sleight is not performed well. Also, these moves require the performer to keep track of the card in question, otherwise it might truly be lost in the deck.

Performers seem to have their own favorite ways of controlling a card to the top of the deck, using one or more moves. You can watch some of them and you can know what happened just by what they just did: "Okay, he did a double cut followed by a false shuffle followed by a false cut. The chosen card is almost certainly on top of the deck. Ho hum." Some performers use the same sequence of moves over and over again, and even lay people catch on after a few times.

The "pass substitute," by contrast, involves no moves... except one that is totally FAKE. It turns the pass on its head. In a real pass (or other card control), the spectator sees that the performer did SOMETHING, and he did. The pass substitute takes advantage of this spectator reaction by making the spectator think that the performer did SOMETHING when in fact the performer did NOTHING. And it has another advantage. It's so "low-tech" that few performers use it (for heaven's sake, the only one I've ever seen doing it was me), so the spectators have never seen anything like it, and consequently they don't know what to look for!
It's more important to do one that: a) you can do well and b) fits the circumstances and the trick.This is the take-home message. To these, I'd add: c) you can sometimes achieve the same results as advanced sleights without actual sleights, and d) sometimes the simplest techniques are just as good as the fancy ones the pros use.

[Peter S.]

You should see the pass I use!! I do the completely obsolete "Herman Pass". It flashes all over the place; there's no way to hide it, and yet, I never get caught; not in 30 years!. As Erdnase said, (I think it was Erdnase), "If you can't improve the method, improve the moment". I do it on an off beat, when no one is expecting anything. I learned where those moments are through trial and error over many years so now it's like second nature to me. Of course, if people really insist on burning my hands I'll just do a double cut or the Le Paul invisible turn over pass.
BTW, if we ever get the chance to meet I could teach you the zarrow false shuffle in 5 minutes!

[Stir]

Nor can I perform false shuffles or smooth double cuts that operate the same as a pass. Or to be more accurate, if I were to perform one of these moves, I would almost certainly be "caught."

I truly doubt you would be caught if your moves are well coordinated with your management of where, when and how the audience pays attention.

I once had a conversation with a beginning magician in which he made the extraordinary claim that a one card push-off to catch a little finger break (as a get ready for a double lift) could not be performed without being seen ... even though his other hand was holding a card and showing it to the audience, and even though he could do his push-off with about a tenth of an inch movement of his thumb while his hand was down at his side ... he argued that the movement could be seen. I tried (without success) to convince him that it wasn't necessary to be undectable, just to be undetected ... and if he didn't recognize the difference, perhaps he should study juggling rather than magic.

In fact, you can do these moves (and the pass, and palming, and more) by improving your skill at attention management (often inadequately and misleadingly called 'misdirection') Peter S. has it exactly right ... do it when or where they're not paying attention (or paying attention to another aspect of what they're perceiving), even if that requires you to actively manage their attention. Attention management is at least as much fun to learn as sleights!

[Cain]

I believe I posted a video of my pass on these boards (recorded sometime ago):
http://media.putfile.com/my-pass The camera angle is not a traditional sight line so I had to so some leaning.

I speculate that the pass has been elevated to mythological status for a few reasons: 1) It's supposed to be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to execute a "perfect" pass. Therefore it possesses allure of attempting to capture a unicorn. 2) The pass literature is rich and varied. There are umpteen different covers for a shift. 3) Magicians seem to have a self-maximizing mentality (directly follows from 2); they want what's "best". You could have been doing something that is decent and wonderful for many years, but when there's a hint that another method or effect is rumored to be slightly better, you invest a great deal of time and energy into discovering it. (This contrasts with what Herbert Simon called "satisficing".) 4) The pass is, let's be honest, a powerful control. 5) Positive feedback (1, 2, 3, 4 leads to a cascading effect; they invigorate interest).

Frankly, while I think it is an over-rated control, for some effects there is no better substitute to the pass. Especially if you use a stack (I'm flirting with Aronson), an invisible control (such as the pass) has advantages over a side steal (say). Also, one does not need to be able to do a perfect burnable pass at all times. Most of the time people are not staring at my hands when it comes. Just treat the pass like the top change and use social misdirection.

Brown- What trick were doing?

Stir writes:
I once had a conversation with a beginning magician in which he made the extraordinary claim that a one card push-off to catch a little finger break (as a get ready for a double lift) could not be performed without being seen.

While this get ready does work in the real world, I've seen so many videos of it that it drives me nuts. Learn to pinky count! It's superior technique.

P.S. Mike Ammar has an essay on his website (I think) about the pass. He doesn't use it at all (prefering the side steal). Over at the Magic Cafe he claimed there are "superior technologies." Daryl doesn't do the pass either, but I think his reason is just that he's more comfortable doing other sleights.

P.P.S. I love me the bluff pass.

[Brown]

...Of course, if people really insist on burning my hands I'll just do a double cut or the Le Paul invisible turn over pass....

I am guessing, but is this the same "Invisible Turn-Over Pass" described in "Expert Card Technique" by Jean Hugard and Frederick Braue (Dover ed. 1974, pp. 37-39)? The description of the technique reads as easily as a tax regulation:Place the right hand over the deck, the middle phalange of the first finger resting on the end of the left corner, the ball of the thumb resting on the inner edge of the left corner. Press the flat ball of the left thumb against the side of the right first finger at the left outer corner. The outer right corner rests at the root of the right third finger, the right wrist being dropped to bring the palm of the hand on the same level as the top of the pack.There is, of course, more to that description. I tried wading through the instructions, following every detail, then compared the position of my hands to the Fig. 1 on the following page. The hands in Fig. 1 were depicted from the spectator's point of view, so I had to turn the drawing upside down to see whether I had gotten the position right.

Shoot, I wasn't even close.

This is not to criticise the content of the book or its description. But it does illustrate that teaching this move with words and a couple of drawings is not the best way to go. Video would be so much better.

Basically, by slogging my way through the instructions, I was able to get a flavor of what the move was supposed to look like. The move seems a bit awkward to me. I would really like to see what it is supposed to look like when someone actually performs it well.
...BTW, if we ever get the chance to meet I could teach you the zarrow false shuffle in 5 minutes!Actuallly, I have two videos that demonstrate the Zarrow shuffle (as part of "Two-Shuffles Harry"). One of the videos features Harry Lorayne (who with Brother John Hammond originated the effect) and the other features Michael Ammar. Ammar's explanation/depiction the better of the two, and I also think he performs the move better.

I haven't bothered to practice the Zarrow shuffle because I'm not that fond of "Two-Shuffles Harry"; but I imagine that the move is applicable to a variety of other tricks. I would certainly enjoy meeting with you and learning the Zarrow shuffle, along with some tips for making some of the basic moves more "reliable" for me (e.g., a double-lift with less risk of flashing, or a jog shuffle with less risk of losing the break).

[Brown]

Brown- What trick were doing?The trick I was doing was described in a 1950s-era book that I borrowed from my local library. Sorry, but I don't know the book, or the author, or the name of the trick.

The trick has the flavor of some of the tricks in "Scarne on Cards," in that it achieves a pretty good effect using simple moves instead of sleights. And yet, it is NOT in "Scarne on Cards," and that's a pity, because it would be nice instructive trick. It would show a simple way to control a card to the top of the deck, and it would also be a good illustration of Equivoque. (Some of the tricks in Scarne's book use Equivoque, and the description of the technique is abominable.)

Anyway, the basic theme of my trick is that the spectator makes a series of choices. "Cut the pack in half. Point to whichever half you like...." That type of thing. At the beginning of the trick, the choices are all free choices. Later in the trick, however, when Equivoque kicks in, the choices aren't free at all, but the spectator NEVER notices this.

In any event, a series of choices leads to selection of a card, which is then lost in the deck. Then another series of choices leads to the spectator having fewer and fewer cards, until he is left with his own selected card. The trick isn't flashy, but I've found it has a strong psychological impact. More than one spectator has walked away wondering whether he has mysterious powers, as his own free choices caused him to pick exactly the same card twice.

My own personal contribution to this trick I one that I have never seen taught or used in performance. Basically, it involves a simple use of a gesture and the tone of my voice (and where appropriate, a joke). Curiously, I have seen professional magicians in performance where I honestly felt that, had they used my "tone of voice" enhancement, the trick would be a lot less awkward!

[Josh Redstone]

As a beginner when it compes to magic, I'm kind of weirded out by the high regard some people place on this move. Sure, it takes a lot of skill and I can't do it that well, but aren't there easier ways to pull off a similar effect? Yup =) So I try to use those. Stuff like what brown mentioned....sometimes I use (what I think is called) the tip-over change (again, not sure of the right name).

Eventually I'm sure I'll be able to pull off a great pass, but in the mean time, I'm happy to make things simple for myself :)

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Regarding the pass, I'm on the same page as Peter S. The only one I use consistently is a turnover pass or a variation. My classic pass stinks because I never practice it.

Lately I've been working on Aaron Shields Dribble Block Pass. Kostya Kimlat showed it to us at ECSS and it looks great, is very efficient and not too difficult to learn.

As for a pass substitute I highly recommend Lee Asher's Losing Control. The handling feels a little awkward but is very deceptive. It's really not even a "move" at all. When you first learn how it's done, you can't believe it works but it flies past everyone.

I'm also reading the Gary Plants handling for the Zarrow Shuffle.

[Bob Klase]

As a beginner when it compes to magic, I'm kind of weirded out by the high regard some people place on this move. Sure, it takes a lot of skill and I can't do it that well, but aren't there easier ways to pull off a similar effect?

Actually the pass is not an "effect". If done well, it's about as far as you can get from an effect. In magic, the effect refers to what (you hope) the spectators perceive. The 'effect' of making a handkerchief vanish only happens if the spectators don't know what you really did with the handkerchief.

It's not even a trick. It a move, or a sleight, or perhaps a method.

But you're right, there are very few tricks that absolutely require a classic pass and nothing else will work. There are perhaps more where the pass might be the best method to use.

I've never learned to do a classic pass well enough to use, and never will. When I want to do a trick that requires a pass, and there's no other way to do it, I'll just pick one of the other 8 or 10 million card tricks available.

[Josh Redstone]

I should've clarified that. When I say effect, I mean someting like an Ambitious Card Routine, etc., which like I said, I try to do using simpler methods....I'll learn the pass when I have time =D

[Bob Klase]

I should've clarified that. When I say effect, I mean someting like an Ambitious Card Routine, etc., which like I said, I try to do using simpler methods....I'll learn the pass when I have time =D

The Ambitious Card is a good example. Even if we limit it to published routines (and there are dozens), very few of the sequences published require a pass. Those segments that do require a pass can easily be done with a different sleight or just left out.

[MagicFan]

Harry Lorayne recommends an overhand shuffle which permits card control without the pass. I agree with him that a move in which the spectator SUSPECTS that something happened is almost as bad as the spec knowing EXACTLY what happened.

[firecoins]

Harry Lorayne recommends an overhand shuffle which permits card control without the pass. I agree with him that a move in which the spectator SUSPECTS that something happened is almost as bad as the spec knowing EXACTLY what happened.

The only time a pass is worth doing is when you can do it well enough the audience member don't suspect anything. If your doing the pass and audience suspects your doing something...your doing it wrong.

As for the ambitious card, I have seen people who know how to do an invisible pass. There is no better sequence that putting in a selected card face up in the deck and it "appears" on top of the deck. Derrick Dingle was best at this. Simon Lovell does it pretty well too.

[Bob Klase]

The only time a pass is worth doing is when you can do it well enough the audience member don't suspect anything.

Are there any sleights or moves where that's not true?

If your doing the pass and audience suspects your doing something...your doing it wrong.

Or you could be doing it right but at the wrong time (although that would really still count as doing it wrong).

[Cain]

Harry Lorayne recommends an overhand shuffle which permits card control without the pass. I agree with him that a move in which the spectator SUSPECTS that something happened is almost as bad as the spec knowing EXACTLY what happened.

Harry Lorayne might be an egomanical a-hole, but he often has a point. Again, controls are effect-specific. Sometimes you can't shuffle or cut the cards precisely because manipulation allows a spectator to explain how you controlled the card. Worse, their explanation would be correct. I know somebody criticized it on this board earlier elsewhere, but the Hindu Shuffle Control is an excellent substitute as the selection is very fairly buried into the deck.

[Bob Klase]

Harry Lorayne.... I agree with him that a move in which the spectator SUSPECTS that something happened is almost as bad as the spec knowing EXACTLY what happened.

Harry Lorayne might be an egomanical a-hole, but he often has a point.

Particularily when the point was made by Erdnase 50-60 years earlier.

[firecoins]

I didn't realize that point was attributed to anyone. I thought it was obvious that if the audience suspects deceit, even if they don't know how, that your trick wasn't effective.

[Cain]

Well, I didn't mean to suggest the observation was by any means original. Lorayne simply espouses the received wisdom more often than not. This is apart from his history of passing off the work of others as his own.

[Bob Klase]

I didn't realize that point was attributed to anyone. I thought it was obvious that if the audience suspects deceit, even if they don't know how, that your trick wasn't effective.

Most audiences know you're not doing 'real' magic, therefore they know there's deceit involved. It's not a matter of that. It's whether there's a point where they can think "he just did something"- maybe they don't know exactly what you did, but if they even suspect that you did something then they have an explanation.

And Erdnase writing was directed more to gambling- if you're trying to cheat at cards and they even suspect you did something, you've been caught.

[firecoins]

Most audiences know you're not doing 'real' magic, therefore they know there's deceit involved. It's not a matter of that. It's whether there's a point where they can think "he just did something"- maybe they don't know exactly what you did, but if they even suspect that you did something then they have an explanation.
.
I realize that most people know your not doing something real. Your point is the same as mine.