Credits and Inspiration

Early in 2012 I had the good fortune to meet up with a Mentalist

by the name of Pete Turner. During our time together he
demonstrated an impressive spectator as mindreader routine in
which he taught the audience how to identify which card
another spectator was merely thinking of.

Having not tipped the full method to me at that time I decided to

come up with my own variation which could be performed on the
spot with any card from a borrowed deck.

The result of my endeavours have until recently only been

shared with a select few. The feedback I received was very
positive and all indictations were that this was a rather new
“principle” within the realms of mentalism with cards.

Further investigation highlighted two notable performers who

have independently developed similar ideas.

The first is Andrew Gerard who will be releasing his thoughts on

his up and coming DVD project which will be released under the
title “Secrets”. I've also been informed that Phil Smiff has an
excellent effect in his first book titled "Mitox" which shares
some similar thinking.

After sharing my thoughts with Rus Andrews he developed a

great handling which he has now released under the title
“Also Known As”. Those interested in this plot would do well to
pick this up too!

The springboard principle relies on knowing which card a

spectator has selected from a borrowed shuffled deck. This
information may be harvested via a peek, glimpse or perhaps
even forced during the initial selection process. I’m assuiming
everyone will have there own preference for achieving the
above. If not I’d reccomend looking up “Le’Homme Maske” force
which was made popular by the one and only David Blaine.
Providing you have done a good enough job with the above the
spectator will be under the impression that no one could know
which card they are thinking of. This is the key to making this
whole thing work.

Now that the business side of things is done and dusted let's get
to the good stuff…

You are now going to inform the spectator that you have a card
in mind (You never think of a card). You are going to ask them
attempt to read your mind and guess the card that you are
thinking of. Now here is the sneaky part as they think about
which card you may be thinking of they are going to non verbaly
tell you which card they believe that you are thinking of!
Let's examine this process in depth using an example to help
clarify what's going on…

Let's assume that you have glimpsed the spectators card and
you know that they are thinking of the “Three of Hearts”.

Place the deck back in your pocket as it is no longer needed.

You are going to say the following - “You now have a card in
mind and so do I. How would you feel ifyou were to be
able to read my mind and were able to know the exact card
I am thinking of right now?" Allow the spectator to answer.

“Let me explain how the mind reading process works.

Firstly it requires a target which in this case is MY card.

Secondly it requires a springboard or idea to work from in

order to determine what my card could be, that’s where
YOUR card comes in.”

“Think about the colour ofyour card...do you believe that the
card I am thinking of is the same colour as yours?” The
spectators “Yes” or “No” answer will tell you which colour they
believe YOU are thinking of.
In our example the spectator is thinking of the “Three of Hearts”
so “Yes” will indicate that they believe your card to be Red and
conversley a “No” will indicate that they believe your card is a
Black card.

So now we have a colour for our card, lets see how we get our
suit…

Should they spectator believe that YOUR card IS the same

colour as theirs then you will ask “Do you believe that my card
is the same suit as yours?” The “Yes” or “No” answer to this
question will tell you which suit they think YOU have in mind.
Pretty cool eh?

Using our example card a "Yes" would indicate that they think
your card is a Heart and a "No" would indicate that they think
your card is a diamond.

If the spectator replies with a "No" to the "same colour" question

then I will follow up by saying “So you now believe you know
the colour ofmy card.
Please think of the first suit that pops into your mind of that colour”.

In this case I would think of the dominant black suit which is the Spades.

Note: Should the spectators original card have been a black card
I would then think of the dominant red suit which is a Heart.
Trust me this will work out 99% of the time.

We will discuss the other 1% a little later.

So now we have a colour and a suit for our imaginary thought of

card lets look at how to get the value.

“I’d like you to put the suit ofmy card to one side for now”.
As I say this I touch a point in the air above their head (Trust
me when I say that this really does help the spectator in
remembering).
"Now I'd like you to think of the value of YOUR card. Do you
believe that the value of MY card is a couple higher or a
couple lower than the card YOU are thinking of?”.

As I make this statement I imagine an invisible ladder between

me and the spectator and tap two of the invisible rungs as I say
the word couple. This will subtly emphasise that by couple I
mean “Two”.

The answer to this question then gives me a value. Using our

example of the “Three of Hearts” an answer of “Higher” will
make me think of the value “Five” and and answer of “Lower”
will give me a value of “One/Ace”.

I will now conclude by reframing the process as follows:

“I’d like you now to attach the value you are thinking of now
to the suit that you placed to one side in your mind a little
earlier. Here I point to the spot above their head where we
placed the imagined suit a moment earlier.

"Have you done that?” Allow the spectator to confirm. “So

using your own internal logic you have pieced together a
single card from fifty two possibilities, and at no point have
you mentioned any colours, values or suits, is this true?”

The spectator will confirm because this is true!

You will now know with almost 99% accuracy which card the
spectator believes you are thinking of.

That in a nutshell is the “Springboard” principle!

Before we go into the routines I just want to cover some ground

on how to reveal this information and how to cover/avoid near
misses in those rare instances where you're not bang on!

Firstly we can use what I have labeled “The Close Call

Protection”. In this instance the deck is taken out of play the
second you know the spectators card. As a side note this looks
beautiful for those who miss the point in which the deck was in
play. I have had several colleagues join a performance after the
spectator has selected a card from the deck. In this situation,
they believe they have seen something that took place entirely
in the spectators' mind. You are now at the point in which you
are pretty certain that the spectator is thinking of card “X”.

You will now say the following “I’m about to name the card
that I have been thinking 01“, now please don ’t be
disheartened ifyou don’t get it bang on. These things take
years ofpractice. To get the right colour is considered a
partial success, to get the right suit is fantastic, but to get
even close to the value is a sign of true potential. Only you
will knowjust how close you were”.

I then name "MY" card and let the spectators reaction speak
volumes to the rest of the audience! Even a close call (off by
one) will still evoke a strong reaction from most spectators.

Lets now consider what I label as "The Life Raft” supposing you
were to name the card and the spectator does not react in any
way, what do you do then?

The answer is simple you follow up by saying “Don’t worry, as I

mentioned these things do take years ofpractice. Let me
showyou what you can do with years ofhard work and
dedication. Think about your card for a moment...” You can
now close the routine by naming THEIR thought of card! This
is still a strong conclusion to the routine!

Now that you know the what and the how, lets take a look at
some of the different ways this priciple can be applied…

The Knowing
The Effect: You teach a spectator how to successfully read a
thought!
This is the basic routine which started it all off and has in
essence already been explained in the description of the
"Springboard Principle".
In essence you offer to teach a spectator how the mind reading
process works. You have them shuffle a deck of cards and allow
them to select any card from the pack. Have the card returned
to the deck and control it to the top using "your favourite
method".

State that you no longer require the cards and place them back
into the box glimpsing the top card as you do so. Essentially
you’re going to drop the entire deck into the box with their faces
towards you. The pads of the fingers will cause a slight friction
on the top card which will prevent it from dropping into the box.
This friction is only held long enough to note the cards identity
before pushing it home. You have natural cover for this action
as you begin to close the card case.

Now that you know the identity of the spectators card you will
place the deck back into your pocket. You will now deliver the
exact patter from the "Springboard Principle" explanation as
you apparently teach the spectator how to read a mind.

This process will cue you the name of a card. This card being
the one they believe YOU are thinking of.

Close the routine by saying the following “I’m about to name

the card that I have been thinking of, now please don’t be
disheartened ifyou don’t get it bang on. These things take
years ofpractice. To get the right colour is considered a
partial success, to get the right suit is fantastic, but to get
even close to the value is a sign of true potential. Only you
Will knowjust how close you were.”

All that remains to do is name the card and receive your

reaction!

Note: If you get an amazing reaction please do NOT feel tempted

to top this by revealing the identity of the spectators original
card. This would be counter intuitive!

The Killer
Effect: A single card is handed sight unseen to a spectator.
Amazingly the spectator is able to discern its identity!

This is my version of Kenton Kneppers "Kolossal Killer" effect.

Although this uses a pack of playing cards they are only in play
for the briefest of moments. Those of you who are familiar with
Kentons effect will appreciate the similarity.

You begin by handing the spectator a single card SIGHT

UNSEEN from a deck of cards. Request that the spectator places
this card into their pocket throughout the demonstration that
you're about to perform.

The card you give them must be the Jack of Hearts. State that
your spectator is going to try and work out this cards identity
using a systematic mind reading process.

You will now ask them to select a card from the deck during
which you will force the King of Spades upon them. One of the
simplest ways of doing this is via a rife force however any force
would suffice for our needs.

If your force card has been removed from the deck by the
spectator request that they place it back into the pack before
placing them into your pocket. Your hard work is now done!
State the following "You have in your possession a single
playing card, the only thing we can be sure of at this moment
in time is that it couldn't be the card that you're presently
thinking of, I'm sure that makes sense to you!“
"Believe it or not I’m about to teach you how to identify the
hidden card based upon the card in your mind. Firstly I'd
like you to think about the colour of the card that's in your
mind. The only clue I'm going to give you is that the card in
your pocket is a different colour to the card your thinking of
now.“

You have now successfully forced them to think of a red card!

"So now you will have a new colour in mind. Please call aloud
the first suit that pops into your mind of the opposite colour. "

Here we are relying on the spectator opting for the dominant

suit which is a heart! This works out almost every time. Just
think of how effective the psychological force of the Queen of
Hearts is to understand how effective this is. We will cover how
to handle the near miss at the end.

If the spectator takes the bait and goes for the heart then I
respond as follows -"Ah, so you have decided that the card in
your pocket is a red card in the suit of Hearts! Is there any
reason you didn't go for the diamonds instead ?" Allow the
spectator time to respond.

Note: This questioning emphasises the apparent free choice(s)

that they have had in deciding which colour and suit to go for
and really is a beautiful moment which won't allow for any back
tracking.

You are now on the home run and are going to use a rather
devious technique to force the Jack upon the spectator. To do
this we ask the following "I’d like you now to think about the
value ofyour card and I then want you to decide in your
mind wether the card in your pocket could be a couple of
cards higher or a couple of cards lower in value than the one
your presently thinking of“

I tap the two invisible ladder rungs as I say this.

Since we originally forced a king upon spectator they are forced
to go a couple lower giving them the jack we need! Clever eh?

Whereas some magicians would consider the order of cards to be

cyclical, it is extremely unlikely that a layperson will be able to
"go higher" than a king, and thus, are forced to go lower.

"Now that you have decided this you will have a new value in
mind please tell me what this is". The spectator should
respond with the jack.

Assuming all has gone well you will now reframe the events
which have transpired. "I handed you a single playing card
instructingyou to place it in your pocket. You then made
several decisions in your mind resulting in a free choice of
colour, suit and value. This information was then pieced
together to create the name of a single playing card, in this
case "The Jack of Hearts". Please show everybody the card
which you hold."

The spectator will then look at the card giving you the reaction
you deserve!

Should the spectator miss on the card this miss will be very
marginal for obvious reasons. The resulting cards will likely be
the Jack of Diamonds or the Ten of Hearts, both are close
enough for the audience to appreciate just how close the
spectator got.

Note: Please remember that sometimes a near miss is stronger

than a hit!

Remember YOU are never wrong, it is just a case of how close

the spectator is. Though I don't personally see a need for this,
you could use Kenton's wording from his original effect to cover
any of the other options.
If you wish to repeat this effect with a different card you may
wish to force the Two of Hearts and place the Four of Spades in
the spectators pocket. Suits of course are interchangeable.
Duplopia
Effect: The performer and spectator each think of a card within
the pack. The mentalist removes his thought of card placing it
onto the table. Amazingly the spectator is able to reveal its
identity. Not to be out done the mentalist then reveals the name
of the spectators thought of card.

The following is a variant on Paul Vigil's beautiful “Diplopia”

effect which can be performed with an incomplete deck. The
methodology behind the Springboard technique is perfectly
suited to the context of this routine.

This effect offers some unique advantages over the other

routines that use the springboard technique. Firstly your
thought of card is committed to the table from the off. Secondly
the spectator has a genuine free choice of which card to think of.

Actually both of the above are not strictly true however they do
accurately describe how this whole routine will be remembered.

You will begin by handing a deck of cards to the spectator for

shuffling. State that you are both going to think of a random
card from within the deck. Taking the cards back you will now
perform any peek technique that affords you knowledge of the
spectators card.

For those who don't have a preferred method to achieve this I

will offer you the following technique:

Hold the deck at eye level with the faces of the cards towards
the spectator. Turn your head away and then place your
first finger on the upper index corner of the face card. Slowly
pull backwards with this finger allowing each of the cards to
ick off the fingertip in turn. Request that the spectator call out
stop at any point they desire.
Once the spectator has called out stop you will ask that they
remember the card at that position. Once they have committed
this card to memory you will lower the deck allowing an extra
card (the spectators selection) to flick off the fingertip. You will
now hold a little finger break above this card as you square the
pack. Double cut this card to the top of the deck and then hand
the pack to the spectator. Only when you have done this do you
turn to face the spectator.

Request that they spread through the cards with the faces
towards you so that you can also think of one. As they do this
you will note the top card of the deck.

This will be the spectators selection.

You now request that the spectator shuffle the deck.

You now state that the spectator must attempt to read your
mind and identify the card that you are thinking of. State that
to help them you will remove it from the pack so that you can
focus more clearly in sending its suit and value to them.

What you will actually do is remove the spectators card and

place it face down onto the table in front of you.

You will now teach them how to identify this? card using the
springboard technique (based on their thought of card). Once
they have a card in mind (which they believe is the one resting
on the table). You will then ask them to think back to their card.

Note: N0 cards have been named yet.

You now state that you have an idea which card they are
thinking of. Spread through the deck and find a card which is
one or two higher than THEIR thought of card. State that you
are a little unsure and that you will show them this card but
they are to remain silent.
Show this card to them and then state that you were close but
now feel that you know which card they are thinking of. You will
now scan through the deck and remove the card they believe
YOU are thinking of.

Note: This beautiful convincer gambit is credited to Simon

Aronson.

You can now ask them which card they believe you were
thinking of (pointing to the card on the table). They should
name the card which is in your hand. You now ask them which
card they were thinking of gesturing towards the card in your
hand. They will then name the card on the table.

You now have two options. You can either drop the card you
hold onto the card on the table before ipping both face up. Or
you can perform a “Mexican Turnover” of the tabled card
revealing that the spectator was correct and then casually flip
the card in your hand revealing that you also successfully read
their mind.

As a side note I personally feel that the reveal of their card is

justified in this routine since your card was apparently
committed in advance.

Invisible Deck Application

Colin McLeod made the great suggestion of combining the
"Invisible Deck" with my "Knowing" routine.

In essence rather than just naming your thought of card at the

end of the routine you begin by handing the "Invisible Deck" to
the spectator stating that you have a card reversed in the deck.

You can then proceed with the same routine however rather
than naming YOUR thought of card aloud you will simply reveal
it using the "Invisible Deck".
This adds a nice element of prior commitment to your supposed
thought of card!

Watch this
I knew there were other non card based applications of this
principle and my first step on this journey was a reworking or
rather extension of Bev Bergerons watch technique which was
popularised by Richard Osterlind.

Bev Bergeron used his beautiful technique to force a time on a

spectator with a borrowed wrist watch. In this effect we will use
this technique as a basis for the spectator to springboard from.
Since this original technique is not mine to reveal I would
suggest picking up a copy of Richard Osterlinds Mind Mysteries
DVD which details this work.

So let's assume that you have used Bev Bergerons technique to

force the time 1 :21. Ask the spectator to look at the time they
have set on the watch. State that you are also thinking of a time.

State that the chances of the spectator randomly setting their

watch to your thought of time is approximately one in seven
hundred and twenty. There are sixty minutes in an hour, twelve
hours in a day thus totalling seven hundred and twenty
different permutations in any twelve hour period.

In other words the chances of this happening are very remote.

State that you can however teach the spectator how to

successfully read a mind. State that to keep things simple you
are thinking of a straight forward time.
Request that the spectator think of their time and think of where
the minute hand rests on the watch. Ask them to imagine in their mind
that they are very slowly turning this dial forward in time
stopping it at the nearest quarter past half past or quarter to as
the case may be. This will force them to think of half past the
hour.

Once they have done this they are to let you know. You will ask
that they keep this hand where it is and now concentrate on the
hour hand. State that they are to think whether the time you
are thinking of could be a couple of hours before or a couple of
hours after the time that they are thinking of. Once they
answer this will give you the hour that they believe you are
thinking of. This would be either eleven or three. If you're bold
I would (given the example above) have take a good punt on the
three without needing to ask whether they went for a couple
higher or lower.

You can now state that they have a time in mind based entirely
upon their own actions and decisions, a time which they believe
that YOU are presently thinking of. You can now name the time
that you were apparently thinking of. Receiving your reaction.

Here is another idea for those not wishing to use the minute
gambit. You can simply use the couple higher or lower on the
hour and for the minutes leave them to guess what this may be.
You will now state that you will commit your thought of time to
your watch and you simplyjust set the hour and will fake
pushing in the crown. You can then ask them to name the
minutes past the hour that they believe you are thinking of.

Upon hearing this and whist holding onto your watch strap you
can now secretly roll the crown with your finger and thumb to
set the minutes. Once this is done you can then smile placing
the watch on the table (pushing in the crown) and then ask for
the hour leaving them to turn your watch over to check!
As a side note to make the minutes easier in the latter handling
of the watch routine you can state that the only help you will
give them is that its so many minutes after the time they are
thinking of. In our example of 1 :2l we would only be left with
about thirty minutes to scroll through!
Note: For those of you who are fans of swami gimmicks you can
use this tool to apparently commit to your thought of time from
the very beginning!