I've been struggling with a question regarding the theory behind Jumping Gemini, which is found in "At The Card Table" by Darwin Ortiz. Would appreciate it if anyone can offer some help. Thanks!

For those who are familiar with this routine, you will know that the first phase is basically an "ambitious" effect with just four cards, where the Two of Hearts is made to jump to the top of the packet repeatedly.

However, Ortiz mentions that the idea behind the first phase is to give the impression that all the four cards in the packet are the same (ie. Two of Hearts).

Herein lies the confusion (at least in my mind). The idea behind an "ambitious" effect is to show that one unique card repeatedly jumps to the top, and yet it contradicts the idea of giving the impression that all the four cards in the packet are the same.

What gives?

Hmmm incorrect....

Its INDIRECT purpose is to give the impression that they are all the same cards.

The spectators are driven down that path, but they are thinking that they thought it up, not you.

It would be the same as doing an un-signed ACR, and then revealing the rest of the deck was blank except their card.

Even though the effect is that one card is coming to the top, many spectators would come to the reasonable conclusion that they are all the same card, which is where the kicker really gets them.


So you should present it in a way that focuses on the idea that a single card is magically rising to the top, but make sure that the spectators at the end might suspect that they are all the same card. It makes the next two changes all that more powerful if they think they know the identity of more than one card.


The flow behind MY version of the Jumping Gemini is this:

A card magically rises to the top until they can't take it anymore. They might suspect that they are all the same card, so I show them that they are all jokers.

Now if they thought it was one card rising to the top, then this change throws them for a loop because all four have changed and also they switched from the beginning of the routine.

If they however believe that perhaps I was using more than one card (something that the first phase is indirectly proposing), then the 4 card change REALLY gets them because they thought they knew what the four cards were, but the appearence of the joker completly floors them.

This is a case of leading the audience down the garden path... It would be similar to doing a routine where they think you are using a TT only to show your hands completly empty.

Even though you don't point out a TT, your handling up to the kicker somewhat suggest that you have something to hide, when in fact you don't.

EDIT:
It should be said however, that the laying of the psychological trap is really nice, but I personally don't ever get the spectators to believe that.

I think that Jumping Gemini is one of the strongest tricks I could do for a person, and when I do it I make sure that they know that a single card is rising to the top, and unless they are very cynical or part time magicians who might suspect dupes, I always try to convey that it is a single card and steer clear of the dupe possibility.

I really feel this routine is one of the best card tricks ever.... It offers many opertunities to change the pace of the effect.

I start out slow and go faster and faster to a climax with the last card jumping up to your hand... Then I slow it down giving them a chance to breathe and see that all four cards aren't what they thought, and then almost as a finish cleanly show that all four cards turned out to be different, and as I finish there is one comment that just throws them for a loop that ties the whole routine together and gets them to applaud....

I really like this trick, because controlling tension and release, and just controlling spectators is such a thrill, and I probably do that better with this routine than any that do.

I'm not 100% sure but think this trick started with Bruce Cervon playing with an ambitious packet trick plot which inspired JG. It made it around the various circles and soon everyone came out with their own version. His version is called A Matter of Psychology in his Ultra Cervon book.

Personally, I think you should ignore JG and look at Dingle's Too Many Cards since it was another of the tricks that came out of that inspiration but has an inherently humorous presentation. Also, check out Aaron Fisher's The Omen in The Paper Engine since it also is, in my humble opinion, superior to JG for its entertaining presentation.

Now that I've sounded like an old geezer and tried to point you to what I feel are superior versions of similar effects, I will try to answer your question. I messed with this trick many years ago when At the Card table first came out. Unfortunately, I can't remember it very well and I don't have access to the book right now but I'll try to answer based on my foggy memory. I think he follows up the first phase with a show that all 4 cards are the same? I seem to remember a flushtration count happening in the routine. So the idea is you set them up before you go into it so they are more ready to believe a somewhat questionable show. When you do the show it just affirms what they already believe so it slips by them.

If I'm wrong about that, and I could be since I've messed with a number of routines like this, then maybe you are trying to arouse suspicion so that they will think they have you figured out. When people come up with a solution they stop looking. Then, when you disprove that solution by showing them other cards it's too late for them to backtrack.

This trick came fairly early in Darwin's career and I think it doesn't have the same hallmark of excellence that can be attributed to the routines he has published since his publication of Strong Magic. I believe that this routine felt like a series of effects sort of strung together to see how much magic could be done with the small packet of cards without real rhyme or reason to the individual effects.

I hope this information helps you figure out how you will handle the specatator's reaction to the trick. Will you try to convince them that the card magically travels to the top or raise suspicion that all cards are the same which would mean that the jump to the top is just a trick?

Dave

Thanks for the detailed replies guys. I finally understand the idea behind performing Jumping Gemini much better now. You guys have been really helpful!

Jumping Gemini - This is my second favorite packet effect and I have found it to be one of the most powerful tricks for a lay audience.

Sk8rDave is correct when he wrote that this effect came early in Darwin's career (it appeared in his second set of lecture notes back in 1979). According to the comments, the inspiration and starting point for this effect was from Chesbro and West's routine "Jumping Jack Rabbit Card" from their booklet "Tricks You Can Count On."

I believe that JG was meant to be an opening effect. It's a perfect way to elevate your status in regards to skill and to give the audience a taste of strong magical impact.

I agree with MacGuyver - JG is one of the strongest effects I have ever performed for a lay audience. Once you hit them with the final climax (4 Kings), they are absolutely speechless.

I use David Regal's Cheating instead of JG. I find that Regal's version has a better story and flows better. Just my 2 cents.

One more question for those who regularly use the Jumping Gemini effect: If you use a borrowed deck, do you think that the magical effect would be somewhat diminished, because of the fact that the spectator is certain that there cannot possibly be any duplicate cards? (ie. there is only one Two of Hearts in the first phase, etc.)

Bob Kohler has a nice version of this in his lecture notes, "Kardz." As for the borrowed deck question, personally I would just do a different trick. You lose part of the surprise at the end because they know there can't possibly be a duplicate card or cards because they came from their deck! Just my opinion, though.

I don't understand the comparison between the Cervon/Jenning's plot and Jumping Gemini. A more reasonable comparison, and in the eyes of some a better effect, would be Bro. Hamman's Pinochle Trick.
The only real similarity between the plot now known as Ambitious Classic or Too Many Cards and Jumping Gemini is the initial Ambitious Card sequence. After that first phase the effects go in two very different directions. Both, however, are fine effects.

I stand corrected about the origins of the trick. I didn't have my copy of At the Card table handy when I wrote my response and it was based on what I remember of the trick from when I played with it. I think I blurred the memory of JG with another Darwin packet routine based on the Cervon effect.

Ammar explains the effect really well on his Easy to Master Card Miracles from L&L Publishing. Might be worth checking into.

Karl,
I perform Thumping Gemini instead instead of its Jumping brother. I think it is a lot better than the original. As well as being in Bob's Lecture notes, if you have a PAL video player you can get a lecture he did when in England for the International Magic Convention. You can order the video at http://www.internationalmagic.com
This is by far my favourite packet trick,
Owen

I do a version from Gregory Wilson called the Four Card trick, where the four cards start as all fours, but then they switch to all tens and finally they become the four kings. The Kings are placed into the pack and then they disappear and then reappear in the magicians four pockets. Find it on Double Take.

I also perform Gregory Wilson's version of GJ but don't do the ending where the kings end up in the pockets. My version relates to the three card monte and how I've adapted it for entertainmnet only and call it the four card trick. It's a real fooler and really establishes you as someone who knows his cards.

JG came just after the wave from Dariwn's first lecture. It is easier to get into than his wildcard, and in some ways registers about the same to lay audiences.
.

If you use a borrowed dech the effect is not diminished but heightend, because the use of duplicates is ruled out from the very beginning. You can still say "I know, what you're thinking. There must be 4 identical cards. But obviously this is impossible. It's your deck. But if you like to see how it would look like, if I use 4 cards all the same, no problem, I'm a magician, it would look something like this..."