What do you think of the handling of equivoque in this performance of B'Wave?



For the record, I'm not the performer, but just stumbled across the video clip online, where it's credited as a performance from the Queensland Society of Magicians. There's two things interesting about it:

1. The spectator isn't just given the option of choosing red or black, but also one of each (one red and one black), and that's what ends up happening in this performance. Interesting to see how that is handled, and I'm curious to hear what others think about that.

2. Being performed for magicians, it also boldly mentions that it can't be using magician's force, at precisely the point it's happening. Clever ... or not?

I use a magicians choice in my "Do as You want" routine, however I can perform it for magicians and tell them I do not use a magicians choice. It fools the magicians because it is so fair, however the desired outcome changes the rest of the routine based on what they choose. It is an interesting concept.

Also, he interrupts this fact by mentioning it so you forget which card he is holding "face-up" in the deck...

Yes, not only does he interrupt what he's doing to make you forget what card he is holding face-up, but I just noticed that in this particular performance, he actually CHANGES what card is face up. I'm not sure if it is deliberate, or if he just made a mistake somewhere in his earlier handling.

Here's what happens: The spectator is holding a red king and black king (her choice). She gives him the black king (her choice). Later, when asked whether she wants it face up or face down, she tells him to put it face up (her choice). Note that the revealed king in the end will be red - oops. But after his little off-topic lecture on magician's choice, he says at 3:15 "by your choice one red king is face up". Did he just mess up? Surely that's a risky move, because you just need one alert spectator to point that out. Admittedly he describes the card vaguely as "it" rather than the black king, and maybe that's deliberate, to confuse the spectator about what card is being turned face up. Either that or something went wrong with this performance.

This isn't at all how good equivoque should work, should it? Or would he be counting on confusing people with his words and with his excursus about magician's choice, and hope that people would forget which card is which? That to me doesn't seem at all like a very fool-proof handling of the equivoque. Having said that, I do admire the attempt to give the spectator the option of picking both a red and black card initially, to increase the apparent choice at the outset.

At one point he asks her to hold one up and asks her what color it is. She says Red and he says "ok hand me the other". I think this is where he adds an equivoke because if she had held up black he would have said "ok hand me that one".

I'm just not sure why he followed this by saying he could return the black card face up or face down. I don't see how he could equivoke out of that one and as pointed out, he didn't. He succeeded by just pushing on and hoping they didn't notice and it worked. To be honest I didn't notice either.

But what was his real plan? I'd be curious to know if he goofed or if he just figured out that no one would notice at that point. His patter takes a lot of diversions which is annoying to me but his audience didn't seem to mind and I'd say they were pretty blown away at the end.

I was surprised by all the gasps at the end, considering that it was an audience of magicians. But you're right, they were obviously blown away, even though he seems to have muddied up part of the routine.

Like you, I'm curious if that was a mistake that was successfully covered up by the murky patter, or if it was the plan all along. I didn't catch the blooper/switch myself until I listened to it very carefully a third time, and logically followed everything through.

The size of the cards kind of threw me off at first but then I started to get it.

It's a good idea. I might have had problems following it, though.

Hey everyone,
I just found this thread, so I apologise for my late response.
Firstly....
Guilty as charged. I messed up the patter where I mistakenly put the black king in the packet face up. The correct patter should have been that I will put her "Dominant colour" red king face up. I deviated from my usual script by adding the ad lib about giving her the choice of face up/face down.
No excuses, except that I hate working for magicians. (The only thing I hate more is working for magician's wives.
I have asked the magic club to remove the video, but they haven't done so. I don't think it shows me in a professional way.
So this handling/patter achieves a few things for me.
1. It removes all possible methods from the spectator's mind before they can make any objection. From an audience perspective, the only way B'wave could be done is (a.) Setting it up with the spectator prior to the show, or (b.) modifying my behaviour according to their choices. The OP is correct "I boldly mention that it can't be using magician's force, at precisely the point it's happening." I don't know if it is clever, but it gives me a nice little glow in my sub-cockle region, especially when I perform for magicians. LOL The third and minor objection is that the cards must be tricked somehow. I rarely hear this now because of the very casual way I handle the cards.
2. In Australia we often get a recalcitrant participant who will not choose simply black or red as per the original routine. They insist on having one of each. This presentation of Jumbo B'wave is my answer to that problem, with the inspiration coming from a young magician that I was mentoring. I sold him the packet version of B'wave after performing it for him. As soon as he got home my phone rang, and he opened the conversation with "Dave, I have a question about B'wave". My heart sank as I anticipated the inevitable "I can't make it work", and my reply is usually "Have you read the instructions?" I had such high hopes for this kid. He totally floored me with the question he actually asked "What happens if they pick one of each?" So not only had he digested the instructions, he was thinking about "what if" scenarios for the presentation in the real world. Yaaayyy! My faith is restored! So then I had no choice.... I agonised over it till I created this solution.
By giving them the options of "red, black, or one of each" right from the start they can't mess up the routine, and I remain in control. It seems natural to me that I should give them all three options anyway. Why would I only offer them two out of three possibilities?
Equivoque still works with three options. If they choose red or black I follow the original patter. If they choose one of each, then I play the next question to find their "dominant colour", and proceed with the original presentation from there.
3. I have printed my own set of cards with 3 blank faces and are larger than the marketed version so that they are more visible on stage.

I have tried to not disclose too much here as per secrecy protocols. I have some more in depth thoughts on equivoque for the deeper thinkers out there. Please PM me if you want to go down that rabbit hole. Or come to my lecture if I am in a city near you.