Hello,

I was wondering if anyone could provide a detailed review of Barrie Richardson's Impromptu CAAN - the one availbale as a separate purchase (its not included in his books).

What is the effect as the audience sees it?

How does it compare to the Daniel Garcia version, which is rumored to be similar? Which is cleaner? How does this effect go over with the audience?

Thanks very much!

One big difference between the Garcia version and the Richardson marketed version: there are NO SLEIGHTS in the Richardson version. He does describe it using one very well covered sleight, but he also describes doing it without the sleight. The misdirection is so tremendous that the sleightless "move" is completely unnoticed.

Richardson's version does use a sleight. Actually, two, IIRC. The first is a fairly standard sleight. The second is also pretty standard -- but slightly more complex -- but because you're telling the spectator to do something very, very specific -- you're able to do the second sleight invisibly.

After the sleights, the effect then boils down to you counting the cards one by one, placing them face up or face down (I think Richardson suggests face down -- but it doesn't matter), and then BINGO -- turning over the spec's card at the spec's number.

Very powerful, very effective, and completely 100% impromptu.

It seems that dealing face down is best. This gives a good reason to stop the dealing process momentarily i.e. in order to show the faces of the cards to be sure the "thought of" card hasn't been dealt yet.

Mike

Bill Goodman has a version very much like Richardson's called "Boomerang"

There seem to be some differences in description or of opinion here, regarding Richardson's effect. I wonder if this is because he has published a variety of methods for this effect. One comment in this thread makes me think the poster (Mike Powers) is referring to the method from 'Theater of the Mind' and not the individually-marketed version that Barrie now has out.

I, too, would really like to know more about this impromptu version, most specifically how the process looks to the audience:

Do they have a completely free choice of card?
Do they have a completely free choice of number?
Does the performer handle the deck before they choose these things, or while they choose them?
Can the spectator deal the cards?

What I love about Barrie's version in 'Theater of the Mind' is that there is so little handling, which I think is important for such a simple plot. You just take the cards out of the box and deal them very fairly, with just one move that I have found to be 'psychologically invisible' to spectators.

The method described in "Theater of the Mind" is still my favorite of all his methods as the spectator can say any (o.k. almost) card. In the impromptu version (which is very strong I've to commit) there is a physical part as the spectator has to take the card he is merely thinking of. That's a huge difference even when you can cover up it by your presentation.

Mr. Powers could be speaking about either the effect in TOTM or the individually sold impromptu version, as both employ the same method to accomplish part of the effect. I would call this effect "Impromptu selected and replaced card found at almost any number." To answer the above questions,

Yes, the spectator has a completely free choice of card, but must select the card from the deck and replace it in the deck. He does not simply name any card. The choice of number is free within a certain, fairly wide range. Mr. Richardson has a good method of insuring that the number chosen is within this range. In the routine provided by Mr. Richardson, the performer must handle the cards for the card to be replaced in the deck and at the time the number is chosen. No, the spectator cannot deal the cards.

Here is how the effect will appear to your spectator: magician takes a shuffled deck and has the spectator select and remove one. Magician riffles the cards until the spectator says to stop, at which point the magician breaks the cards and allows the spectator to replace the selected card. The magician riffle shuffles the deck once or twice to lose the card. The magician now asks the spectator to imagine a ribbon with all numbers from 1-52 engraved on it. The magician moves his hand down the imaginary ribbon and tells the spectator to stop him at any point. When the spectator says "stop," the magician asks what number the spectator had him stop at. Let's assume the number is "34."

The magician begins to deal down cards, counting as he goes. At one point, he stops and flips the cards to make sure he has not passed the selection. He then continues on. Eventually, he reaches the card at position 34. He deals this on the table and allows the spectator to turn it over. It is found to be the selected card.

Hope that answers your questions.

Thanks lumberjohn for that detailed reply. It doesn't sound bad and I might get it at some point, but it definitely falls short of the kind of conditions I really seek in an 'Any Card, Any Number' effect.

Again, thanks for the info.

I think the best version of ACAAN is Richardson's in Act II. The magician never even touches the deck. What more could you ask for. And I mean never.

Could you give a short description of the effect in "Act II"?

I perform this effect in my stage show. It plays great for a big audience. I learned it from a cdrom I purchased from Barry at a lecture he did for the British Magical society. The cd rom is called 7 modest miracles you can do. I think that's the title.

Here's how the spectator would remember it. A card and a number are named. A deck of cards in its case is shown. The magician does not remove the deck from the case at all. A spectator is told to count to the number and at that number is the named card.

This is how the spectators remember it. The handling of the effect is obviously more involved then the brief description of the effect. However, that is all method. This is exactly what the spectator will remember after performing the effect, if presented properly.

Thanks.

I use his commercial, purchased Impromptu Card at any Number frequently. I've made some slight modifications so there are NO sleights involved. It is truly impromptu and I often do it with a borrowed deck. It literally kills. It gets one of the best reactions possible.

Lumberjohn pretty much has it right. But no one's emphasized how EASY it is. The routines from TOTM are great, but his Impromptu Card at Any Number is downright easy. (Since I'm new to magic, this is important!) The two sleights are on the easy scale, and the misdirection is built into the presentation. Richardson was in Chicago earlier this month and he performed the routine, so I was able to see it routine in action. Even knowing how it works, it was quite impressive. The routine works beautifully. The most difficult thing about it is that presentation is critical (true of all of Richardson's excellent material, really). If you're a weak performer, forget this.

True, a weakness is that the thought of card is taken from the deck and returned. Another weakness is that you don't end with the cards 'clean' (although clean up is not difficult). But considering the positives of the Impromptu Card at Any Number, I'd call this a must buy for card workers.

Please don't underestimate the power of a mirage deck (swengali with R/S)...

I used to do the usual CAAN with it. Then I changed the presentation a little bit. Now I do it like this:

As usual a "free" card is chosen from a spread deck, whose faces have been shown.

The card is placed back (in its position),and the deck is placed openly in the table. Now the spectator is asked to think of a number between 5 and 50. He is asked to think of the number in his mind and not to let anybody know what he number is. The magician pauses, takes the deck in his hand. Pauses again, looks deep into the spectator's eyes. He then cuts the deck. Pauses. Cuts the deck one more time. He proceeds to shake his head, as if he agrees to himself and smiles.

Now the magician explains that he is going to start dealing the cards one by one, and when he reaches the spectator's number, the spectator is to shout "STOP". The magician starts dealing cards one by one. (Make sure to pause on the hot card as it is dealt.)

The rest is presentation. When he says stop, move the hot card towards front. Spread the dealt cards face up casually, and place it back on the deck, and put the deck aside.

The difference here is that the number is not said aloud, and this creates an extra layer of suspence and disbelief to the already great effect.

Hope you enjoyed the presentation...
And hope only a small number of Café members read this, and that only even small number performs this...

-Harish

Good idea, but how would you spread the cards face up? First, in your presentation, a "hot card" would be on the face of the deck and would be the first one they see. Second, casually spreading them on the table would not allow for the r/s principle to apply and the spectator would see numerous hot cards. Third, if you were able to apply r/s, such as by picking the dealt cards up and fanning them (which seems unnatural to me and would counter the idea of a "casual" spread), it would appear to the spectator that there were many fewer cards than you supposedly dealt. If their number was 40, for instance, it would be apparent that there were nowhere near 40 cards spread. Just wondering how you address these points.

Hi,
Are you saying you are NOT able to answer the questions you asked? Come on, its not that hard.

-HJ

You might try something simple, like taking a "cold card" and using it to scoop up the cards on the table.


I'm fairly sure that if you actually try it you'll find a way to solve that.


Would it fair to say that you would never do Brainwave or Invisible Deck because it's apparent that you're not really showing 52 cards?