The Illusion of Transparency: Understanding How Duplicitous Magic Works

Magic has long fascinated and captivated people across cultures and throughout history. It has been seen as both a source of marvel and a tool of deception. The concept of a duplicitous magic refers to the ability of magic to deceive and create illusions. In many magic tricks, the magician seeks to create an illusion of impossibility. They perform tricks that seem defy the laws of nature, leaving the audience bewildered and amazed. The art of misdirection is a crucial component of duplicitous magic.

I am a huge fan of Twisted Sisters. It was one of the first things I ever learned and I still perform it today. This is a very similar effect performed in a very different way and I love it. You could even borrow a red deck and blue deck from somebody and do this effect with their cards (with some prep of course). I can't wait to perform this.

Flashback cost means You may cast this card from your graveyard by paying cost rather than paying its mana cost and If the flashback cost was paid, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack. Yet what Duplicity brings together is a culmination of stuff you may have seen before, though done in a way that pushes seemingly all choice on the spectator.

The art of misdirection is a crucial component of duplicitous magic. Magicians divert the attention of the audience away from the mechanisms and techniques they use to perform the trick, creating an illusion that the impossible is happening before their eyes. Duplicitous magic is not limited to stage performances.

A duplicitous magic

It is completely examinable?!

Twisted Sisters is one of John Bannon’s most popular packet tricks. In Duplicity John applies that same clever thinking and three punch reveal only now it is completely examinable.

Here’s what happens:

A packet of four red cards and a packet of four blue cards are introduced to the audience. Your spectator is asked to imagine that each of those packets contain the aces while the cards are shown to be face down. When they are asked to think of just one of the aces it is shown to be face up in the packet. Not only is it face up, but it is also the only ace that is from the other packet of cards. It is shown to have swapped with the ace the performer was thinking of. The final kicker is that neither of the aces could have been secretly switched for any other because all the remaining cards are blank.

John Bannon teaches all the moves that you will need to do this simple but hard-hitting effect. This is Duplicity.

Totally clean ending. You could leave everything with them. At no point is there a ditch or clean-up. Very, very clever structure.

Great thinking by Bannon. Been my favorite version of this type of effect for years when it comes to casual performances for friends, etc.

Duplicity is awesome, I think I prefer it over Twisted Sisters (another classic).

It's been around for a while, here is another thread with more reviews and praise.

I had it a while ago, but sold it. I can't remember why I didn't like it. Was it because the entire method is equivoque? I love B'wave, never went for Twisted Sisters. B'wave combines a gaff and equivoque and is brilliant. And no one ever wants to examine the cards, so the fact that Duplicity uses no gaffs is irrelevant to me.

Incidentally, I'm not an anti-Bannon person. He has many great effects.

So is the entire method equivoque?

There's only equivoque needed for the very first stage. Similiar to how you would start B'Wave. You can see it done here at 0.54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P97q-0wSmzM

Whilst its clever Twisted Sisters is so much cleaner. Surprised so many think Duplicity is better than TS.

Hey, Chamberlain, thanks for that. I guess the appeal of Duplicity is that the cards can be examined. Bannon likes to come up with tricks that are what he call "fractal," i.e. all cards at the end are examinable (where he came up with the term "fractal" I don't know, but I'm sure there is a story there). I don't have anything against this, but it seems in this case to be a matter of the old "running when you are not being chased." In the clip from Vanishing, Inc., above, the spectators show no interest in examining the cards until the magician shoves the cards before them and tells them they can examine them.

I think in trying to come up with a version of TS that is fractal, the cleanness and simplicity of TS is lost and nothing correspondingly is gained.

My only concern with this routine, or a lot of others where the cards are in the spectator's hands, is the chance of mishandling them and thus exposing part of the trick. Not as strong, but much safer, would be leaving the cards on the table until that time for exposure.

Chamberlain and Ray, I think what is gained is that the trick happens in the spectator's hands. Makes for a much more powerful ending. To me, the trade-off is a non-issue because the eq**** is so minimal.

Payner44, like any effect that involves spectator interaction, you just have to choose your spectators wisely and be explicitly clear in your directions. I've never had an issue with a spectator prematurely spreading, though. Mostly because they have no reason to spread the cards until you tell them to.

Cameron, I should have been more specific. My concern is with the spectator being distracted and then handling the cards in a sloppy fashion. With this trick, if the cards were new, and thus slippery, it could unintentionally ruin things.

On Jan 31, 2020, Cameron Francis wrote:
Chamberlain and Ray, I think what is gained is that the trick happens in the spectator's hands. Makes for a much more powerful ending.

All tricks in the spectator's hands aren't necessarily ootw. For some tricks, it is a gamechanger. Not so sure on this one.

"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "

On Jan 31, 2020, Cameron Francis wrote:
Chamberlain and Ray, I think what is gained is that the trick happens in the spectator's hands. Makes for a much more powerful ending.

All tricks in the spectator's hands aren't necessarily ootw. For some tricks, it is a gamechanger. Not so sure on this one.

Yes, because nothing happens in their hands. They just spread the cards, and it is as it is.

But, hey, who am I to argue with Cameron Francis? Anyway, the trick I prefer is B'wave and not Twisted Sisters, so my opinion as to which is better, Duplicity or Twisted Sisters, is moot.

Actually I get them to do a lot more in their own hands and I love that there are no “funny” cards at the end. I get them to take the aces out of two decks themselves at the start (it’s so easy to switch packets of four cards!) and they perceive that they’ve chosen and held the four aces the whole time. That way I don’t need to do the EC (not a huge fan of that) and in facts it’s stronger if I don’t. In small groups the ability to leave the cards on the table and have people handle them at the end is actually important to me so this is by far my favourite of the three effects mentioned, for my own style. Switching packets before the trick has even started is much cleaner for my style than switching out at the end. As with anything, it’s strongest if you adapt it to what works for you.

The effect is what is important, and it is what will impress a spectator and will be what they remember.

If I hand a spectator a joker (face down, of course), and while they are holding it, it changes into their selected card, they will remember it as, "I was holding the joker in my own hands and it changed into my card."

In the case of Duplicity, the effect is, "I named one of the aces, and it was the only ace that was face down and was the only one that had a different colored back, and the three other cards were blank." (This is where Twisted Sisters gets confusing for me, because I can't remember why there are two packets.) The fact that they are holding the cards is incidental.

Having them remove the aces from the deck at the beginning of the trick is meaningless. It's an attempt to prove to them that the cards are not gaffed, when why in the world would they think the cards were gaffed to begin with? And having to switch packets adds another complication.

I myself would not leave cards on the table for people to handle either. Why the need to prove they are not gaffed?

Well, of course, it's all a matter of what works best for each person. But I still say of the two, Duplicity or Twisted Sisters, Twisted Sisters is the cleanest and better version of this trick.

OK, after posting the above, I realized that the way you do it is that you hand them a packet of four face-down cards and the card they name turns face up. So they remember the trick as, "I was holding the cards and the card I named turned face up, and etc." This is strong, but lot would depend on how you switch the packets, how clean it is. In my opinion, this just adds a further, unneeded complication the effect.

Well my favorite trick of this ilk is Braniac by Bannon and Montier. Like 5 moments of magic and they will look at the cards which are in there hands and clean at the end of the trick. There are a few special count displays but well worth it.

On Feb 1, 2020, Ray Haining wrote:
OK, after posting the above, I realized that the way you do it is that you hand them a packet of four face-down cards and the card they name turns face up. So they remember the trick as, "I was holding the cards and the card I named turned face up, and etc." This is strong, but lot would depend on how you switch the packets, how clean it is. In my opinion, this just adds a further, unneeded complication the effect.

Yeah I wasn’t suggesting it was an improvement, just explaining why this trick works better in my particular situation. In my set I do a number of tricks with a regular blue deck and a regular red deck and the spectators are very hands on with everything as part of that. So it flows easily and makes much more sense for them to help me take the aces out for the next trick rather than to openly bring in a new packet of cards. And then for them to be active and hands on with the cards after the trick is natural. Just my specific situation.

"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "

It also extends to the realm of street magic, where magicians often perform tricks in a spontaneous and informal setting. These magicians rely on their ability to engage and interact with the audience while simultaneously manipulating their perception to create a sense of wonder and astonishment. The techniques used in duplicitous magic are often kept secret by magicians. They guard their methods closely to preserve the mystery and intrigue associated with their performances. However, some well-known techniques include sleight of hand, where the magician manipulates objects in a swift and subtle manner, and optical illusions, which exploit the limitations of human perception. Despite the element of deception inherent in duplicitous magic, it continues to captivate and entertain audiences worldwide. The enchantment and awe that magic invokes serves as a reminder of the power of human imagination and the potential to challenge the limits of what we perceive as reality. In a world filled with uncertainty, magic provides an escape and an opportunity for us to suspend our belief and embrace the unknown. In conclusion, duplicitous magic is an art form that thrives on deception and illusion. It encompasses a wide range of tricks and techniques that aim to create a sense of wonder and mystery. By manipulating our perception and challenging our understanding of reality, magicians take us on a journey into the extraordinary. Whether on stage or on the street, the magic continues to captivate and inspire us, reminding us of the power of imagination and the beauty of the unknown..

Reviews for "Beyond Misdirection: The Artistry and Skill of Duplicitous Magic"

1. John - 2 stars - I was highly disappointed by "A duplicitous magic". The plot was convoluted and confusing, making it difficult to follow the story. The characters were flat and lacked depth, making it hard to connect with any of them. The pacing was slow and dragged on, with little action or excitement. Overall, it felt like a tedious read that was not worth the time.

2. Sarah - 1 star - I found "A duplicitous magic" to be extremely predictable and unoriginal. It seemed like a generic fantasy novel with no unique elements or fresh ideas. The writing was lackluster, lacking any sort of compelling prose or vivid descriptions. The story was filled with cliches and tropes, making it feel like I had read the same plot a hundred times before. I was highly disappointed and would not recommend this book to anyone.

3. Tom - 2 stars - I had high hopes for "A duplicitous magic", but unfortunately, it fell flat for me. The world-building was lacking, leaving me with more questions than answers. The magic system was poorly explained and inconsistent throughout the book. The dialogue between characters was stilted and unnatural, making it hard to believe or invest in their interactions. Overall, it felt like the author had a great concept but failed to execute it properly.

4. Emily - 2.5 stars - While "A duplicitous magic" had some interesting moments, I felt that it lacked originality and depth. The plot was predictable, with no real surprises or twists. The characters felt one-dimensional and lacked development, making it difficult to care about their fates. The pacing was inconsistent, with slow sections that dragged on, followed by rushed action scenes. Overall, it was an average read that failed to fully captivate me.

The Performance of Truth: Investigating the Authenticity of Duplicitous Magic