talkmagic.co.uk

Out of interest, which pass are you guys talking about?

I appreciate everyones help. After studying the Born to Perform DVD a little while, I corrected a couple problems. First, it's much easier to dribble to catch a break for me, I find it substantially less obvious. Also, removing every finger but my ring finger and thumb on my right hand as to easily replace the cards helps a whole lot. It's looking much more naturally already.

Thanks to all who suggested the Pass, but with all due respect that's ridiculous in my situation. I've done my reading and I'm well aware of the right way to go about learning card magic. I'm not about to start attempting difficult moves just because they look cooler.

Sorry if what I am about to say seems a little pompous...

But, after just reading this topic from top to tail, I can't believe that so many people have responded with diverse alternatives, but nobody has actually discussed or addressed the specific issue: making the double undercut appear natural...

Firstly, I am unaware of a situation where I would exchange a double undercut for a classic pass. For me, the two perform totally different tasks... the pass is NOT meant to be apparent, and is an invisible sleight. However, the DUC is a somewhat flamboyant utility sleight which is MEANT to be seen, and looks like a simple cut.

Now... in terms of how the DUC can be made to look more natural, I have just performed it about 10 times in succession, at varying speeds.

Three main points are obvious:
1. Catching a break, for me, is rather natural. I have no problem with breaks, transfers, switches. However, I think that if you're not comfortable with holding a 'secret' break, then this is the first point to address.
A move which I use quite often which is used when I perform a selction/return via a dribble...
Firstly, start dribbling the cards. Stop about halfway through the deck, get the selection replaced on top of the lower packet. Before dribbling the rest of the cards down, use your pinky to top-glide the top card (selection) and injog it. Dribble the remaining cards biasing their fall towards the front of the top card, leaving the selection sticking out perhaps 1/4 to 1/2 an inch at the back (nearest your body).
When you finish dribbling, bring the empty hand down so the thumb comes to the inner end of the deck, where the injogged card is, and your fingers come to the opposite side.

In a simultaneous action, as your thumb comes down toward the injog, the thumb contacts the edge of the card, and as the thumb and fingers are about to make a 'squaring the deck' action, you push the injogged (selection) DOWNWARDS as you push it into the deck. This creates a natural break with the thumb, which can be easily transferred to the pinky.

2. Transferring the break and making the first cut is also an unnatural procedure. That is, until you break down the actual move. What is *appearing* to happen is that you are simply cutting the deck, and placing the lower half on top of the top half.
So, to achieve this in a natural way, and if you WEREN'T doing it as part of the DUC, you would simply cut the deck and complete the cut, right?
Also, in a genuine cut, there's absolutely no reason to look at the deck or concentrate... and you must mimic this nonchalant motion when doing a DUC.

3. Tabling the second cut is something I find far more convincing. I see many magicians attempting to make both cuts look the same. However, if immediately after the first cut you re-cut (at the break) and table the TOP half, you are then free to literally throw the 2nd half down on top in a very casual and carefree manner. 2 cuts, controlled.

I find the DUC to table, without looking at the cards, to be a most effective solution to many effects needing a control. Not only does it take focus off your hands (as with the tabling of the second cut) but it also takes the deck OUT of your hands, meaning suspicions of further sleights are also gone—two birds, one stone.

Of course, it's the first cut which usually looks the weirdest, so I find the most natural way into it is to keep the cards in dealer grip, with pinky break, for as long as possible, and on an offbeat, transfer the break as you take the cards from above, and perform the first cut instantly.

I then waste no time at all in making the second cut and tabling the deck.

As an added bonus, it's also possible at this point to show both your hands empty.

Seige, a fair point on the focus of the discussion. Like I said, I was grumpy yesterday, much better today though.

I agree with your assessment of the DUC ( ), but I do think alot of this has to do with style. On a previous thread regarding DUC, I recall stating that I didn't like it as a sleight and rarely used it. Since then I have changed my style of performance, and it has become a real workhorse for me.

For me its an in motion action, and is carried out not so much under misdirection but as a matter of course, if that makes sense. However, if I'm doing tabled work I will tend to pass as it provides the view of nothing having happened to the deck, I usually Le Paul Spread Pass as the deck is tabled. So outwardly you go from replacement to square to table in a very short time with no additional movements. From our point of view we tend to see this as optimal, but as I think Seige is suggesting, injecting a DUC here is by no means a distracting, or in anyway odd from the spectators point of view.

To be honest, I've never thought of DUCing to the table, so that should keep me busy tonight. Thanks seige.

Oh, and since you brought it up, let me take the opportunity to repeat, that yes the pass is indeed meant to be invisible ..... unless your Brad Christian.