talkmagic.co.uk

I really hate the D/L. This isn’t because - though I picked up the pass instantly, effortlessly and, I have to say, pretty darn well, after seeing a single glimpse of the cards moving that way in a magician’s hands - I find it rather difficult. (In fact, scratch the ‘me’: I think is is difficult. It always irks me when some magician explaining a trick says, ‘Now, simply do a D/L...’) It also isn’t because, as is frequently said, it’s a vastly over-used sleight. It’s because it’s innately bad. It’s a sleight that, at the very least, even in the best hands, always looks odd (i.e. ‘suspicious’). As someone who knows about magic, there are all sorts of sleights that, in the hands of a true expert, will still get past you: yet you will always say, ‘He did a D/L there.’ Because a D/L always looks like one. Much more importantly, I recall watching TV magicians as a small child - four or five years old - and even then (though I didn’t know what they were doing) I would think, ‘He’s doing something fishy Right There,’ when they did a D/L. And I think it was Harry Lorayne who said that, if people see you’ve done something, even if they don’t see exactly what, they you haven’t really fooled them.

Hand a complete lay person a deck of cards and tell them to look at the top one. If the movement of your D/L doesn’t exactly match that - and I’ve never seen one that does - then it looks suspicious. Lay people can (more easily) accept weird/rapid shuffles (that may contain sleights) because it’s unfamiliar territory for them, so they have no benchmark for what’s odd-looking or not. Everyone, even the youngest child, will have looked at the top card of a deck. Often. They are perfectly, instinctively, aware of what’s natural, and natural the D/L never is.

What’s more, once you see that ‘something’ is odd (and you’re older than five), it doesn’t take long to figure out what it is where the D/L is concerned.

The other sleight I’d like to bark at is the double undercut. As that four-year-old child, that also signalled to me that something was happening. I’d never seen anyone except a magician do a double undercut. Decades later, I still haven’t. Many magicians compound the problem by doing it tremendously quickly too, which just makes it look even more fishy. And, though there are many tricks that absolutely require a D/L, I can’t think of anything that needs a double undercut - the same result can be achieved in lots of ways. So, there’s no reason not to show it the door completely.

Anyway, back to the D/L. Basically, for discussion, I’m proposing the idea that the D/L - rather than being seen as a classic, standard, essential workhorse - be regarded as a reluctant last resort. That, though it’s sometimes a necessary evil if a really great trick is to be done, it’s seen the same way as, ‘Now, I will just put the cards behind my back for a moment...’

What does everyone else think?

I agree that d/ls don't look entirely natural, but I disagree that they're not (or rather shouldn't be) an important move. The way to judge if you've fooled an audience is by their reaction, I reckon that card transpositions based on d/ls (ie. red hot mama) get the best reactions of any card tricks for me. If you're conscious of the way you perform any move it'll appear a bit unnatural, the's true of everything in life not just magic. Imagine how funny we'd all look if everyone decided to really think about how they were walking for a day for example.

There's too much discussion and confusion over the apparently vast array of doubles out there in my opinion, I don't know of anyone that does it exactly the same way as anyone else. The way you do a d/l is your magician's fingerprint if you like. The best thing to do is to practice lots of different ways of turning over two cards as one until you find a way that's as natural as you can make it and go with it. Without the d/l I wouldn't be able to do several of my favourite card effects so I won't be giving it up any time soon.[/i]

Gotta agree with most of the above, but Doc Easons D/L is for me the most natural and non D/L looking D/L I have seen. If I can get half as good as that I'll be happy

I must say that I agree with Sexton when he says that the DL is something that is immediately identifiable by magicians, and something that always arouses interest within spectators. I believe that if you talked to performing magicians and asked them where they had been catched out, the most common experience would be a spectator telling them 'you took *personal edit* there'.

However, I do not believe that this should be a reason to disregard the move, as I think it is very important, and in the right hands can be effectively utilised. An obvious example is an ambitious card routine. The DL is used throughout, however it is the variety of ways in which the card is lost, the presentation and the flow of the trick that makes it a move which continuously fools laypeople.

Also, I believe that an important technique that helps the move to be as covert as possible is conditioning. Like bronz said - the way in which a magician performs a DL is a little like a fingerprint - it is idiosyncratic to the performer, and if one performs a single card lift (or more often turnover - a point which I don't think has been picked up on so far in this thread) in the same manner in which one performs a D (or T...) then this helps immensely in disguising the move. I personally take this to heart when I perform and now it is natural for me to turn over a single card in the same manner I do during a D.

I believe the same is true for the D (/T) undercut, in fact more so, due to the wide variety of ways which there are out there to cut the cards. I personally often use a number of swing cuts and swivel cuts when I am casually cutting the deck, and it is this conditioning to my own personal style which helps to disguise the move which is taking place.

I do agree with Sexton as well on the fact that there are a number of ways to work around moves within magic, it is not always necessary to use particular means for particular ends - it should be the means that the performer feels are best suited and most efficient, deceptive and comfortable for the situation. I personally rarely ever use a pass, and would much rather carry out a shift, and this is my own personal preference. I am sure there are people out there who would be the opposite.

hmmmmmmm...
i must say. i got caught out on a d.l TODAY. i was jst finishing up my trick and at the very end i use a d.l, then this lad who had jst walked over, obv a card wizz or has dabbled in the area said, that was a DL. i replied "no it wasn't so shut up and f**k off before i snap ya gigs " he did clear away but still.

however, if you handle every single card as a doouble for the rest of your entire card performances, most people wont catch on. i've learnt that. a mean magicians will still probably know, or will they? because you handle the top card the same ALL the time. they wont know what to think.

I'm not a fan of the d.u.c and don't use it

i must agree tho the d.l doesn't look that natural, but its down to you to alter it to your preference and making it as "normal" as possible.

Thats why they created misdirection. And i have made a dl that looks natural, since there are no breaks needed, or lifts, or get ready. But thats beside the point, dont call attention to your hands when doing it, practice in a mirror, always lift the cards the same way, whether its 1 card, 2 cards or 5 cards. stay constant, no problem.

Glad there's a lively debate about this. Just to emphasise, I'm not talking about my less that brilliant D/L, I'm talking about D/Ls generally. I do make sure I turn over all cards in the same way as I'll do a D/L, to help inure specs to the movement, and I make it as naturally and casually as possible, but it's still something so fundamentally dodgy that I'm looking to demote it. Jay Sankey introduces (the actually not nearly as good as some of his other tricks) Paperclipped by saying, 'If my life literally depended on fooling someone very, very badly...' Well, if my life literally depended on not being caught out doing a sleight (even if I'd done it perfectly) then I really wouldn't opt for a D/L. Every lay person on earth knows about palming - if they know nothing else at all, they know about palming. However, I'd much prefer to have my life rest on getting a palm past them than a D/L. Or a pass. Or even the most basic false cut. Before I remotely start to consider that a D/L is the safer option, life saving-wise, we're into, say, the top change area.

I think part of the reason it occupies the place in magic that it does is its utility, not its deceptiveness. Without the D/L you have to lose so many beloved tricks. This is true. And I love the Chicago Opener, I really do (don't much like the ACR, though - I think it's puzzling, but not that engaging, for onlookers). However, there are many great tricks that you can't do unless you're wearing an old-style jacket: good as they are, the oddness of my wearing an old-style jacket weighs too heavily against them.

As for misdirection, the place of the D/L mostly works against this. You can do many other sleights while the spec's attention is being thrown elsewhere, but a D/L often involves you drawing attention to the move with, 'So, we see the Ace is here...' or some such. Also, you might do, say, a pass completely out of sight and it doesn't matter; it'd ring bells if you did a D/L like that - the top card isn't turned over then, when they look again you've done it without their watching.

if you time the misdirection right, there will be no problem. If its the lift you hate, then misdirect them just on the lift then bring them back on the turn over. I love the dl, and use it all the time.

I beg Sexton to reconsider his antipathy to the DL. I feel for him for once I hated and detested the move because I couldn't bloody well do it. I always got caught. I was trying to do the awful one in the Royal Road. I also tried one from Expert Card Technique which was as difficult as hell.

Coincidentally I also learned the pass instantly. It took me all of 10 minutes but the damned DL eluded me for about two years. Sometimes I would get away with it and sometimes I wouldn't.

But then I discovered the answer by studying the Dai Vernon lift in the Ganson book. Overnight my problem was solved. I don't think I have ever been detected in this sleight for at least 40 years. The funny thing is that now I have mastered quite a few other double lifts all of which are deceptive but the one I use the most is the Vernon one.

Part of the problem is that it is an overused sleight and there is such a thing as DL indigestion. However if it is used reasonably sparingly it can be one of the most powerful moves you can use.

I suspect Sexton's problem is that the proper execution of the sleight has somehow eluded him. I can quite see how that can happen because I struggled for a couple of years with it yet other people I know learned it in a matter of hours.

It seems that Sexton has mastered every other sleight necessary but this little pest is a thorn in his side. I would urge him to try the Vernon lift and stick to that. Really learn it and don't overuse it and he will learn to love the DL. Go try it. Positive thinking now.

Incidentally I agree with Sexton about the double undercut done too quickly. This does destroy it's effectiveness.

The story of the move is quite interesting. It seems that Vernon had a different way of doing "Cutting the Aces" for the Stars of Magic series but the publishers thought it would be too difficult for the readers. Accordingly he invented the double undercut for the purpose of the book only. However he didn't particularly like using the move himself in the trick!

I agree that the DL does look a bit odd, but that has never stopped me performing it. I believe that it is an essential sleight that a magician should have in his arsenal, even if not used that often, so that it can be used in the spur of the moment in an impromtu situation. The possibilities with it are quite endless (or, at least, theres lots of them).

One thing that i have started to do as well is to turn every single card over in the same way that i turn a double over. Not the other way round as i have been advised before.

I learned this sleight recently from Paul Zenon's Street magic book and at first thought it was great but the novelty has since worn off a little. However its a little hit and miss sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but I've found it helps if you handle the cards beforehand and handle all the cards as if you were going to do a D/L not handle every card as a D/L I think thats what Mikey.666 meant.

I have to say my experience with the D/L is completely different. I had no trouble learning a D/L and love it. It is not the best sleight but it has served me quite well. I do a strike D/L and I (like others) turn all cards over like I do my D/L. I have only been called out on it once, back in '83, and she was just one of those people who noticed the thickness (good example of the need for misdirection). On the other hand, I have never felt comfortable with the pass.

As for the D/L being a last resort, I can see some instances where another sleight could be substituted, but there are some where I am not sure what would be able to replace it.

I would recommend the Lewis Jones "OH" DL too as a variant, very nice...

i think in general though, it's all in the speed of the lift, absolutely no pause as you do it...there should be a nonchalance about it all as if someone has whispered into the ether:

"yes, well of course this is your top card you idiot..."

then there's Derren Brown's velvet turnover to play around with too..

I use the D/L alot and find it a very useful sleight. If you do all your single lifts in a similar way to the D/L you'll very rarely get caught out as people will already be used to seeing you lift a card like that. I'll look 100% natural. If you suddenly change the way that you lift a card then yes, it does look suspect.