Argentinian Fusion
by Daniel de Urquiza

Effect: It's a revelation. Spectator picks a card; the card is lost in the deck. Magician offers the little but always appealing miracle of cutting to the selection. Magician fails. Magician tries again, and again fails. The magician calls for aid from two powerful wizard kings (no, not the Nazguls) and, placing the two wrong cards between them, they fuse into one card: the selection. At the end, all can be examined. An extra bonus: this is an effect you can actually do! Only basic to intermediate sleight of hand.

Method: You have a setup on top of the deck: 10 of hearts, 4 of hearts, black king, 6 of hearts, indifferent card, black king, rest of the deck.

Start by false shuffling, and false cutting, then riffle force the 10 of hearts.

First detail: There is a tendency to "do the false shuffle", then "do the false cutting", make an incoherent pause, and the really cut and keep a little finger break, another incoherent pause, and then riffle forcing the card.

Don't do this.

What you must do is this: introduce the effect and prepare the spectator while you are mixing and cutting the cards. When you come to the riffle force part, it's because it's time to make spectator choose a card.

You need to time all correctly. And do all the moves towards the riffle force in one organic flow, not "framing the actions" (Vernon). You see, there is a reason of why magicians tend to produce unjustified pauses between techniques. It's because of their internal script. Mentally, they are thinking like this: "Ok, now the false shuffle… Ok. Now the false cut… Ok. Then, I have to cut…like this, to prepare for the riffle force..."

See what I mean?

If you were only shuffling and cutting and then offering a selection to a spectator, your head would be totally free, no inner script other than that; thus, your actions would be a lot more organic, fluid, and continuous. Try for that feeling. Avoid framing your actions.

Make spectator see the 10H, and then make they return the card to its original place.

Control the bottom half to the top. You can either perform a double undercut, or a pass, or the false shuffle variation of your choice.

The rest of the effect is double lifts and double undercuts. As I boldly stated before, you can actually do this effect.

So the card is selected, and lost. You explain your intended miracle: by pure skill and dexterity, because you've have years and years of relentless practice, you would be able to cut to the selection in only a few cuts.

Say, while doing a false cut, "Was your selection even?"

Spectator says: "Yes."

You keep cutting, and keep asking: "Was it red?" (yes) "Was it a heart?" (yes)

Now, double lift to show the 4H, saying: It was the 4 of hearts!!!

They say "No".

So, toss that 4H face down on the table…only that you are really tossing the 10H.

You look like you are taking the whole thing in joke. Say, "Ok, it wasn't the 4H, but you said it was even, hearts, so I now really know your card."

Begin to again. What you actually do is to double undercut the 4H to the bottom, saying as you cut, "You said it was a heart (yes), you said it was even (yes), and I know it's a higher card than the 4H, isn't? (yes), so it was the 6 of hearts!" They say again, "No".

To show the 6H, you need another double lift.

Apparently leave the 6H face down on top of the face down 10H on the table, actually leaving a black king.

So you say, "Ok, skill failed. Only real magic can save me. I need the magic kings."

While speaking, double undercut the 6H to the bottom.

That leaves you with an indifferent card and a black king.

Say, "All I have to do it's to call them, and the two black kings come into my rescue."

Double lift, show a black king, leave face down on the table the indifferent card, next to the "wrong cards", simple lift, show same king, and leave it on top of the indifferent card.

To spectators, you showed two kings.

Place the two "kings" on top of the "wrong cards". Take everything and square it in your hands. Take the top card, a black king, and openly place it at bottom.

Flash to spectators the black king on the bottom.

Ask "Which was your card?" They'll say the 10H.

You'll answer, "You'll have to agree I was pretty close. But that was only with skill, not with magic. Look!"

Squeeze the packet of cards in your hands, saying, "The 4H, the 6H, and the magic of the kings, and…"

Turn over the packet. Spread the packet. The only thing you have to do is maintain the two bottom cards as one. Spectators will see the 10H between the black kings.

Toss the 10H face up on the table.

Place the two kings together, the indifferent card on top, and place them at the bottom of the deck. Leave the deck on the table, with the kings at bottom.

While you were doing this, the effect was "sinking in", the magic is on that 10H face up on the table. Make them touch it.

If anyone wants to see the kings, take the deck face up, and openly remove the kings. The indiffferent card is visible behind them, covering the 6H and the 4H.

Having the kings in your hands, the 10 at the table, and the explained position of 6H and 4H, you can reset in no time.

Credits: "Blending Bullets", from "Best of Osmosis, the Card Magic of George McBride".

I restructured the entire effect.

In that effect, you would first separate the two black aces, calling them "blendomatic cards". Then spectator would select a card…then you would cut to the 4 and the 6, then the blendomatic cards would…yes, blend the cards together.

I find this structure (with all due respect to Mr. George McBride, of course) very poor, even plain wrong.

I said to myself:

- The blendomatic angle is superficial as a presentation. And it's arguable at its very conception, because you are saying beforehand to the spectator what you are going to do. That would take interest and surprise from the plot.

- If you take the aces first, then cut to the wrong selections, what you are transmitting is that you are purposely cutting wrong, in order to give a use to those aces. It felt wrong to me from the spectator-magician relationship point of view. It had all the "puzzle"/"I'm better than you" feeling. Why would a spectator care for that?

-Also, the cutting to the 4 and 6 were unjustified in the original effect.

So, my solution to these problems was: a) First spectator selects. b) Then, magician FAILS, but it's close, to find the selection. c) After failing twice, magician calls for aid…d) Then, the kings will find the selection by fusing the wrong cards.

The (very arguable) advantages I find to this structure were:

- The dramatic element of magician failing and finally obtaining victory.

- The situational comedy of the lines of patter I propose: "your card was red, was a heart, and was even". You are relating to spectator, making them participate, you are doing this together..and also you are hinting that you have magically guessed the card, only to fail. So the method is well covered, because you didn't know exactly wich was the selection. How can you be near to know it, but don't actually know it?

- The idea of skill failing and magic saving the day.

- A more correct narrative structure: introduction (selection), development (failing), ending (fusion).

My thanks to Mr. George Mc Bride for his work, which inspired the ideas previously described.

I hope you enjoy it!

Daniel de Urquiza