lfirst became aware ofthe process ofEquivoque in my early

teens. Because so little information was available on this

subject, I was forced to develop my own principles built on
empirical research. As is often the case, these circumstances
led me to an understanding of the subject that is probably
greater than what I would have been able to learn from
written guides, had they been available.
Given the above, why have I written such a guide m~
self? The answer is that I hope my work in this area will help
others in their own field testing. with the understanding that
reading this manuscript in no way eliminates the need for
such experimentation on the part of the reader. This is a
difficult process to learn properly. and conveying this
process through the printed word has not been easy.
By itself, this essay is worth nothing. Combined with
your own explorations. this treatise can hopefully aid you in
developing your own skills with Equivoque.
This essay wasfirst written in 1976.

Phil Goldstein

entalism is not magic in cerebral drag. It is true that

M the two fields share common technical roots, and

that many of the great practitioners of one faction
have been highly adept at both. However, there are radical
differences between the two. All of the great mentalists have
eschewed the use of magician's props, preferring to utilize
the most commonplace materials-at least in outward ap-
pearance.
I am not demeaning the value of elaborately prepared
working materials. Many such devices are quite worthwhile.
However, I maintain that it is absolutely necessary for the
working mentalist to avoid building a dependency on
"things" with which to accomplish a performance. The late
Theo Annemann once said about our art, "When you get to
the root it is nothing but your personality and wits against
that of your watcher, and a case of telling him to do as he
pleases and then letting him do what you want him to do."
Probably no other technique in mentalism is as "pure" in
this respect as Equivoque-s-tue "Magician's Choice."
Equivoque is one of the most valuable tools to the mentalist,
if it is used properly. If it is handled poorly, it is embarrass-
ingly transparent to the audience. If it is worked successfully,
it is straightforward mindreading-without gimmicks or
props. Every mentalist has had the experience of being ap-
proached by a lay person, offstage, and the request (or
demand) made, "Read my mind, here and now!"
Equivoque is a perfect solution to this challenge. By just
grabbing a handful of change, or a few objects off the dinner
table, and applying the techniques of verbal control, the
performer can provide a lasting impression that will prove
hislher abilities to the most cynical observer.
 Given how valuable this technique is, it is most surpris-
ing to find how little information is available in the literature
of mentalism giving detailed attention to this subject. Most
often, Equivoque is given only the briefest of descriptions, if
any at all. The only writing to cover the "Magician's
Choice" in any intelligent detail at all is that of Gene Grant
in his excellent 1956 treatise Phantini's Mental Key. Grant
calls his approach "Phantinism," and it is very good. My
own work in this area goes a bit further in detail, and I pro-
pose to break down my approach explicitly.
Before I start, I should point out that my handling of
Equivoque is by no means the only approach to this tech-
nique; nor is it necessarily the best. As with most presenta-
tional theories, what works well for one performer is not
always sound for another. I suggest that you study my tech-
nique and analysis, and then apply it to your own work.
When you evolve your own technique, you will have a valu-
able skill that will serve you well in a tremendous variety of
circumstances.
In essence , Equivoque is a process of psychological forc-
ing combined with double entendre. The spectator is asked
to choose an item from a small group . His/her choice is
guided by psychological factors . If necessary , a "narrowing
process" is used , in which the spectator's actions are ma-
nipulated by instructions which seem to be specific , but in
fact are open to multiple interpretations.
When a person is confronted with a horizontal row of
objects, and asked to take one, hislher choice is not com-
pletely random to begin with. Assume the number of objects
we're dealing with is five.
In a row of ABC D E, the object in position C will
almost certainly not be chosen, for its central Iocation makes
it seem too "obvious" to the spectator's subconscious mind.
For the same reasons, he/she is unlikely to pick either A or
E, for they are at the ends of the row, and thus too
"extreme." The spectator is therefore most likely going to
select either object B or object D. Furthermore, if the specta-
tor is reaching with the right hand, the choice will most
likely be item D; reaching with the left hand will lead to a
choice of B. The spectator's subconscious mind attempts to
avoid the "obvious" choices-and thus plays right into your
hands!
We want to take advantage of this psychological set-up
as much as possible. Also, we need to protect ourselves, by
laying the foundation for the narrowing process, should the
spectator's initial choice be wrong. In other words, if it be-
comes necessary to make the spectator do further selecting,
we want himlher to assume that such was our intention from
the very start. We must conceal the fact that these further
instructions are being delivered after the fact.
Aiding us in all of this is an approach that might be
termed "verbal overkill." It is a manner of instruction which
is designed to do several things. Most importantly, it will
allow maximum flexibility should the "narrow process"
phase be entered. In addition, it will convince the spectator
that your instructions are precise and deliberate, when in fact
nothing could be further from the truth. Also, it serves to
take the spectator off his/her guard-and thus in::rease your
control over the spectator's actions.
Before explaining this "overkill" technique, let me
digress for a moment. There are situations in which the
objects to be chosen from will be quite differeta, In such a
situation, one or two of the objects may strongly stand oat
from the others, due to size, color, etc. An outstar-ding item
should not be used as the force object, for psychoklgically the
spectator will avoid it via the same "too obvious" reasoning
previously discussed.
For the purposes of this technical discussXm, let us
assume that the five objects are U.S. coins ~ diffe:reut
denominations: a penny, nickel, dime, quarter, and fifty-nt
piece. The fifty-cent piece is a "too obvious" item: i1 is much
larger, and of significantly greater value than my of the
other coins. The next least likely selection will be the penny,
due to the color difference between it and the rest of the
coins, and its lesser value. The spectator doesn't k::.ow it, but
the choice is already limited to three possible coins-abe
nickel, the dime and the quarter. On his/her inizal choice,
the spectator will almost certainly reach for OLe of these
three coins.
Let's assume our choice for the force coin is ~ quarter.
We'll place the quarter in position D. The reason busing D
instead of B will be explained shortly. Now, in oroer to move
the spectator toward the right end of the row ~-:cn heJshe
makes the initial selection, we'll position the fifty.....cent piece
and the penny in the first two positions (A and 3). In this
manner, when the spectator approaches the row, there will
be a subconscious move away from the "extreme" coins on
the left.
Naturally, the positioning of the coins is don: casually.
We don't want to give the game away by suggesting to the
spectator that at the outset we are setting up the pcsitions of
the coins toward a purpose. At the start of the test, you reach
into your pocket and dump out a handful of coins, Remove
the five different coins, and casually lay them out in the
order from left to right: half-dollar. penny. dime; quarter,
nickel. Your choice of positions should seem to bearbitrary.
The prediction is made. You can write "quarter" on a
scrap of paper, or else hold a sixth coilr-anOlher
quarter-in your fist. Now you are ready to begia the test,
but before starting your instructions to the specator, you
begin your "verbal overkill."
What I do in this type of situation is along mese lines:
"Before you is a row of coins. In a moment, fOEr of these
coins will be eliminated, for I only need one com to match
my prediction. As you look over the row, you will aotice that
there are many psychological factors regarding Cese coins
that might make you more attracted to one than the other.
The penny is a different color. The dime is the snallest in
size, while the half-dollar is the largest. The quarter is tails-
side-up, as is the penny . The nickel is thicker than my of the
other coins. The dime is in the center of the row; me nickel
to one end, the fifiy-eent piece to the other. There are differ-
ent pictures on each of the coins which might appeal to you
in one way or another. The light might be hitting the coins
in such a way as to make one of the coins shine brighter than
the others from where you are sitting. All in all, there are
dozens of psychological factors involved with these coins,
but think you will agree that there are so many factors in-
volved that they more or less cancel each other out, and there
is no way 1 could know which factors are going to affect you
and which will not. Do you agree?"
Let's analyze this pitch. First of all, note that the pri-
mary statement is not that a coin is about to be chosen;
rather, it is that four of the coins will be eliminated. Note
that this wording sets you up for the "narrowing process,"
should you need to enter that phase later. Also, note the use
of the phrase, "1 ... need one coin." Again, this wording will
be important if and when the "narrowing" phase is entered.
You are laying the verbal groundwork for a potential future
process of multiple interpretations.
Observe that in all of the preceding verbiage, the words
"select," "choose," "pick out," etc. are never used; they are
instead implied, with the less-specific word "attract" The
complementary concept of "elimination" is the one actually
stated. Once again, you are setting up an ambience of multi-
ple interpretations.
The opening monologue serves other purposes . It func-
tions as a focusing device, establishing the idea that you are
controlling the situation. Note that you have yet to tell the
spectator exactly what he/she is going to do. The spectator
knows that a choice is about to be made, but he/she is wait-
ing for your Iead. Psychologically, the spectator is feeling
just a bit confused, and will therefore look to your authority
as a guide out of that confusion. In other words, the spectator
is ripe.
Note also that this monologue makes the (blatantly false)
statement that you have no psychological advantage in this
situation . It is a convincing argument, which puts the specta-
tor off-guard, and also adds to his/her confusion at the same
time. if the subject has approached this test with the idea of
"psyching out" the performer, that idea will now be dropped.
You are, in this speech, talking more than you have to in
terms of the specific information conveyed. In addition to
confusing the spectator, you're setting up a "drone effect" In
other words, by talking too much you are causing the specta-
tor to be drawn toward the form of your speech over its
content. Thus, once again you are building a framework for
future multiple interpretation. Hence, the term ''verbal over-
kilL"
The spectator is already off-guard. We'll push further in
this direction by now stating, "I want you to relax." The
minute this is said, the subject of course goes in the opposite
direction: he/she feels very self-conscious, knowing that
something important is about to happen, and that he/she is
the one who will have to do it. Say, "Relax . Take a deep
breath. Now I want you to reach out with your left hand, and
touch one of the objects."
Why the left hand? You make this specification for three
reasons. First of all, we know that the use of the left hand
will cause most spectators to reach to the right, toward the
) force position (D) . Secondly, the spectator is (we'll assume
for the purposes of this essay) right-handed. To make a
) right-handed person work with the left hand adds to the
sense of confusion. Not being used to leading with the left
hand, a person will be more likely to flow with the basic
psychological factors and go straight for the quarter.
Lastly, your emphasis increases the sense that you are
following a deliberate plan which you've pre-thought. The
specific direction thus gives you an "either/or" state. If the
spectator picks up the force object, your specifically stated
instructions makes that statement seem final, and suggests
that you did not plan to go further.
If, however, the subject does not pick up the force item,
your specific instruction lends itself immediately for entry
into the "narrowing" phase, for you instantly continue your
instructions as if this was what you had planned from the
start. Assume that the spectator has not taken the force
object, but has instead opted for the nickel.
You immediately bark, "Pick it up!" This is delivered
with a shade of impatience-as if you had told the subject
specifically to pick up the coin in your initial instructions. In
fact, you did not: you told hirnlher to touch a coin. But by
impatiently adding this extra instruction you throw the sub-
ject further into the confused state, and make it seem as if
you'd planned to continue all along.
You keep going by saying, "And now reach out with
your right hand, and pick up another coin, for as I told you,
an elimination must be made."
Note that you have already introduced the term
"eliminate" prior to this step, so that the use of the word here
rings true. By using the left/right gambit, you give the psy-
chological suggestion that you had planned from the start to
have two objects picked up, one in each hand. By using the
word "elimination" here, you again set yourself up for a fur-
ther "narrowing" phase, should that be necessary.
One of two situations now exists: either the spectator has
picked up the force item in the right hand, or not. Assume
the former . Here you would again assume a posture of delib-
erate instruction : tell the spectator, "Weigh the two objects
carefully. We only need one of them, so hand one to me."
Note the wording of this last statement. You've used the
ambiguous term "weigh," and added the modifier
"carefully." Again, the subject is made both confused and
self-conscious. Recall that earlier, during the "overkill"
monologue, you stated, "I only need one coin." This time,
you've changed the phrase to "we only need one"-so that
the spectator's
, next action will be open to two totally oppo-
site interpretations.
Adding to this flexibility is, of course, the word
"elimination" which you've just reintroduced. Let's say the
spectator pauses, then hands you the force coin. You smile,
and say, "'Remember, I said I only needed one coin. This is
the one you've decided to give me. It is the quarter. Would
you now look at my prediction..."
Note that you have reverted to the original first person
pronoun., ignoring the ambiguous "we" of a moment before.
As the statement is made, you raise your hand with the
quarter. All of your attention is directed to that coin . You
focus your eyes on it. holding it up prominently. The specta-
tor's attention also focuses on that coin. You forget about the
other coin the spectator is holding... and so does the
spectator.
If, on the other hand, you are given the other coin. you
immediately put it down, and point to the force coin which
the spectator has retained. Focus all of your attention on that
coin, as you exclaim, "You have made your elimination; that
is the coin you've elected to keep. Hold it up!" Again, by
deliberately shifting the focus of your own attention, you
shift the attention of the others . By bringing up the word
"elimination" again, you once more establish the continuity
of action, implying a pre-planned sequence of actions.
Let's go back to the situation wherein the spectator has
picked up a coin in either hand, and neither one is the force
coin. In this case, we go back to our gambit of impatience.
You quickly say, "I told you we had to make our elimination.
Put those two coins aside!" The slight trace of annoyance in
your voice again suggests to the spectator that you had
planned for this to happen from the start.
There are three coins on the table. One of them is the
force coin . You are again going to tell the spectator to per-
form a specific action. The force coin was in position D .
Thus, it is now either at the right end of the row of three, or
in the middle. In either case, it is to our advantage to tell the
spectator to use his/her left hand once again.
We will vary the instructed action this time, to distin-
guish it from the preceding events. "This is important. I
want you to extend your left forefinger... and push one of the
coins forward." Note that by telling the spectator that this
action is important, you have kept the action ambiguous , and
again added to his/her sense of being self-conscious.
A coin is pushed forward. If it is the force coin, you im-
mediately pick it up and hold it high, exclaiming, "This coin.
You separated this coin from the others." Again. you utilize
the focus of your own attention to control the attention of the
spectators.
If the coin pushed forward is an indifferent one, you
immediately sweep that coin aside with the first two. You
exclaim, "Good! There are two coins left. Now this next
decision is the most important of all. Pick the two coins up .
Two coins, and two coins only. One is mine. Hand one to
me." Again, the subtle impatience the used. Again, the two-
way inferpretation of the situation is provided, for the state-
ment "one is mine" is totally ambiguous until it is inter-
preted a moment later.
Obviously, if he/she hands you the force coin. you pro-
mote the idea that the coin just given to you is meant to be
the target coin. If the spectator chooses to keep the force
coin, you suggest that he/she has decided to keep only one
coin after eliminating the other four.
This, then, is the basic technique of Equivoque. Obvi-
ously, this has been an overly-detailed description. Details
which loom large in this description are actually swift and
subtle when put into use. You will observe that in every step
of this hypothetical run-through we have constantly prepared
ourselves for the next step, should we have to take it. provid-
ing an ongoing continuity as perceived by the spectators. If
properly delivered, this technique should always come off as
being exact and deliberate, as if you had specifically planned
to carry it out in exactly this fashion-no more, no less.
I most commonly use Equivoque with coins for an im-
promptu test. However, I should note that I usually do it with
just four coins, as I rarely have a filty-cent piece with me.
Using four coins makes the test just that much easier. In
such a case, the force coin is usually the nickel or the dime.
The four are laid out ABC D, and the force coin is at
position C.
Having described this technique for you, I think it only right
that I suggest some routines for stage and close-up using the
process. Of course, as you piny with Equivoque you will find
that new ideas occur to you constantly. You can use this
verbal control concept with virtually anything.
Scraps of paper can be used. On each you write some-
thing-s-numbers, words, colors, designs, etc., and then
crumple the scraps into small balls which you layout ina
row. For instance, you might take a wristwatch and set its
hands at a specific time-say 9:10. Now put the watch into
the spectator's pocket.
On five scraps of paper, you write a different time: 2:34,
8:40,4:55, 11:02,9:12. You use Equivoque to force the 9:12
slip (having written the time two minutes ahead to compen-
sate for the time it takes for the selection). When the specta-
tor opens the chosen slip, it is the only one which matches
the time on the pocketed watch.
On stage, you display five identical packages. You 'ex-
plain that you're going to playa game of "Psychic Let's
Make A Deal," This spectator chooses one package . The
other four are opened. They contain lumps of coal.; while
the selected package has a box of candy which is given to the
spectator as a gift.
You display a row of six miniature liquor bottles. The
spectator picks the one that matches your previously written
prediction, and thus gets to take the bottle home. For certain
audiences you would change the product to different brands
of soda, or cheese, cigarettes, etc.
An Equivoque version of "Bank Night" would be simple
enough-or how about a reverse "Bank Night." You display
live envelopes. The spectator chooses one. When they're
... opened, the chosen envelope contains a blank piece of pa-
per... the others all have bills.
 Why not a version of "Seven Keys To Baldpate," where
the spectator finds the only one of five keys that will open a
padlock? The lock is ungimmicked. The keys are put into
envelopes. The working key is- put into a nail-nicked enve-
lope, and thus is easily kept track of so that you can force it
with Equivoque.
For close-up, take out five business cards. On the back of
one you've marked a bold X. Force this on the spectator, and
show that he/she located the only marked card through
"psychic intuition." The spectator keeps the card-which
helps advertise your business.
Use a set of locking flap slates. Show them blank, and
ask the audience to call out geometric shapes. As each shape
is called, you draw it onto a surface, until each panel has one
design on it. The slates are given to a spectator to hold, and
DOW you draw the four shapes onto slips of paper. These are
crumpled up, and another spectator chooses one. It is, say,
the square. Upon opening up the slates, the first spectator
finds that the square has been disfigured with chalk
lines-the spirits have responded to the spectator's choice.
The preparation and handling are obvious to anyone with a
knowledge of slate work.
Certainly there is no limit to the possibilities. ESP sym-
bols, playing cards, colored balls, chess pieces, crayons,
postage stamps, etc., etc. Once again, I remind you: when
Equivoque is handled badly, its nature is completely obvious
and transparent to your audience. When properly presented,
it is infallible.

Copyright 01976. 1996 by Philip T. Goldstein