“I’m getting used to using the word ‘Genius’ and

‘Fraser’ in the same sentence. Yoke can be taught and

performed within minutes! Literally! This method is SO
clean and direct you’ll use it all the time!” Colin Miller

“This s**t’s dope!” Evan Titanas

“The problem with code acts is the amount of work you

have to put into it to get it to work. Fraser taught me his
code in ten seconds. Ten! That's all it took! And I've been
performing it ever since. No one will suspect a thing. It's
genius.” Karan Singh

“Fraser’s method for teaching somebody a card code is

sweet simplicity but also deadly! Imagine being able to
coach a stranger in a couple of minutes and making
them a star? Well now you can. Fantastic!” John Carey

Yoke is the simplest and easiest to learn, two

person code ever devised for sending a
thought of playing card to an accomplice.

It takes literally thirty to forty seconds to

teach to someone else and a minute tops for
your partner to familiarize themselves with
the process.
Your accomplice closes their eyes and turns
away or can even leave the room. You then
spread the deck on the table or in your hands
towards a spectator. They point to a card at
random and then thoroughly shuffle the deck
– losing it in the deck, entirely.

The deck is shuffled a little further as you

take the cards back from the spectator and
hand them to your accomplice, where they
are now able to instantly spread through the
deck and take out the exact same card the
spectator is merely focusing on.

They can even be prompted to change their

mind as much as they want before they
commit to a card and will always accurately
divine the spectator's thought of card.

This is different to other code systems

designed for transmitting the identity of a
single playing card and is by far the simplest,
cleanest and most deceptive.
NO placing fingers in a specific position or
holding the deck in a strange manner.
NO difficult memory work of any kind.
NO convoluted scripts to remember.

In fact, this can even be performed silently!

It has been designed to be learned and

remembered within less than a minute.

So find out for yourself why everyone Fraser

showed this to at The Session 2019 was first,
completely fooled and then blown away by
the simplicity of method, once he tipped it to
them.

The following is my solution to creating a two

person code that allows you to efficiently
code a specific playing card to an accomplice
in such a simple way, it goes by completely
unnoticed by those who watch you perform
and can be taught to someone else, within
less than a minute.
This is something I feel no other coding
system allows you to do.

What is really beautiful is just how deceptive

this approach becomes in actual
performance.

I am pleased to say that this fooled many

great minds at The Session convention 2019 –
who should have known better.

The initial idea this is based on came from my

good friend Peter Turner and it is with his
blessing my version of his original concept is
being released in manuscript form.

His idea was to code a playing card to an

accomplice within a series of shuffles. He
would have a card selected in plain sight and
then code the identity of this card to his
accomplice via various different shuffling
procedures, cuts and card burns that either he
would perform himself or have another
random spectator perform (without them ever
being aware they were coding anything).

Whilst his system certainly has its own

benefits I thought to myself, “it can be
simplified”.

His system relies on the accomplice

remembering many different elements for
them to be able to successfully decode the
playing card being sent. My aim was to
reduce these many different elements to their
most basic, constituent parts.

I feel what I have worked out is the simplest

way to do this.

Not only are the steps simple to follow they

also have built in memory pegs where needed
to ensure this can be learnt on the first couple
of runs, within less that a minute.

I would first teach the spectator each of the

rules and then get them to do a few practice
runs, to be sure they know the system, re-
capping on the rules where needed a few
times, before taking it out and performing it.

So here is the first rule:

Let's say the spectator has just finished

shuffling the deck after pointing to a card
whilst they were spread on the table and your
accomplice was looking away with their eyes
closed.

I now get someone to touch the accomplice

on their back and instruct them to turn back
around as I take the deck from the spectator.

The accomplice now knows to observe the

following:

1. They simply watch how many times I

chop the deck during an overhand shuffle.

I shuffle the cards in a casual manner as I

state the following to the spectator: “So you
happy these are shuffled?”

All the accomplice then has to do is: double

this number in their mind, to arrive at the
value of the playing card.

[If teaching this to a magician then you will

need to tell them to forget about the throw at
the end of the shuffle but instead count how
many times your thumb actually chops the
deck, during the shuffle. This is not a problem
for lay people but can cause confusion for
magicians, for some reason].

This is how we arrive at each of the even

values of playing cards. The accomplice
doesn't need to focus on odd or even
numbers. They only need to follow each of the
steps.

Now rule two:

2. If I then cut the deck after the shuffle

the accomplice knows to add 1 to
 whatever value was arrived at previously.

This is what allows us to easily cover all of

the odd numbers in the deck.

Naturally, it is the previous doubling of the

number of chops in the overhand shuffle that
allows us to reach the entire range of possible
values in a deck of cards, without having to
confuse the system with more rules to
remember.

3. When we teach this system to others,

we simply remind them of the values that
equate to each of the picture cards: 11
would be Jack, 12 would be Queen and 13
would be King.

Most lay people already know this

information, if they have ever played cards
before or know anything about playing cards,
at all.

4. If I don't shuffle or cut the deck then

 they know it has to be an Ace.

Naturally, for the number 2 it will always just

be one chop of the deck during the shuffle,
which will look like a casual cut and for 3 it
will be one chop followed by one cut, which
again will just look like you are casually
cutting the deck to onlookers.

That's it for the values! I told you this was

easy and entirely intuitive.

In order to code any value all you need to do

as the operator is half any even number and
perform that amount of chops during the
shuffle and when dealing with an odd
number, simply move down to the nearest
even number and perform that amount of
chops, followed by a cut.

If the spectator picks a Joker at any point I

simply instruct them to change their mind
claiming that would be too obvious a
selection and disregard them this way or I
would just remove them from the deck before
beginning the trick.

Now for the suits:

5. If I hand the deck with its face, facing

towards their heart the accomplice will
always think to themselves the suit:
“Hearts”.

This movement will be natural and will seem

as if you simply mean to facilitate the
spectator spreading through the deck in a
moment, faces towards themselves. The
previous shuffle from the spectator will
cancel out any notion that you could now be
showing the spectator a card on the face of
the deck that indicates the correct card.

If the deck is handed to them with it's face

towards the ground then the suit they will
always think of is “Spades”.
These are two of the most familiar suits to a
lay person. The deck always facing their
heart for the “Hearts” suit is a built in
memory peg for the accomplice and due to
the fact we always get them to think to
themselves either of these two most obvious
suits means, they will always be able to find
the correct colour and suit for the card by
simply recalling to themselves: is the deck
facing my heart or facing away.

We then use the final rule to modify what they

have already worked out when and if they
need to. This use of modifying what they have
already worked out stops the system from
becoming confusing. This is much better than
creating four separate associations for each
of the suits.

6. If I say, “feel free to change your mind

a few times before settling on a card” then
change to the other suit of the same
colour to the one you are focusing on.
They will understand they are to change to
Diamonds if you have coded Hearts to them
previously and Clubs instead of Spades.

7. If you struggle to work out the card

then go through each of the steps
mentally, as you look through the spread
deck.

This will ensure the spectator doesn't pause

for too long or look as if they are trying to
work out a code, as opposed to actually
reading the mind of the spectator.

That's it!

I will leave it to you to construct your own

presentation and ways of getting away with
using an accomplice. Of course, as with all
two person codes, no one should be aware
that you are using an accomplice.

I may give my accomplice one final rule to

follow:
 8. As we do this I want you to imagine
you are actually receiving these thoughts
from out of the spectator's mind and
obviously show everyone how happy you
are, if you get these thoughts correct.

Now, if they imagine this to be true they will

usually act this way also. This will happen
naturally and will not require any acting
lessons or for you to have to pick a
particularly good stooge for your
performance.

I always frame this as an experiment to see if

someone else can pick up on the thoughts of
others. I will leave it up to you to come up
with your own presentations of this.

Obviously, the previous rules are taught to

the spectator in private or away from the
audience at large before your performance.

Note: If you wish to perform this silently then

you can change the final rule for the suit
change to something non-verbal, such as:
looking directly at the accomplice would
mean change the suit.

I prefer not to risk this becoming any more

convoluted then it has to be so would usually
just opt with the verbal cue for the suit
change.

Another option, if you feel you have had to

employ the “feel free to change your mind”
script too much in your routine is to simply
instruct the spectator, as follows:

“I think you have the correct colour for the

suit – so stay with this colour and just change
the suit”.

This is not a rule that needs to be learnt

previously but is instead command that
happens in real time. Therefore, it doesn't
require anything more to be remembered by
your accomplice. It will also indirectly
suggest to everyone watching that they
couldn't possibly be in on it in any way
because otherwise you wouldn't need to
prompt them if you feel what they are thinking
is wrong. It also suggests you can also see
what they are thinking.