Regarding Eugene Burger’s Psychological Card Magic

Notes on the Workshop on Equivoque and

Dai Vernon’s Trick That Cannot Be Explained

As I make clear in my review of Eugene Burger: Final Secrets by Lawrence Hass and Eugene Burger, the book does an excellent job of recording the details of some of Eugene’s most important and accomplished card magic, notably in the area of psychological methods and equivoque. However as I mention therein and Larry Hass recounts in the book, he reconstructed his accounts of the contents from an audio recording of one workshop, from Eugene, and from other secondary sources.

When Bob Farmer created a private manuscript about equivoque decades ago, he included detailed notes on the Burger workshop that he attended, and circulated the manuscript to a handful of fellow enthusiasts, including me. I provided further notes for inclusion that were missing.

Following my reading of the new book, I contacted Larry Hass and amid our extended email exchange I provided these details which had gone by the wayside, primarily because Eugene had likely abandoned using them over the years as he continued to refine his methodological choices.  For the record, here are my additional notes on Eugene’s work in these areas.

Also, Larry Hass was unable to locate an actual copy of Eugene’s privately circulated instructions for his non-gaffed version of Max Maven’s “B’Wave,” accomplished entirely by equivoque. This method, which Eugene used for a time in the early 2000s primarily to fool magicians, was reconstructed and provided for use in the book by Eugene’s friend and colleague, Newell Unfried. However, I have been able to locate the copy that Eugene mailed to me at the time, and for the record, I am including it in this post, with Larry’s permission and encouragement, along with the hand written Post-It note from Eugene to me that accompanied it.

None of these notes that follow will be useful on their own and they are not intended to be. These are only further subtleties, fine points and details that will comprehensible only as an assist to those studying Eugene Burger: Final Secrets.

All of this is by way of tribute and gratitude to my friend, Eugene Burger.

***

The Baby Deck

Eugene had different ways of setting aside the prediction card for The Trick That Cannot Be Explained. While it appears he eventually settled on a standard preference of secretly leaving the card in the card box (as described in Final Secrets and seen in accompanying videos), at the time of the early workshops circa 1985 he also, to the best of my memory, had not yet come upon the revelation strategy of sending the spectator looking for the mate and only upon them not finding it, directing them to the prediction card. “It's futile!” makes me laugh. That line serves to remind me how utterly merciless Eugene was when it came to the power of his magic, and his uncompromising commitment to such revelations. For all his guru-ish kindness and empathy, I am struck yet again by how fearlessly he wore and wielded his magical powers. He was not, to use Max's phrase that Eugene wrote about, “afraid of magic,” like so many other magicians. 

I recall Eugene saying, in the introduction to performances of TTCBE, that this was to be “A Strange Coincidence.” I took that as a title in my mind, and used it on which to build one of my lead-in scripts for the routine. After talking about coincidence for a sentence or two (I have a couple of versions of that), I then say, “We're going to create the conditions for a coincidence to occur. It's unlikely that one will ... but if it does, it will certainly be strange. And you're going to make all the decisions.”

One version of the prediction that Eugene taught in the 1985 workshop was that he would, in view of the audience but without commentary, set aside a little drawstring pouch. Then he would perform TTCBE. At the conclusion, once a card had been arrived at, he would retrieve the pouch. “This ... is a baby deck of cards.” And he would withdraw a boxed Bicycle Playtime deck from the pouch, and remove the deck from the box. “This is what they look like before you feed them.” (Laugh.)  He would then ribbon spread the pack face-up, revealing a reversed card in the center. That card was then revealed as the prediction mate.

The little deck was novel, an interesting and playful curiosity, and the line garnered a surefire laugh. But I suspect that Eugene eventually abandoned it as being a little bit too cute for the gravitas he wished to communicate with the effect. I often think of Derren Brown's observation that Eugene did magic that “was serious, but not solemn.” And *almost* never silly (except perhaps for the paper hats, in a manner of speaking!).

Force and Face Down approach

On p. 5 of Farmer's “Equivoque” manuscript he describes as part of several force routines Eugene's use of what he called “A Simple Force,” originally described in Spirit Theater. This is mentioned in Final Secrets but just to repeat my notes here and bring one pair of elements together ... Farmer writes, “Eugene's approach was similar [to the “European Aces” routine he describes which includes this force], but he used just one card at the 7th position.” To this I noted (and note my use of the title):

“This is used for ‘Strange Coincidence,’ force match card FD, then Trick Cannot Be explained for mate. Second half can be done FD if card is marked. Alternate: Prediction card is reversed in mini-deck. ‘This is what they look like before you feed them.’”

It would appear that Eugene eventually abandoned the use of this approach, likely because he felt it was a bit more trouble than it was worth for his tastes and habits. But while both the force and the marked card options are briefly recorded in Final Secrets, note that it was with this combination of the force and marked card that Eugene described a full routine approach in which the mate is apparently freely chosen and set aside with its identity *unknown* — very important, that! — and then the rest of the routine is performed with the deck face-down throughout. This is a very strong version! And also, it's a version that now will read differently than setting the prediction card aside in the box and then performing TTCBE with the deck face-up. Indeed, if that approach is used first, the force-and-facedown will work as a valid follow-up variant.

A Revelatory Line

While I now believe this was a one-time ad-lib on Eugene's part and not something he used regularly, I once heard Eugene say this and I have used it ever since. It's so good I am disinclined to share it, but it's also SO Eugene that I feel compelled do so anyway.

Oftentimes the spectator is directed toward the prediction card but the face is not yet in view and the spectator has to do something in order to discover its identity. “It's in the box” — “One card is reversed” (as in the Baby Deck) — “One card remains!” (in an instance when the card is face down). In these instances, the spectator will often hesitate before turning the card over — they're uncertain as to what they're supposed to do. Sometimes they simply look up at the performer questioningly, or they might even explicitly ask, “Should I turn it over?” In response, Eugene paused, and then said, in a low volume and deadpan tone, “How can you stand to wait?”

This often garners a laugh, but with or without the laugh it provides a perfect note of drama before the revelation. As I say — it was SO Eugene. And I use it all the time.

Notes on Flow Charts

On page 6 of Farmer's “Equivoque” I include the following notes, which describe several details regarding the flow charts that Farmer created and which follow several pages later. Here are my verbatim notes as I originally entered them in my copy of the manuscript, but the quotation remarks refer to Eugene's scripting:

There are strategies of Eugene's missing in the following flow charts.

1 of 2 (handed over): “I said I only needed one; you could have given me this one." This always follows immediately after: "Would you like to change your mind?”

Also, two on table — cover with hands (spectator's): “In a moment you will feel a card repelling your hand. Lift either hand.”

1 of 2 (other card pushed aside): “One card remains!”

For 2 groups: “Pick up one of the packets — and toss them aside.”

                     “Pick up one of the packets — and shuffle them.”

* 

While apparently Eugene eventually abandoned the “repelling” hand lift strategy, the last technique described, for separating two groups of cards, is notable. While it is rarely necessary, it is invaluable on the occasions that call for its use. Occasionally you may end up — typically at the conclusion of two or three "moving finger" steps — with a group of cards that is small, but has not quite reached the ideal interim target of four or five cards. You can of course just repeat the moving finger procedure one more time, but this might require a fourth repetition, which just doesn't seem to feel right — it's one too many times. So instead, assuming there is a spread of seven or nine cards (it can actually be six to ten cards, but it feels a tad better if it's an odd number), the instruction is now to “Divide the cards into two groups …” and the spectator will interpret how to do that without further detailing the procedure — and you can now direct the spectator to square the cards into two packets, if you wish. Then: “Pick up one of the packets ...” ... and as above, then complete the sentence with whatever direction is appropriate. Either “... and toss them aside ...  because as I said, we're eliminating cards!" Or, “Pick up one of the packets ... and shuffle them!” as the performer simply sweeps the remaining packet aside. 

Although the situation that calls for this arises only rarely, I find it an invaluable tool in that circumstance, in which this step now become a clear, strong and deliberate step, instead of another repetition and potential dilution of a previous process. Three “finger phases” are okay if it turns out to be necessary, and you can make it feel sensible. One push to the right end. One push to the left end. Ideally we move on then, but if not, one more finger moment and whatever happens, now we're ready — hopefully with five or fewer cards in play. BUT if we're not quite down to that, then what? A fourth finger segment. Good to know from the book that Eugene reached a point where he was simply fine with doing it a fourth time. But it's one too many for my tastes, and students will perhaps see what I mean here about how this is a perfect “moving on” segue from three finger points to one distinct and clear step that gets us directly to three, four or five cards. 

It is important to note here that this technique of separating small groups into packets was created by Max Maven and is described in his superb “Multiplicity” instructional video. Although not included in Final Secrets, it offers an extremely efficient and useful strategy when certain conditions arise. I would also mention here that while Eugene relied extensively on the moving finger technique, and utilized some psychological elements within it at times, this technique is also addressed in detail in “Multiplicity,” and Maven’s application utilizes a more refined psychological version of the technique as a timing force, which is my preferred approach.

The Dream

When Eugene first developed his face-up handling of Marlo's “Ace of Spades Trick” (Marlo's presentation and method for the classic Stop Trick), he presented it as a stand-alone trick that I recorded in my notes as “The Dream” because of the presentation. I am given to understand that he stopped teaching this routine even before he stopped doing the Equivoque workshops, because he recognized it as a pet effect, one that eventually he would join with a second effect and create his “Influence” routine.

“Last night I had a dream. I dreamt I was sitting with someone, and I gave them a deck of cards. [In such verbal constructions — Eugene continued to use the dream idea in other routines — he would often add an adjective — i.e. “an attractive woman” — “a charming person” — etc.] And I said, ‘Begin to deal the cards face down, one at a time, into a pile. Do it slowly, because there's something I want you to notice ... which is, that it's not in any order ... that you would notice [spoken ironically for a laugh; sometimes “that they would notice” for magicians]. Deal a few more cards and stop. 

Now, depending on procedure, the target card is reached directly, or with an additional step. Then, excitedly: “That's exactly where you stopped in my dream!” Pause. “You were skeptical in my dream, too.” [Laugh] Revelation. 

This presentation holds up very well for this as a stand-alone trick, especially in close-up, as well as for many simple prediction tricks, such as the Brainwave Deck. “You were skeptical in my dream, too” is a surefire laugh and a great way to set the anticipation of an ensuing climax. 

And finally, from Larry Hass: “Eventually Eugene imported that concept to the stage version of Thought Sender.  This was, I believe, first done in the casino show with Jeff in Fall 2001, and occasionally (but not always) he did it with TS in a stage situation.  It is very interesting to me that he might have pioneered that presentation with the Ace of Spades trick.”

Similarly, I now think that I got the notion of using a “Strange Coincidence” as a presentation for TTCBE from Eugene, but that eventually he re-adapted this theme to Paul Curry’s “Swindle Switch,” as described in Teaching Magic.

***

And now, for the record, I am pleased to publish my copy—at present, the only known copy on record—of Eugene Burger’s “No-Gimmick” B’wave.

 FINI