Spill the Tea: Is Chicago Opener a Good Trick?

Eugene Burger didn’t like it. Does this mean that the “Chicago Opener” is a bad trick? Let’s find out. ☕

In this in-depth article, I will discuss the classic card trick called the “Chicago Opener” or “Red Hot Mama” and attempt to answer the question, “Is the trick any good?”

I will also briefly discuss the trick’s history and origins, as well as various presentations and handlings developed by different magicians over the years. I’ll examine criticisms of the trick from respected magicians like Eugene Burger and Tom Stone, particularly regarding the use of the double lift and the trick’s perceived structural weaknesses.

Finally, I’ll explore ways to improve and strengthen the routine, such as using different double lift techniques, addressing issues of fairness in the card selections, and ways to prevent spectators from reverse engineering the method. A significant portion is dedicated to Pop Haydn’s acclaimed handling, “Chicago Surprise”, which aims to minimise the trick’s weaknesses through clever psychological touches and scripting.

The Windy City’s Most Famous Card Trick

This popular card routine was invented by Alfred B. Leech, a Chicago magician and journalist, way back in 1950. It was originally called “The Hot Card Trick No. 1.” In it, the back of a chosen card changes from blue to red when the magician blows on it. A second card is selected and lost in the pack. The magician blows on the face of the odd-backed card, and it transforms to match the second selected card. Well, that’s the way Al performed it.

Al Leech holding two dolls for a news story on conjoined twins, not a magic trick! Taken sometime in 1954. Photo Credit: Sideshow World.

Over the years, many creative magicians have developed different presentations for the trick. Most notably, Jim Ryan, with his mischievous Irish charm, christened it “Red Hot Mama” and added a flirtatious twist. First, he would approach a female spectator and have her select a card, returning it to the deck. Next, he would ask her to tap the pack with her finger. Then, in his playful Irish accent, he would quip, “Do you know what happens when a red-hot mama does that?” The selected card would then turn red. Ryan’s “Red Hot Mama” inspired many romantic variations, such as Tony Binarelli’s “Latin Lover Opener” and Roberto Giobbi’s “SuperLative Lover,” each adding a unique romantic touch to the classic effect. ❤

Jim subsequently taught the trick to his friend and magic bartender, Frank Everhart. Frank had great success with the trick, so much so that it became one of his signature pieces. Thanks to Frank, Al’s trick became very popular in the underground magic scene of Chicago. However, relatively few magicians outside the Windy City knew of its existence.

Approximately twenty years after the trick was invented, it received a further boost in popularity when it was published, without credit, in Million Dollar Card Secrets by Frank Garcia. The trick was given a new name, “Chicago Opener”, and a slightly different ending (both duplicate cards are openly displayed at the conclusion of the effect). Garcia renamed the trick “Chicago Opener” because he’d seen Everhart use it as the opening trick in his famous bar magic act. Here’s what Frank Garcia says about the trick in his book:

“This is one of my favorite openers. I learned this many years ago in Chicago. It is a strong effect and one that always leaves the audience bewitched and bewildered. The action is fast, and it will establish you as a great card manipulator.” ¹

Many years later, in 1994, Michael Ammar taught Jim Ryan’s handling of the trick, “Red Hot Mama”, on his immensely popular Easy to Master Card Miracles series of VHS tapes—you can watch his performance on YouTube (the link opens in a new tab or window).

Subsequently, Daryl, the Magician’s Magician, taught the trick with a very similar presentation on his Card Revelations VHS tapes. Due to these two instructional videos, this particular presentation became the standard way of performing the trick (watch the video below to see Daryl perform “Chicago Opener”).

Tom Stone performing his trick “Stockholm Opener” Video Credit: Genii Magazine via YouTube.

Eugene Burger’s Opinion

Many years ago, in Reel Magic Magazine (Issue 12), Andrew Pinard interviewed Eugene Burger, the well-respected close-up magician from Chicago, for a regular feature called Continuum. Now, you might assume that being from Chicago, Eugene would have a fondness for this trick, but the situation was quite the opposite. In the interview, Eugene described “Chicago Opener” as “not a very good trick.” While he didn’t literally say it sucked, he clearly thought it wasn’t worthy of performance when compared to other classic card tricks. Here’s the full quote:

And it’s very difficult to tell a student that. You’ve been working on the Chicago Opener for all these years, but you know it’s not a very good trick. The double lift happens at the worst possible moment. When everyone is staring at the card. And then, to do the second phase tells 60% of the audience how the trick was done in the first phase. Ha, ha, ha! So, it’s hard to say, you know, maybe you’ve learned a lot from working on this trick, but if you want to be a great magician, you have to move beyond it. ‘Cause the trick isn’t very good. ²

Below is a full transcript of the relevant portion of the interview. I’ve included Andrew’s questions that prompted Eugene to express his controversial opinion about “Chicago Opener”.

Eugene Burger wasn’t a fan of “Chicago Opener”. Photo Credit: Eugene Burger.

AP: There are two ways of perceiving what good magic is. There’s the perspective of the performer who has to present. And there’s the perspective of the audience who is to receive. From the perspective of an audience member, what do you consider good magic?

EB: Well, I think magic, first of all, has to be deceptive. That’s the ball game here. It’s about deceiving people. So that is a given. But we’ve all had the experience, haven’t we, of watching the same trick done by two different performers. One person getting great mileage out of it, and the other person, it just fails. So what’s the difference? Well, what it tells me is that it’s not the trick. It’s the performance of the trick. Which means it’s partly the performer.

AP: What is it about the performance do you think that defines whether a piece is appealing or not to an audience?

EB: Well, I don’t think there is any one thing. I mean, partially, I think that the performer has to be someone who’s interesting. I’m not, like Max Maven, I’m not convinced that the performer has to be likeable at the beginning. But the performer has to be interesting to the audience. And the trick has to be deceptive. And, of course, if it’s a trick that the performer loves performing—and that’s the subtext of what’s going on here—that also has a lot to do with it, doesn’t it? We’ve all seen shows where the performer was bored and walking through it, and that’s just not as powerful as a performer who is engaged in his own work. Or her own work.

AP: Have you ever had any material that you have found compelling for you? Pieces that you wanted to perform and then found that you just couldn’t do?

EB: Oh yeah.

AP: Can you give us an example, and why didn’t it work for you?

EB: That’s a hard one. No, like you, and like everybody else in magic, I spend a lot of time working on material that never gets anywhere. And that’s one of the hardest things of all, isn’t it? To say to yourself, “This isn’t going anywhere.” And you might as well save your time and work on something that might go somewhere. “But wait a minute. I’ve spent years on this. Trying to learn this.” Yes, you have, but the writing is on the wall, and it’s time to move on. That’s a rough message. Tough love to yourself.

And it’s very difficult to tell a student that. You’ve been working on the Chicago Opener for all these years, but you know it’s not a very good trick. The double lift happens at the worst possible moment. When everyone is staring at the card. And then, to do the second phase tells 60% of the audience how the trick was done in the first phase. Ha, ha, ha! So, it’s hard to say, you know, maybe you’ve learned a lot from working on this trick, but if you want to be a great magician, you have to move beyond it. ‘Cause the trick isn’t very good. ³

Eugene isn’t the only magician who has expressed a strong dislike for this trick. In an article in Genii Magazine, Tom Stone said:

I really don’t like the piece at all. To my sensibilities, the final moment of the trick is a non-sequitur, like a whoopee cushion, or perhaps more like that screamer prank where you are supposed to move your mouse pointer along a labyrinth that becomes more and more narrow, so you lean in really close to the screen to see better, and that is when a big screaming face pops into view. Sure, you get some kind of effect, but is it a good effect? No, not in my mind; “Chicago Opener” has the same kind of “gotcha” mentality at the end. The flaw of the trick is inherent, built-in and you can see this from the countless attempts that many have made to add a proper script to the piece, because most of them make the piece worse, not better. So where’s the problem? ⁴

Tom’s main criticism of the trick isn’t the construction of the routine or the use of the double lift/turnover. It’s the overused “magician in trouble” plot. His solution, like the one I developed for my trick “Two Hot to Trot”, was to make both cards change colour and then present the second phase as an impossible transposition. Here’s Tom performing his version of the trick called “Stockholm Opener”:

Tom Stone performing his trick “Stockholm Opener”. Video Credit: Genii Magazine via YouTube.

Tom’s version of “Chicago Opener” is unusual because the backs of two cards change colour, one from blue to red and the other from blue to green. The biggest disadvantage of his approach is that the deck is dirty at the end of the routine, and the colour changes put a lot of heat on the cards. For this reason, “Stockholm Opener” would make an excellent lead-in to a Colour-Changing Deck routine with a rainbow deck finish using Joshua Jay’s “Prism Deck” or his newer “Prism Plus” (you can see a full performance of “Prism Plus”, which also uses Josh’s “Phantom Deck”, at the Vanishing Inc. Magic website).

“Prism Plus” by Joshua Jay. Photo Credit: Vanishing Inc. Magic.

I’m not going to discuss the details of Tom’s method, you can learn it in the February 2016 issue of Genii Magazine. However, hidden at the end of the explanation is a very clever way of easily resolving the issues with the “magician in trouble” element of the routine. Tom discovered that sometimes, taking a longer route is necessary to find a shorter one. After developing “Stockholm Opener”, he realised that the standard “Chicago Opener” could be easily fixed without changing the method at all.

When a red-backed card is not found in the second phase of the routine, divide the cards into two halves, spreading one half in each hand. Act puzzled and say, “There should be a single red-backed card in the deck.” Look at the first red-backed selection on the table, and then carefully slide the left-hand cards beneath the red-backed card, placing the right-hand card on top. Leave the cards on the table with the red-backed card slightly sticking out of the spread as you say, “Now there is one red-backed card in the deck!” Smile at your audience, apparently amused by your own solution to the problem, before revealing the final transformation.

Three Significant Weaknesses

One reason Eugene disliked “Chicago Opener” was that it relies on a double lift (or turnover). In fact, he didn’t like any trick that used this move. He found it unnatural and made the bold decision to remove it entirely from his professional card repertoire. Eugene considered the double lift to be one of the most challenging sleights to perform deceptively despite many people considering it a simple move for beginners. While I agree that the double lift is, in fact, an advanced sleight, often overused and butchered by beginners, I don’t believe the move is beyond redemption. As an amateur magician, I incorporate it into many of the tricks I perform, but only after dedicating considerable time to make my execution deceptive. Personally, I think the double lift is only a problem in “Chicago Opener” if it doesn’t look easy, natural and relaxed.

Eugene also thought that the timing of the double lift in the routine was problematic. According to him, it occurred at the “worst possible moment” when everyone was staring at the card, eagerly waiting to see if it was the first spectator’s chosen card. I completely agree. The move happens at a high point of tension, drawing increased scrutiny from the audience.

Furthermore, he explained that the second phase of the trick—where the odd-backed card transforms to match the second spectator’s selection—inadvertently reveals the working principle behind the first phase (to many observant spectators, at least). I can attest to this from painful personal experience. For those possessing strong lateral thinking skills, it doesn’t require a giant leap to deduce that the odd-backed card can be held against another card, creating the illusion of the back of the chosen card changing colour. It is even more likely that someone guesses the method if they have some knowledge, no matter how limited, of card magic.

We can summarise these three significant weaknesses in the construction of “Chicago Opener” as follows:

1. The double lift or turnover happens at the worst possible time—when everyone is looking at your hands.

2. The second phase teaches some analytical people how the first phase was achieved.

3. The two cards are selected in inconsistent ways, which is suspicious, and the second selection is not as free and fair as the first.

Let’s look at each of these issues in detail.

1: Double Trouble

The first weakness is the easiest to deal with. When performing the double lift (or turnover), the audience’s attention is focused on the odd-backed card. Therefore, it is essential to have proper technique when executing the move. If the two cards are not aligned correctly, the whole trick will fall apart, spoiling the surprise ending. The best way to avoid this issue is to select a robust double lift and practice it until you can perform it flawlessly.

You can also remove tension from the move by not looking at your hands as you perform the double turnover. Daryl did this by asking, “What was the card you selected?” and looking at the first spectator. Naturally, this causes the person to look at his face, at which point the double turnover is executed (see video below).

Daryl performing a delightful rendition of “Chicago Opener” on volume 1 of his Card Revelations DVD series. Video Credit: Murphy’s Magic Supplies.

Daryl also uses what I consider to be a robust or “bomb-proof” double turnover. This is any technique that minimises the chances of misalignment. You can also remove tension from the moment by performing a “soft” double turnover or one that doesn’t require a get-ready. There are several good options; a good place to start is by watching Sean Devine’s excellent video tutorial below.

Learn FIVE Different Double Lifts! by Sean Devive. Video Credit: Sean Devine via YouTube.

All the double lifts he demonstrates and explains are suitable, except for the Centre Double. The Spread Double is particularly well-suited for the “Chicago Opener” because you need to spread through the cards to reveal the appearance of an odd-backed card in the deck anyway.

Of course, you can re-engineer the trick to avoid using the double lift or turnover during the first phase of the routine. This is very difficult to do without ruining the simplicity and elegance of Al Leech’s original method. However, I took this as a challenge and developed a handling called “Two Hot to Trot”, which doesn’t rely on the double lift or turnover. In it, the backs of two cards change colour, and the entire pack can be examined at the end of the routine (no duplicate cards will be found).

So, in summary, to address this weakness, consider changing the moment you perform the double lift or turnover. It also helps to use a technique better suited to the situation, e.g., a very reliable “soft” double that keeps the two cards tightly aligned. The specific double lift or turnover you choose should be dictated by your current level of skill and comfort with the sleight.

2: Retrograde Analysis

The second weakness is more challenging to address. Even if you perform a convincing double lift or turnover in a natural and nonchalant manner, some observant individuals may deduce the method by working backwards from the end state of the trick. In effect, the odd-backed card telegraphs the method (displaying two cards as one). Unless you significantly change the effect, as Whit “Pop” Haydn did in “Chicago Surprise”, there is no way to completely avoid this issue. The best approach is to pocket the odd-backed card and swiftly move on to your next trick, not giving your audience time to dwell on the final state. This is why adding a Card-to-Pocket or Card-to-Wallet kicker works so well.

However, making the force used in the second phase feel as fair and free as possible does help take the heat off the odd-backed card. Producing the first selection from a pocket, as Pop Haydn does in “Chicago Surprise”, or from a card box, as Roberto Giobbi does in his trick “SuperLative Lover”, also helps. This suggests that you have another deck hidden somewhere, allowing you to invisibly switch any card in the deck for its odd-backed counterpart.

3: Inconsistent Processes

The inconsistency in the way the cards are chosen raises suspicion. The first selection is made from a spread or fan, while the second involves having the cards shuffled and the spectator calling out “stop” (the Hindu Shuffle Force). Compared to the initial free selection, the second choice doesn’t feel as fair. This discrepancy in the selection methods can arouse doubts in the audience about the fairness of the proceedings.

However, much like the double lift or turnover, you can perform the Hindu Shuffle Force in a way that feels more open and honest (using touches from Roberto Giobbi, Tony Slydini, and Jack Avis). In his trick “SuperLative Lover”, Roberto Giobbi doesn’t take the first selection from a spread or fan. Instead, he uses the same Hindu shuffle action to select a card during the first phase. Tony Slydini also developed the Slydini Hindu Delay, which gives your participant a greater sense of agency during the stop force. Finally, Jack Avis provided a clever subtlety, the Siva Hindu Force, in his book Vis à Vis, which makes it appear that the force card emerges from the centre of the deck. You can learn these touches in context by reading my variation of “Chicago Opener”, which is called “Two Hot to Trot”.

A Case Study: Chicago Surprise

In his signature routine, “Chicago Surprise,” Whit “Pop” Haydn has developed a simple yet sophisticated way of addressing all three of these weaknesses. Pop’s routine provides an excellent case study for exploring the magical plot’s strengths and weaknesses and how we can improve the construction of the routine.

Pop enjoys the trick and believes it to be a powerful display of magic. It is usually the first trick he performs in a card set. His opinion of the trick is evident from this comment about his version compared to the Al Leech original:

I have performed [the trick] both ways successfully thousands of times. It is not that the original is bad—I wouldn’t have wanted to improve it if it wasn’t a strong trick from the first. By ratcheting down the weaknesses, the trick and its response will be much stronger. ⁵

So, how has Pop Haydn minimised the weaknesses of “Chicago Opener”? Firstly, like Daryl, Pop uses a “bombproof” double lift. The sleight is performed in a relaxed and casual manner (as if the trick was already over). Pop also uses a technique called “calling the card face down” to make the switch much more deceptive. To do this, start naming the card as you turn the double face down. As you deal it to the table, complete the name. For example, say “Jack of...” as you turn the double face down. Deal it to the table as you say, “...Hearts.” Here’s what Pop says in his Chicago Surprise manuscript about this technique:

If you were to have named the card while it was still face up—asking the audience for agreement—and then turned it over on the deck and dealt it off to set it down, the moves of the switch would look suspicious. Why are you doing such a complicated motion instead of just tossing the card facedown on the table? By getting the audience to relax attention for a second as you continue the line, and then getting them to agree that the facedown card is the chosen card, they are easily guided past the switch maneuver. You use patter to overcome the inherent weakness in the move. ⁶

Using this technique—whatever handling of “Chicago Opener” you decide to use—will make it harder for your audience to conclude that you switched the first selection somehow. This makes the trick very baffling indeed.

Pop employs a multi-layered approach to prevent the audience from using retrograde analysis to work backwards through the trick’s actions to discover the method. “Chicago Surprise” strengthens the Chicago Opener plot by making the second selection as free and as fair as the first, which also solves the issue of consistency between the different selection processes. This approach requires the use of a “subroutine” as an out if the classic force in the first phase of the routine fails. The fact that the routine changes depending on what card the second spectator takes makes it hard to unravel the method. Pop’s clever psychological touches in his script make it almost impossible for the audience to accept that the magician forced the card. You can study Pop’s technique in the video performance below:

Pop Haydn performing “Chicago Surprise” at the Magic Castle in Hollywood, LA. Video Credit: Pop Haydn via YouTube.

Here’s what Pop has to say about the forcing procedure in his routine:

The second selection should be stronger than the first, or what is the point of repeating it? It is not enough for the force to “get past the audience”. They need to be able to attest that the second choice was free and “could not have been” a force. By using a classic force with the cards facing the spectator, they have to agree that they could have thought of any card and just picked it from the face-up cards. When you give them several chances to change their mind, they have to admit they “could have” picked “any” card, and they could have changed their mind several times. They can be convinced there was no force and none possible. If they have their finger or foot or saltshaker on the stranger card so that it cannot be switched—from before the second card is chosen—the spectators have to agree that “it could not be a force and the card could not have been switched.” If the card was not switched, and the choice was “truly free” then the result is absolutely “impossible.”

Getting the spectators to mentally “agree” to both these conditions is essential to creating a truly mind-blowing effect.

This is the difference between an effect that “fools” people (I don’t know how he did it!) and one that confronts them with the impossible (There is no possible way!).

The difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

Watch the video above, where Rachel is convinced the choice is free before the change, and her friend has had a finger on the stranger card from “before she picked a card!” ⁷

Pop’s philosophy for magic involves refining or “polishing” a trick over many years by making small changes to strengthen any weak areas, as the following quote highlights:

Why repeat the trick at all if you are not strengthening the conditions? The problem with the Hindu Force is that it is hard to get “agreement” that the choice was fair and free. Without that premise locked down, the argument for the effect loses power. The spectator should be able to state, “I had a free choice of any card I wanted, and the card under my foot could not have been switched.” If the spectator can’t affirm both of these conditions, the effect will not be as strong.

When you use the Hindu Force or similar methods, it will go past even the most observant. But if you ask someone later how they chose the card, they will have a hard time explaining. “Getting past” the spectator and convincing them they had a free choice are different things. In my opinion, when the argument for the effect requires that the choice be free, then cross-cut and Hindu force are not sufficient. One solution is good; the other is stronger. I always think that “strongest” is the goal. Look again at the video of Chicago Surprise for Rachel. See how powerful the trick is when the argument’s two basic premises are agreed to before the reveal. ⁸

Although I use the Hindu Shuffle Force and know from experience that it is highly effective, I agree with Pop. It isn’t easy to make a person feel they could select any card in the deck using this selection procedure. The best you can do—by using Tony Slydini’s Hindu Delay subtlety—is to give the impression that the selection is completely random, which isn’t as strong as leaving them with the impression that they could take any card from the pack.

Even so, I’ve still decided to use the technique in “Two Hot to Trot” because it enables the audience to examine the cards before and after the second chosen card changes colour. This provides compelling evidence to support the fundamental effect of the Chicago Opener plot (that you used your strength of will to change the ink on the card). In this situation, I’m comfortable with this trade-off, understanding that there is a greater likelihood that some spectators in the audience will suspect a force.

Dealing with Combative Participants

The following performance of “Chicago Surprise” provides a good lesson on how to deal with a resistant spectator-assistant who wants to do their own things, regardless of what you ask them to do.

Pop Haydn performing “Chicago Surprise” at Mirtollucci & Sons, Waterbury, CT. Video Credit: Pop Haydn via YouTube.

Pop Haydn generously provided a text commentary to accompany this video performance, hidden in the description of the video. I’ve reproduced the commentary below (lightly edited for clarity). Pay attention to Pop’s wisdom!

To become a great performer, you must be prepared to deal with the spectator-assistant who fights with you, contesting every procedure. One must design a routine to be ready for the combative spectator.

Actually, conflict increases the stakes emotionally and makes an effect play much stronger by making the story more interesting.

The protagonist tries to show the audience a card trick, but the antagonist wants to contest every procedure: conflict! The protagonist finds a card anyway: resolution!

Every magic trick is a little play. We should look for the places where an intelligent, well-informed person might want to object to a procedure and make sure we can handle what they throw at us—make sure we have strategies and outs so that no matter what they do, we’re okay.

When you are prepared, you can relax and enjoy the exchange and intensify the emotional conflict. Let them see you sweat. Let them see you tread water. Let them see you a little ticked off. Let them watch how you handle conflict. Let them share in your victory without making your assistant look bad.

A good actor does this by going through the play of the routine one step at a time, playing the part and honestly reacting to what is happening.

Such conflict is your friend and can greatly enlarge your audience’s reactions. It is not about having the skill to think and respond on the spot; it is about planning and preparing for everything in advance. What gives magicians the seeming ability to go with the flow and respond with unflappable aplomb to anything that happens really comes more from experience and pre-planning.

The “Chicago Surprise” is a powerful sleight-of-hand card routine that can even play on stage because of its thoroughly engineered design.

I was talking with some guys on the Magic Café about conflict and complications in magic routines.

Every magic trick is like a little play, with the magician as the protagonist and the assisting spectator as the antagonist.

The magician has a card chosen, and the spectator wants to put it back anywhere he wants or otherwise creates a conflict.

The magician wins, creating a resolution.

Along the way are complications.

This is how a routine is developed: by filling in the details of plot and character. Conflict and complications are the easiest ways to enlarge the plot.

If you ask someone to take a card and they want to put it back someplace different than you suggested, this is a great moment of conflict that can be manipulated into the routine and provide engagement and emotion.

Whenever there is an emotional exchange between the performer and his spectator-assistant, the audience is galvanized; what is going to happen? Nothing engages interest as well as conflict and emotional drama.

The more the magician can express surprise, worry, slyness, anger or joy and the more he can set his little play to make the spectator respond with emotion, the more fun and exciting the presentation.

The magician should seek out such complications and use them to add to the interest level of his little drama. ⁹

Watch More Performances of “Chicago Surprise”

Pop Haydn has also uploaded seventeen separate performances of Chicago Opener to his YouTube account, providing magic students with a unique opportunity to study a trick in intimate detail. The performances offer further insight into not only “Chicago Surprise” but also the art of close-up magic in general. You can watch all the videos in chronological order using the playlist below.

Watch all seventeen performances of “Chicago Surprise” by Pop Haydn! Video Credit: Pop Haydn via YouTube.

View Full Playlist (Opens in New Tab/Window)

If you’re interested in learning how to perform the “Chicago Surprise” and all the performance touches that Pop’s has developed over the past twenty years, I recommend that you purchase Pop’s downloadable teaching video dedicated to the trick. The video includes over an hour of detailed instructions from Pop Haydn on how to handle and perform this routine, in addition to two live performances at the Magic Castle.

Buy Pop Haydn’s The Chicago Surprise (Downloadable Video)

The download also includes an electronic copy of the “Chicago Surprise” manuscript, first published in 2000. At $10, this deal represents amazing value for money.

So, is the trick any good?

The enduring popularity of the “Chicago Opener” trick, even decades after its inception, is a testament to its captivating allure. Its elegant simplicity and ease of execution appeal to many magicians, contributing to its continued widespread performance. However, the numerous alterations and purported “improvements” that have emerged over time imply that the flaws in the original method, as identified by experts like Eugene Burger, Tom Stone and Pop Haydn, hold some validity.

While these perceived weaknesses do not necessarily render the “Chicago Opener” a subpar trick, intelligent modifications to the presentation and method, as exemplified by Pop Haydn’s “Chicago Surprise,” can significantly enhance the magical experience for our audiences.

Revisiting Eugene’s words, he is not dismissing the trick’s value, especially for beginners:

So, it’s hard to say, you know, maybe you’ve learned a lot from working on this trick, but if you want to be a great magician, you have to move beyond it. ‘Cause the trick isn’t very good. ¹⁰

Even so, from a personal standpoint, I must respectfully disagree with Eugene’s assertion that the “Chicago Opener” isn’t a very good trick. With sufficient practice and an engaging presentation, it can be one of the most impressive effects in a magician’s repertoire.

However, I do happen to concur with Eugene’s critique of the often overused double lift, which could potentially diminish the trick’s impact. While the “Chicago Opener” may not deserve the lofty epithet of “the best trick in the world” (a popular nickname on YouTube for the effect), its true potential might be better realised by exploring alternatives that don’t rely on the double lift or turnover during the initial phase of the routine.

---

Footnotes

1. Frank Garcia, “Chicago Opener,” Million Dollar Card Secrets, (New York: Million Dollar Productions, 1973), 13.

2. “Continuum,” interview by Andrew Pinard, Reel Magic Magazine, Issue 12 (August 2009). https://reelmagicmagazine.com/issue-12-eugene-burger.html.

3. “Continuum,” interview by Andrew Pinard, Reel Magic Magazine, Issue 12 (August 2009). https://reelmagicmagazine.com/issue-12-eugene-burger.html.

4. Tom Stone, “A Matter of Taste,” Genii Magazine, (February 2016): 34-38.

5. Pop Haydn, “Chicago Opener without the Hindu Shuffle,” The Magic Cafe, November 15, 2023, https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=746476&start=33.

6. Whit Haydn, The Chicago Surprise: A Card Routine (Los Angeles: Whit Haydn, 2000), 11.

7. Pop Haydn, “Chicago Opener without the Hindu Shuffle,” The Magic Cafe, November 8, 2023, https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=746476&start=30.

8. Pop Haydn, “Chicago Opener without the Hindu Shuffle,” The Magic Cafe, November 17, 2023, https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=746476&start=35.

9. Pop Haydn, “Chicago Surprise for Jay,” Pop Haydn, January 21, 2016, video performance, 0:00 to 3:10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYEhLqZGnds.

10. “Continuum,” interview by Andrew Pinard, Reel Magic Magazine, Issue 12 (August 2009). https://reelmagicmagazine.com/issue-12-eugene-burger.html.