I really like this Bannon effect as it’s interesting to the audience to watch with a very surprising visual finale. I’ve found out that the ascending order of the suit adds to the impact, but when I don’t have time to setup I’ve done it without and it still garners good reactions.

That led me to see whether it would be possible to tinker with the effect this way: at the end all the hearts, say, minus the selection are found face up in the deck in random order. The selection is added to the hearts which are gathered in a small face-down packet and their name called out by moving cards from top to bottom. The cards end up in correct ascending order.

I have not yet found a motivation for it yet, but I kind of like the idea.

Do you think this idea has merit, or whether it muddles the plot without bringing anything of value?

I think it depends on how you manage the build-up and release of the tension during your performance.

The climax of the main effect in itself is so strong that the order of the cards is expendable. The participant does not know what is going to happen, and the all-of-a-suit reveal plays quite big in my opinion.

From there, while you gather the cards and the tension is released (i.e. without a "wait, there's more!") you could lead to the second effect quite seamlessly.

Even if you keep the original ending with the card in order, you can openly mix them up and go into the other effect you described.

You made some very good points. Thanks.

Food for thought.

To me your idea doesn't really add to the effect. The spread of the cards showing the run of hearts is the climax. I do indeed like the idea of a mixed up cards becoming rightened. I just don't think it belongs in this particular effect. Having said that here are my tinkering of the Bannon effect:


This is a version of Bannon's Play It Straight Triumph that I've been using to great success lately. It involves two spectators and has a standard Triumph revelation as well as Johns swell revelation of the suites.

Have the A-K of diamonds on top of the deck. Turn to a spectator on your left to remove any card from the lower portion of the deck. Turn to the right and spread the top portion for your second spectator, forcing one of the diamonds. 8D

While they are showing their cards, reverse the bank of diamonds to the bottom of the deck in a pass type action. You will now split the cards in half (maybe a tad less) and perform a Tenkai turnover. You will faro the face up cards into the face down portion. Spring these together. You may now spread the cards between your hands showing the mess.

Riffle down into the lower half of the deck and have the spectator on your left insert their card face down. Close and respread the cards, obtaining a momentary break below the lowermost face down card KD. Perform another Tenkai, faroing the face up cards into the face down. The KD will show.
Follow by springing the cards ala Josh Jays ribbon spread hide out. Spread the cards across your surface showing all of the cards have righted themselves with the exception of their card! Remove this card.

Look for the second specs card in the spread. They will be overjoyed to tell you that they did not replace their card. Ask them to, at least, tell you the suit of their card. Close and respread the cards showing the diamond suit in order minus their card!

Yes, I've found it difficult to integrate the second effect, i.e. reordering the suit, with the first, triumph, without actually harming the climax of the latter. But, I've not yet given up on the idea.

I do like your handling, thank you for sharing.

A couple of remarks however: it’s certainly more than tinkering, it’s a completely different method! And it’s outside the remit of this sub-forum which is created for the discussion of tricks and effects which are pretty much self-working or extremely easy to do. (e.g, no sleights, semi-automatic, no skill). Although the sleights are not knuckle-busting, the trick certainly requires skill and sleight of hand.

Incidentally, there are a few variations on the Bannon effect which I like, notably Simon Lovell's Super Play It Straight! and Joaquin Matas's Double Triumph. They both add an extra climax to the original.

If you feel that this should be moved, I don't have a problem. Personally I find these things to be silly. If someone takes the time to read, absorb then perhaps perform, since it's my work and have given permission all is fair. But true, definitely not self working. I'd rather hide it here as it is tangentially related to the subject at hand. Read or disregard.
Mine is similar to Josh's, but is more logical in my mind

I think you might have misunderstood my remark about the sub-forum being self-working. It simply means that I was trying to find a solution within its parameters. I perform a few sleight-of-hand versions of triumph, but the Bannon handling of which the shuffling sequence looks so fair is hard to beat.

Your contribution was certainly welcomed and appreciated.

Ahh. Understood.

OK, here is a little addition to John's seminal trick. I had to go find the big blue book to re-familiarize myself with his original method. And no, this is not exactly fit in with your parameters, as it adds a minute amount of sleight-of-hand, but could enhance the effect:

On top of the deck have your ace through king of hearts with an X card above them.
From the top- X, A-K of hearts, followed by the rest of the deck.
Centralize the bank and classic force one of the hearts, let's say the six. While they are looking at this card hold a break above the X card. Have them return their selection above the X card and bring the stock to the top via double undercut, pass whatever. Perform a couple of false cuts and do a double lift showing the X card. Turn this over and place their selection onto the table off the side but in view. An apparent failure.
Now perform play it straight triumph as written in the book. Ask them the suit of their card where they will say hearts. Spread the cards showing the ace through King run minus their selection. To end snap your fingers over the card showing it as the missing value.

, And of course you have to slip cut the X card into the middle of the deck before going on with PIST.

I strongly disagree with the idea that the order of the cards is "expendable". I think the power of the effect is largely due to the cards being in sequence. People have an intuitive sense that the cards being in order is "more magical", because you have created more order from apparent chaos. To have the cards out of sequence is (IMHO) a real waste of Bannon's brilliant thinking. The only reason we try to justify this to ourselves is because it would be easier from a method point of view. I don't think we should sell this effect short.

The amazing thing about Bannon Triumph is it is such a powerful effect AND such a simple method. Ed's ideas to enhance it are very ingenious; but seem to require a lot more technique/effort for relatively small marginal improvement.

Having said that, here are a couple of suggestions of my own...

1. Sometimes a spectator might be bit difficult, and not take a card from the bank. Let them take any card they want. Then have a second spectator take one from the bank. (I think they are much more likely to comply if you are relaxed about the first spec's choice). Then have the first card returned but "forget" the second one.

2. Bannon Triumph will be most impactful if the spectators have shuffled the deck themselves. Ie. if you can get the cards in order FASDIU. This has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.
I have come up with a routine that starts with a (rather lame) pick-a-card trick, but secretly allows me to do the setup. Then a "normal" Triumph that doesn't disturb the setup. And finally the `Bannon Triumph.
I think this makes the BT super-strong.
BUT I must say I am a hobbyist who does a few tricks for friends. I doubt this would be suitable for a professional performer.

I like that little touch very much, Ed. I will probably adopt it.

The effect could be performed as you described, but, also, it would not be very difficult to actually leave the X card at the position of the selected heart to show it among the face-up hearts. It seems to me to add a soupçon of Dunbury Delusion performing the trick this way. I need to try both ways to see the audience's reaction.

If you could manage to get it faced down among the face up group of hearts...
Good idea, I'll work on it.

Doesn't it need to be face UP? Otherwise how will it be distinguished from all the other face down cards?

They would have to be removed from the spread first. Personally, I think this is a bit of a slog. However you could complete the effect like Elmsley's diamond cut diamond

Yes, the X card would be face up and would occupy the position of the selection. When the deck is spread out all the hearts and the X card will show face up.

The idea is to give a bit more substance to the X card that’s shown once and then forgotten about. The surprise should happen when the spec realises that the X card, which is supposedly tabled down, has switched places with their selection. Your original suggestion of discarding the X card will of course generate a bigger surprise, but I like the aesthetics of the switch that I suggested and the extra effect.

Thinking about it, the X card could actually be a second spectator's selection. I need to think this through to see if I can make it work theatrically.

Technically, it's not difficult to achieve. I would have to try both handlings to see which one works best for me and the audience.

I'm not sure about the transposition of the selection for the X card. The problem with the card being face up is that it takes too long for the audience to figure out what happened, which is why I suggested having it show up facedown. Unfortunately this creates too many other logistical problems. However your suggestion about including a second spectator, is very solid and quite practical.

Ultimately, my original quest to modify Bannon’s trick has failed, but I’ve ended up with a change that I actually like, thanks to Ed and the guys who contributed to this thread. It’s great to be able to freely benefit from other magicians’ creativity. Thanks again.

When I originally came up with the idea of having a second spectator take a selection, I played with the idea of having it appear in the location of the missing selection. It was technically too challenging for me at the time. I came to the conclusion it would be almost as good (and much easier!) to control it to the top of the bank. This would allow you to spread the deck slowly to reveal that selection first; then reveal the bank of stacked cards.

Now I have more skills, I can think of several ways to get the selection A into the exact position of selection B.
Having played with this, it looks great if it is contrasting colour, which it will be by chance 2/3 of the time. But if it's the same colour, it doesn't stand out, so there is less impact.