My contribution debates the relationship between the rule of abstinence and countertransference, existing much more implicitly than explicitly in the specialized studies. I discern three moments: exclusion of countertransference by the demand of abstinence as a rule; restraining the abstinence rule to neurotic disorders and emphasizing the importance of noticing and expressing countertransference for the psychotic pathology and borderline; exclusion of the rule of abstinence and the assertion, as a substitute, of the “optimal gratification” principle, which promotes the expression of countertransference, a valid principle for the neurotic disorders too. By pointing out the one-sided extreme points of view, I put forward: “the principle of the optimal facilitation of the analysis” as an alternative to overcome one-sided attitudes inside a balanced synthesis.