first clue in 2 player

[Wreckage]

Nah, we don't need to let G1 go. you can clue 1 after a green is drawn. (~4% chance bad draw of another m1 but still better to clue even then).

Yes, in this instance it would work well to give the 1 clue, but I don't think I would when two 1s are already played, and I have two more ready to play in my hand. So we could present a better outcome by giving that 1 clue, but then we should also present what that looks like if that 1 clue causes a bomb.

[Stroom]

I do not really agree with these choices. Yeah, you nitpicked some hands that would support your claim... But overall, you should look at it statistically. Since you do not really know what you have in your hand, you should play based on probabilities. Using red-green-2 is 3 clues while 1-2 or 1-red is 2 clues and you can play around whatever the other player does. Also, the cards you draw as you go, influence how you play the next clues.

[Lucy Grey]

I have a question: is it the convention to give an opportunity to clue twice? The assumption seems to be that once red or one is clued that the person will play it immediately. This not usually the case.

In Stroom’s description of the samples example #1, he assumes that the partner plays. If I was the partner, I would clue your ones with the assumption I will discard a safe red. Partner (M) can safely/cleanly return a green clue.

I think that color clues give more knowledge in these samples. A bonus is-the knowledge is for the entire hand not just those cards. This allows other clues to be cleaner and more efficient. And to emphasize, I think that we are neglecting to consider that the hand might not move in the first 2-3 clues (therefore not get tainted) and then it will move very quickly because the player has more knowledge, thus saving clues.

I also like the idea of saving a 3 in this hand where we have six cards. 3s play quickly and it’s full knowledge is quickly realized with other play clues.

My argument against this process would be.. that player 2 should be the one color clueing where possible. (I’m not hard set on this idea, bc I agree with many of the examples). There are exceptions to this idea when player 1 color clues and also hits a valuable card (2 or 5, and sometimes 3). There would be other exceptions, but I’m not willing to spend the time to analyze each of those thoughts.

I absolutely agree that a 1s clue given by partner 1 and a ones clues given by partner 2 can result in a bomb which IS a lost clue. For this reason, if one partner can have full knowledge of their hand and therefore clue more effectively to their mate, the clues can be more efficient and successful. The bonus really being that extra knowledge. In my experience, it is not often that ones plus ones equals bomb. However, I can recognize that there is often clues spent to clean up trash.

4K+ games

[ozymandias_]

I have a question: is it the convention to give an opportunity to clue twice? The assumption seems to be that once red or one is clued that the person will play it immediately. This not usually the case.

Many people will be upset if you discard in the first four moves of a 2p game. I have had countless games where I receive a 2 clue on my 1st or 2nd card, and then I discard a 1. These people tend to think you cannot save non-unique cards (even twos).

Imo it is obviously better to prioritize plays and then save nice cards when they reach chop. Others would argue that we should use the first moves to save 2s. But I think it is usually very easy to distinguish between a "play" 2 clue and a "save" 2 clue. Generally, you just ask: is the two clue as late as possible and on chop? On rare occasions this approach makes it difficult to save 2s (if 2 is adjacent to unique card), but I have found that newly drawn cards frequently resolve this "problem".

I guess another argument for "not discarding" (and 2-1 vs 1-2) is that it requires less thinking, which is true.

Here is a more polemical argument: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/204101 ... ic-so-rare

[Wreckage]

Yeah, you nitpicked some hands that would support your claim... But overall, you should look at it statistically.

This is a valid statement. Although I looked at 10 hands that were a random sample, I didn't list the other 4 hands where 1 was clearly a better clue.

I also like the idea of saving a 3 in this hand where we have six cards.

I think this lies at the heart of our different philosophies. I see saving the M3 as a benefit, not only is it marked, but it's marked with color, or double color. I save 3s more often than I let them go. I hate to let a 3 go if we already have the matching 1.

Stroom said earlier that when red 3 hits chop, if it gets clued, it must be a play because no 3s are in the discard. This tells me he doesn't believe in saving 3s. We are miles apart on this.

There is a danger of getting full hands, but saving 2s and 3s doesn’t tend to make that danger worse. (ie you might not have to be holding Y4 and Y5 if you saved the Y3 earlier). It’s a gamble, but if there’s room and tokens, saving 3s usually pays off, especially once most 1s have been played.

[Lucy Grey]

Here is a more polemical argument: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/204101 ... ic-so-rare

He and I have had this discussion. We came to an agreement.
I do think sometimes it makes sense to save 2s first. I also recognize that giving someone the opportunity to clue twice, doesn’t mean you have to clue twice. But, in most cases it seems we do.. which would allow for some clean clue giving.

[Wreckage]

Ah, the old 2s before 1s argument. The only "policy" I stick to is giving 2 opportunities for my partner to deal with my hand before I discard.

1s first is usually best if they have multiple 1s.
But if their hand is 4 3 2 5 1 2, Then you would have to clue 2s or 5s first or you wont be able to save the 2 on chop.

[Stroom]

I have a question: is it the convention to give an opportunity to clue twice? The assumption seems to be that once red or one is clued that the person will play it immediately. This not usually the case.

IMO there are different cases based on what the first clue you receive and what your partner has.
2 clue first - definitely wait.
1/color clue first - depending on your partners hand either give him a clue to save cards or play your own card. If you clue with 2 or something, see above (wait). If you play, the partner can discard. This is especially useful if the opponents chop card is a duplicate 1 or something unnecessary.

But everything is very situational and after the opening 4-5 clues, everything can be turned upside down based on what I know about my own hand. Most often though, 2-1-5 or 1-2-5 is the easiest openings and if the partner has only one 1 card, starting with a color makes more sense. With two 1s, it is already visibly better to give 1 as you don't know your own hand. You can deal with the rest later, but you wasted one clue less.

I think that color clues give more knowledge in these samples. A bonus is-the knowledge is for the entire hand not just those cards. This allows other clues to be cleaner and more efficient. And to emphasize, I think that we are neglecting to consider that the hand might not move in the first 2-3 clues (therefore not get tainted) and then it will move very quickly because the player has more knowledge, thus saving clues.

If both players give a 1 clue and one player has only two 1s in hand then there should be no worry in trying to play them both. The probablility of them both being in both players hands is quite low. Bombing one is OK. Sometimes you can even prevent bombing the 1 if the other player hasn't still played his 1s and you give a color clue indicating that a 1 is already played.

I also like the idea of saving a 3 in this hand where we have six cards. 3s play quickly and it’s full knowledge is quickly realized with other play clues.

I'm OK wit hsaving 3s. But first you have to make sure that you also have a bunch of 1s in your hand. Maybe even a few 2s. If you mark a 3 too early and the 1-2 do not come up, it just clogs your hand and the partner might have to waste a few clues to make you discard that 3 later. For me it's usually a 50-50 between discarding or managing to play it. Quite often both players try to save the same 3 so it clogs both hands until we manage to give color clues and realize that a 3 is doubled.

I absolutely agree that a 1s clue given by partner 1 and a ones clues given by partner 2 can result in a bomb which IS a lost clue. For this reason, if one partner can have full knowledge of their hand and therefore clue more effectively to their mate, the clues can be more efficient and successful. The bonus really being that extra knowledge. In my experience, it is not often that ones plus ones equals bomb. However, I can recognize that there is often clues spent to clean up trash.

If color-color-2 is one extra clue anyway and 1-1-bomb is one extra clue lost, it seems the same. But the bomb would happen in maybe 10-25% cases... Then more often you are saving a clue.

[Stroom]

Many people will be upset if you discard in the first four moves of a 2p game. I have had countless games where I receive a 2 clue on my 1st or 2nd card, and then I discard a 1. These people tend to think you cannot save non-unique cards (even twos).

This is where you neglect the benefit of differentiating between a 1-2 starting play and 2-1 starting play. If you let the other player use 1-2 to clue that the left 2 is also playable, he used 2 clues to mark one extra card as playable. Generally saves clues. It just negates the extra save if the partner has nothing useful in hand and you waste a clue... but it is still better.

Also, saving 2s is very important. Sometimes you might have 5-2-5-2 situation in chop. What to do? Clue 5? That usually means that you have nothing else useful in hand or your chop is useless. If you get a 2 and immediately discard, you lose a 5. Or 5-2-5-2-1 situation - lose the 1. The opponent can't follow with 2 if the left 2 is not playable so a 2 is lost.

[Stroom]

This is a valid statement. Although I looked at 10 hands that were a random sample, I didn't list the other 4 hands where 1 was clearly a better clue.

So it's basically a 50-50 where half of the cases are definitely better than 1s and we argue about the other 50%. And in those cases it is also questionable if a color clue would even matter anyhow. So... Overall it's like 1 start 75% vs 25% color start. And you have to consider that you don't know your hand when you give the first clue.

I also like the idea of saving a 3 in this hand where we have six cards.

I think this lies at the heart of our different philosophies. I see saving the M3 as a benefit, not only is it marked, but it's marked with color, or double color. I save 3s more often than I let them go. I hate to let a 3 go if we already have the matching 1.

Stroom said earlier that when red 3 hits chop, if it gets clued, it must be a play because no 3s are in the discard. This tells me he doesn't believe in saving 3s. We are miles apart on this.

I am OK with saving 3s. But the context in which you save them, matters too. If I already have 2s played and waiting for a 3, a 3 clue might be a play clue. The case you mentioned, is very specific as no unique 3 is discarded yet and a 2 has been played. Also, not many 1-2 clues had been played so a 3 clue marking useless 3s is a clogging threat... unless at least one of them is playable. If no 2s are played (or some color is past a 3) and a 3 clue is given on chop, yes, I assume that the player wanted to save the 3s. But it heavily depends on how far the game is. Starting with a 3 clue, marking 2+ 3s is usually just a bad idea.

In general, I would save 3s in a case-by-case basis but the cutoff point is not at the very beginning of the game. It is when I see that enough 1s and 2s are played that the 3s would not clog up the hands.
Let's take the 6-card-hand-limit. 5 slots are reserved for 5s, 5 slots for 2s (have to somehow mitigate both players holding the same 2 so color clues will be necessary). 2 slots are left for whatever is becoming unique. Now, as you manage to play a few 2s and 5s, you would free up room for saving 3s. If you play a 5, it also counts as one less 3 to save. In a very basic way, if you have played 5 of those important cards, you would be OK to save 3s if the clog is mitigated. The most basic cutoff point is when all 1s are played and every 2 starts being playable. Then the saving priority moves up. (Similarly you would save 4s at the end of the game if you know there's no clogging.) Another cutoff point could be when you have played at least two 3s already (5x5, 3x2, 3x3 to hold) but that is a bit more complicated as there's no clear situation when you think clogging will or will not happen. Heavily depends on both hands and how clogged they are already.

There is a danger of getting full hands, but saving 2s and 3s doesn’t tend to make that danger worse. (ie you might not have to be holding Y4 and Y5 if you saved the Y3 earlier). It’s a gamble, but if there’s room and tokens, saving 3s usually pays off, especially once most 1s have been played.

Saving 3s too soon is IMO most often what does make the danger worse, especially in the starting phase of the game. If you start with a hand full of 5s or just no playable cards... If there are only those two 1s, you might not be bale to play M3 for a LONG time. The gamble you are taking is very situational. In your multi-3 case, it often doesn't make much sense. If it does somehow help, good for you. If you make the opponent play 2 cards, you might be able to use a color clue later to mark the M3 anyway. Also, you are probably letting Y3 go in this specific case so it is just guessing which 3 you need, not based on any knowledge.

I usually mark 3-4-5 as collateral with a clue that marks something else as playable. And then I try to use other collateral clues to show what color they are. (M2-Y3-Y5 and M1 played - I use Y clue and mark all 3. M2 is played but I have saved Y3 for later. But I do it when I know that the hand is a t a very low risk of clogging)