Reverse Bluff / skipped Bluff

[Videl6]

I had 2 occasions now where somebody clued my card on chop (a k2 in the last case) and there was no k3 in sight (not even layered), it was not a save and I was sure it was k2 (it was) so I played my newest card.

But it bombed and they got mad, because i should've seen the red 3 at the next player that was playable? Like, what!

Then somebody else bombed so, I guess it was a bit ambiguous.

But the question is: can you skip somebody with Bluff? And how do you know the Bluff is not meant for you?

[Jellby]

No, you can't. At least not if you don't want a bomb.

There are only a few very special cases where it *could* work:

- All the players before the bluffed one (and including the one receiving the clue) have their hands full with clues that cannot possibly match the required card. For example, A clues a full hand of 2s to B, there are no playable 2s and no 2s that need to be saved. B can obviously not play, and might see that C has a playable card on finesse position and leave that alone.

- The players before the bluffed one have clued cards that could match (but don't). For example, B has a (red) 1 clued, A clues a (blue) 2 in B's hand. B plays the 1 thinking it will match the 2, C knows that was not the right color and plays left... which turns out to be 2r (not 1b).

[Videl6]

Thanks for your answer!

Both was not the case, my guess is that they wanted to Bluff the next person and since I already had another play (green 5 was also clued) that I wouldn't bomb?
But you have to react to finesse / Bluff first so I was baffled when they got mad at me, like. Do you even know what it looks like to me?

[KuronoJoucho]

First we agree that there is no reverse bluff. But bluff exists self-bluff.
The reverse bluff will immediately become a bomb as a play clue.
If someone else tries to cue your black 2 to make someone else play a red 3, it's his fault

[Blacktango]

IMO, reverse bluff is possible when you give a clue to a player's hand, when everyone (including the clue receiver) knows that the card is not playable.
It's similar to the first case Jelby explained with the distant bluff.

Ex:

reverse bluff.png (13.21 KiB) Viewed 484 times

Player 2 receives a 2 clue which can't be a save (no 2 in the discard pile, and btw they have the G5 to play), but they can't play it nor see anyone with a missing 1 in their hand in finesse position.
This rare case should trigger only one answer from P3, and not multiple like a layered. In this example, they would blindly play their W5 and then, reveal the bluff.


There is also what you describe (I think) Kurono, the self-canceled bluff, or some name like that:

Ex:

Exemple de renversée auto-annulatrice (1).png (11.34 KiB) Viewed 487 times

Player 1 clues R to the P2's card known as 2. P2 knows they can't have the missing R1 because all their hand is neg R.
No one has R1 in finesse position, so what should P2 do ?

If P3's left most is not playable, then P2 should answer the clue themselves (playing their unknown Bk4 is this example).
If P3's left most is playable, then both answers are valid and need some arbitrary convention:
- reverse bluff is allowed in such case, and P2 should just let P3 play their leftmost. This convention doesn't fit well with layered.
- self-canceled bluff prevails in such case, and P2 should give a blind play. Note that this would not be the best timing to give such a clue, when P2 may like to bluff/finesse the P3's leftmost card.
- forbid such clue in such situation, because there is no logical answer

[Travis Hall]

By default, bluff is only for the next player. Otherwise most of the time nobody can safely respond to most clues while anybody has a playable card in blind finesse position.

There are a few ways to bluff somebody other than the next player, but they are special cases. Jellby has noted a couple.

I’ll give one more:
(Forgive me not taking the time to work out the image generator.)

A: x x x x
B: 3b x x x
C: 1b x x x
D: 1w x x x

Nothing played, nothing discarded.

A clues blue to C.

B sees 1b in D’s hand, matching the blue clue, so waits for 1b to play. B does something unrelated.
C does not see 1b, so plays. The card is 1b.
D sees 1b play, and so looks for 2b (due to 3b being the clued card). Not finding 2b, D plays. It is 1w.

This is a form of distant bluff. It works because everybody has to wait for 1b to play, and only then can they try to play 2b, and the very next player attempts to play it and cannot respond.

However, I have used a simplified scenario, and as a result this particular case is dangerous. The danger is that B may interfere by cluing 1w. No matter how B does this, play of 1w will no longer reveal a bluff, because it becomes an expected play. So, don’t try this unless you have reason to believe that B will not clue for 1w. It is just a demonstration of a distant bluff.

[Jellby]

A clues blue to C.

B sees 1b in D’s hand, matching the blue clue, so waits for 1b to play. B does something unrelated.

I think you mean "A clues blue to B" and "B sees 1b in C's hand", otherwise I can't make sense out of it.

[Blacktango]

I’ll give one more

Allowing such reverse bluff doesn't look worth to me. It’s (almost) always too dangerous.
More than giving a 3 clue for a reverse double bluff in such case for example. A 3 clue "smells" more like a trick for P2 than cluing blue. They may recognize it may be a double bluff and then don't try to clue the W1.

Disallow it would allow a layered then, which the opportunity is more common than such a bluff IMO :

A: x x x x
B: 3b x x x
C: 1b x x x
D: 1w 2b x x

[Travis Hall]

A clues blue to C.

B sees 1b in D’s hand, matching the blue clue, so waits for 1b to play. B does something unrelated.

I think you mean "A clues blue to B" and "B sees 1b in C's hand", otherwise I can't make sense out of it.

Yes, you are right. Thank you for the correction.

[Travis Hall]

I’ll give one more

Allowing such reverse bluff doesn't look worth to me. It’s (almost) always too dangerous.
More than giving a 3 clue for a reverse double bluff in such case for example. A 3 clue "smells" more like a trick for P2 than cluing blue. They may recognize it may be a double bluff and then don't try to clue the W1.

Disallow it would allow a layered then, which the opportunity is more common than such a bluff IMO :

A: x x x x
B: 3b x x x
C: 1b x x x
D: 1w 2b x x

No. All this talk of allowing and disallowing specific clues in specific situations requires everyone at the table to have memorised exactly the same set of rules. Far better to understand the basic principles, and play accordingly, so that you can build on those principles to communicate effectively in a wide variety of scenarios.

D should not play on to find 2b. The principle behind layered does not apply in this scenario, so doing so is dangerous, and really no better than a guess.