Clueing 1 on chop in early game

[Paso_]

I had this situation that leads to a misunderstanding and a very bad game.
It was a 3 players game with black powder and Mc. During the firsts turns of the game:

_Alice clues x-1-1-x-1 to Charlie
_Bob clues x-1-x-x-x to Alice
_(no cards played yet) Charlie safely play 1 of his non-chop 1
_Alice play his 1
_Bob discard
_Charlie discard

Here is the problem. It turns out that all the three 1s on Charlie's hand were playable. But Charlie must assume 1 on chop can be black 1 so that was a save clue and he can only safely play one of his 1s ('cause no cards were played yet).
Alice and Bob, instead, expect Charlie to play the other non-chop 1.

Should someone give another clue to Charlie to make it clear? Like giving "1" again or coloring the chop 1?
Or should Charlie assume the other non-chop 1 were playable bcs nobody give him a correction clue on it?

[Jellby]

Charlie should assume chop could be 1 black, and the other 1s are playable.

In later game, if Charlie gets the same clue (x11x1) after having discarded at least once and with some 1s already played, he could assume the non-chop 1s are trash. Unless there is some coloured 1 that needs saving.

[_mg6maciej_]

At the highest level certain groups (I'd call them beyond Master, cause merely reaching Master is easy) here play with even more trust.

When a player sees 1k in someone's hand, that player plays 1s from right.
When he or she doesn't, that player plays 1s from left.

So in your example after both Bob and Charlie played their own leftmost 1, confirming to everybody else (including Alice) they cannot see black 1, they should both play all their 1s without further reclues.


At basic Master level every player is expected to play all non-chop 1s.

[Paso_]

When a player sees 1k in someone's hand, that player plays 1s from right.
When he or she doesn't, that player plays 1s from left.

That's clear. But this is not the case.
The point is: do we agree that GTP don't works with save clues?


In other words:
If someone give a save clue that touch a(some) card(s) that doesn't follow gtp, what should we do?
1_ Should the clue reciver act like GTP still work until some neg clue (or correction) proves otherwise?
2_ Or should the clue reciver act like GTP COULD don't work and wait for another play clue/indirect informations about that touched card?

[In general, it's a contextual answer (If there is only one critical 2, no 2s played on the field and a save clue touches three 2, all 2 follow GTP. On the other hand if only one 4 is missing on the field and it's critical, a save clue that touch more than one 4 proves the non-chops are trash)]

In all the situation when it can be ambiguous, the second option is better imho. Bcs giving a play clue on a clued card (or giving an indirect correction clue) is usually easier than giving a (forced) correction clue (that's more true with MC and black into play). By my experience, many players already follows this convention.

By following this convention, a clue that touch chop 1 and can be K1 should be treated equally. And from this comes my original question.

[Travis Hall]

So in your example after both Bob and Charlie played their own leftmost 1, confirming to everybody else (including Alice) they cannot see black 1, they should both play all their 1s without further reclues.

I think Paso_ has already hinted at this, but to make it clear… Bob did not play a leftmost 1. Bob did not even hold a 1, Bob clued a 1, he didn’t play it.

Bob clued a single 1 in Alice’s hand, which she played. While this is a leftmost 1, it is also a rightmost 1. Nothing about whether Alice dan see 1k can be deduced from this play. Charlie has to assume 1k clued on chop and two other playable 1s…

… assuming these 1s were in his starting hand. I gather this is not right at the start if the game. Any 1s drawn during play and marked by a 1k save should be assumed to be trash.

But assuming all those 1s were in Bob’s starting hand, a correction should be given to prevent the play of the trash 1.

[_mg6maciej_]

The original post was edited after my response and I'm certain there were 2 or more 1s in two player's hands originally.

[Paso_]

The original post was edited after my response and I'm certain there were 2 or more 1s in two player's hands originally.

Yeah, i edited the origianl post 'cause i realized it didn't match what happened in the game.
Now it better match what really happened. From Bob's play nothig can be assumed.