No comm no problem discussion

[TheAlexD]

So in a game i was participating in there was a discussion about the idea of no comm is no problem. I was of the position that no comm does mean no problem (assuming of course the player can communicate) while this other player was strongly opposed to that idea. So here are some of my arguments in support, and debunking of other arguments
1) Due to typical logic which says that if A---->B then (not B) -----> (not A) (If a statement is true so is its contrapositive, look it up) And so if there is a problem you should comm, which means that if there is no communication, then there is no problem. It makes sense.(Correct me on this if i'm wrong)
2) It reduces the number of possible cases in which you need to comm. If you need to comm to say "I have the blue 9" when your task is the blue 7, then you might not be able to comm for other things
3) If somebody takes a task (unless they're last) it should be assumed that they can take that task, until they confirm otherwise. This is true the majority of the time, and makes logical since (innocent until proven guilty)
Yeah that's pretty much it

Debunking:
From the person in the game:
"I've seen so many examples in which this philosophy has lead to disaster" ---> Not really something important. I've never seen this philosophy lead to disaster
"If this player has a high card they need to communicate it, if they don't assume they don't have it" This means a player essentially has to communicate about their task always which wastes comms and can just make the game slower because there's a lot more caution you have to take.

Please let me know of any errors you have with this philosophy or any thoughts

[Romain672]

You want the alternative of it.
If no one communicate if there is a problem, how do you manage the later missions where you have 8+ tasks to manage: wasting a turn is pretty expensive.

I will add some others thoughs to it:
- especially in early missions, the person who take the last mission (and the second last) didn't choosed it. So the only factor which decided he got that task is the fact others didn't choosed it. So doing it first is more dangerous.
- if you have two problems in your hand, my philosophy is to wait one turn without comm, and then comm one of them turn 2.
- if someone comm a problem which was mandatory, I want everyone to be way more careful about trying to force 'blindly' the other task of that person. Especially if we have time (=early missions).


And I will finish with an example (there is only one problem in Cathy's hand):
Name: Hand |Task
Alice:.. b2### g136 p58## y349 r4# | y6
Bob:... b16## g459 p2### y78# r23 | g8
Cathy:. b39## g278 p13## y125 r## | p5
Donald: b4578 g### p4679 y6## r1# | none

So here, if we let everyone comm their high cards, Alice will comm y9, Bob g9, and Cathy will can't win her p5, so she will imo comm how she plan to win p5, which is... By playing green
But since Alice already comm, there will need to have lots of others stuff to make it happen (like I believe here from Donald's pov, going twice in blue to make Alice discard one green).
On our world where no comm=no problem, Cathy will so comm g8, and then Alice, who got p5, will comm b2 alone as a counter call. Which means, blue seem to be where the team should play. And that's known immediately, while if Alice already used her comm, it would not be known.


If someone want to argue for the opposite, please explain how my example should work with your way, OR (/and ) find another example where your way of thinking is good, while the 'no comm no problem' isn't (even if it's not as complet as mine). Thanks

[Ursula1972]

It's simple. Don't play with that kind of people. No one should play with that kind of people. No discussion needed.

[Romain672]

I will give another example to it. 4 players.
Alice: b49 g3 |
Bob: b18 | b5
Cathy: b37 | b2
Donald: g19 | g9

This time I didn't wrote everything for simplicity.
I find this example pretty interresting. Alice has many ways to play this hand:
- the most basic one, wait for one blue trick to be done, then comm b9 alone, and let others manage her problem somehow.
- something I like more, to comm b9 highest, which will tell to others the second blue trick will be a problem, but that still doesn't help much the team. The team just know more early that blue is a problem, so can try to manage it (or be careful about it (if Donald got the lead with b2+b5 only, he can let others start blue).
- comm g3 alone, which is no sense. That would (in my opinion) ask for two turns of greens, which will let Alice discard her b9.


Else here is a third example.
First blue trick was b1279. Second blue trick was b358. So b4 and b6 are leftover.
Now we are close to end game. You did all your tasks, have b6, and have nothing to comm.
Another player don't know if he should start blue or pink. If you don't comm, he will go blue, and hope b6 is in the hand of the player who got the last task.
In this situation, we are totally in the case where no comm no problem is actively bad. If you comm b6, that player will go pink. So comm a random 'useless' thing is good.
Usually this kind of thing is very late in the game.


Pretty hard to try to argue for the opposite

[MoiMagnus]

Pretty hard to try to argue for the opposite

I might be misreading your examples, but it seems that in every example the good play is to actually communicate, and the players that need to communicate has some good reasons to think that there might be a problem.
"No comm, no problems" means "If you have a good reason to think that there might be a problem, you have to communicate. As a consequence, you can assume that if no one communicate, no one think that there might be a problem".
So "No comm, no problems" agrees with you in your examples.

To find a counterexample to "No comm, no problem", you have to build a situation in which the best play is to not communicate, because all your available communications would be misinterpreted and lead to failure), but where the other players should not assume that there is no problem because that would also lead to failure (but that the situation is still winnable if the players play carefully).

[Tuut Tuut tis Luut]

One of the biggest advantages in my view is one that's not immediately obvious. It opens up a lot more options in how to use your comms that you would not have otherwise.
When the base assumption is to not comm. That means that when someone does decide to comm, it's important and can be assumed/used to convey more information than you otherwise could.

A simple example:

I have two tasks: G5 and y3.
I have no high yellows or rockets, but I do have a long green hand.

When I then comm my green 9, my crew immediately knows: I am not able to win my yellow task in yellow, so do not lead with the yellow 3. But I do have a long green hand and I want to use that to win the y3 instead.

That's a lot of information from just that 1 comm. Information that you would not get if the assumption is that you have to comm your high cards anyways.


Another even simpler example:
I have a y5 task. I have no yellows but I do have a rocket.
Commander Bob has the y3 task.

Bob starts with the y9 and wins their task. Everyone now knows I have no yellow cards.

Using NCNP, by the simple act of NOT communicating. My crew immediately knows I have a rocket. Something I would have no way of communicating otherwise.

The crew is a game of cooperation and communication, the challenge is to make the most out of the very limited options for communication you are given. NCNP works, because any other playstyle means that every comm can only be taken at face value. By not using NCNP you're losing 90% of your potential for useful communication.