Convention 2p game : clue 2 first

[feydriva]

Hello,
I dont find Smallman's post on the subject, so I reopen another.
I have a (small) problem with a BGA convention, that I have (a lot) of difficulty for understand interest
How to 1) discuss it 2) change it?
Clue 1s first, after 2s if the 2 on the left is playable, the reverse if it is not.
I regularly ask players who use it WHY?
No one managed to convince me.
"It's a convention" -> that's not an argument
"Otherwise we will play the 2 on the left if you start by indexing the 1" -> we are logic enough not to play a 2 clued on chop anyway ???

There are really players who appreciate this convention ???

2 examples:
- I clue 3 ones (3!), there is no 2 in the chop, that means that I have 4 turns to save the potential 2, you will not play a 2 clued on chop at the end of 4 turns anyway?
- I clue 1 one with COLOR! What is the interest of saving the 2 before?

Try to convince me of the interest

(Sorry for english)
(Next post : why not save the 2 at 3 players )
(The easy solution is to only play with very good players who suddenly don't use this convention, but it's not a good answer )

[postmans]

Maybe @Ankeszu, our 2p specialist can shed some light on this.

As for saving 2s in 3p: We usually do, I would post: why not saves 2s in 4 and 5 player?

[Khoo1]

Hello,
I have a (small) problem with a BGA convention, that I have (a lot) of difficulty for understand interest

Hi Feydriva,

What is this BGA convention Feydriva is talking about?
I guess no point to ask for clarification about BGA convention that Feydriva has difficulty in understanding what's it about
How can anyone explain something they do not understand /joke

Clue 1s first, after 2s if the 2 on the left is playable, the reverse if it is not.

1. I do not speak for other Hanabi players.
2. If my language is inaccurate, kindly pardon me.

May I presume this topic of clue #1 first is at opening game?

Opening game, firework slots are blank,
This reasons that #1s are desired to be placed / played ?
Unless next turn players clue to prevent #1 from clashing into a misfire red token.
Does this make sense?

Clue 1s first, after 2s if the 2 on the left is playable, the reverse if it is not.

Opening game,
Clue #1,
Clue #2,
I view with 2 basic reasons:
1. Clue to play
2. Clue to keep / hold in hand / not immediately play

Which clue to keep or play?
= 1. if the #2 is in the first right position card in hand, then that clue is consistent with clue to keep.
= 2. If the #2 is in the first left position card in hand, then that clue is consistent with clue to play.
= 3. if the #2 is between left and right position then it is not consistent with clue to play or keep.

These three thoughts are basic reasons.
I do not apply convention but reasons.

Item "= 3." how would I respond?
I respond by allowing players to clarify when the card is required to play / discard.
Until them I follow their instruction on how to respond.

Edit to clarify:
In 5 cards-in-hand scenario, not all #1 on firework slots, clue #2 reveals 22xx2 then my next turn
is to determine what is priority for my turn: clue/play/keep/discard which in this turn,
I most likely would not play #2 because its prudent to read clue as 'clue to keep'
Next turn player can still choose to clue colour to play or discard or no clue to keep.
This is also prudent to prevent misfire red token.

There are other reasons but I will commit to these explanation for now using basic reasons.
I have no problem should players clue as per Feydriva describe because I apply reason.

No one managed to convince me.

I understand how you feel too.
I do not understand their language too,
that is why they cannot convince me too.

"It's a convention" -> that's not an argument

Agree. Why some EXPERT still cannot think with reason and imposing their convention.... I will never understand

"Otherwise we will play the 2 on the left if you start by indexing the 1" -> we are logic enough not to play a 2 clued on chop anyway ???

I do not understand the language to this part of the text.

There are really players who appreciate this convention ???

I do not speak for other Hanabi players.
I do not appreciate this convention.
Edit: Although I do not appreciate, but I understand the reason for it and may use it in appropriate situation / card formation.

2 examples:
- I clue 3 ones (3!), there is no 2 in the chop, that means that I have 4 turns to save the potential 2, you will not play a 2 clued on chop at the end of 4 turns anyway?

I am not sure if I understand this part of the text language.

From what I can understand....
What I would do is, after receiving clue of three #1s is ....
determine if I should clue / play / keep / discard,
Depending on the card formation.

As in opening game, I may be likely to play the #1s,
unless you clue to prevent clash / misfire red token.

Yes, you can clue #2 when the card reach first right position, I shall keep.
Basically I would most likely respond as I described as above.

2 examples:
- I clue 1 one with COLOR! What is the interest of saving the 2 before?

You clue #1 with colour.
If there is open firework slot, then I most likely would play #1, depending on card formation.

The interest in saving #2 before?
If in opening game, some times I save the #2 to keep the game efficient.
The second #2 may be at the bottom/low in the deck which makes it impossible to complete the firework.
To save depends on card formation, tokens, other players style... meaning is it right to save the #2 ?
This is what I mean by, depends on card formation (situation) If your hand already has four #5 then I may let the #2 go.

Try to convince me of the interest

Why do you need to be convince? You are so smart. Clearly you can speak more than 1 language and use the internet to play at BoardGameArena.com and I hope you enjoy the premium games at BGA for only EUR $4 per month.

(Sorry for english)

Pardon my language too.

(Next post : why not save the 2 at 3 players )

It would depend on card formation. Such as If your hand already has four #5 then I may let the #2 go.

(The easy solution is to only play with very good players who suddenly don't use this convention, but it's not a good answer )

This is a brilliant idea. I agree. So if you see me on BGA room/table, please stay out
Have fun!

[Ankeszu]

@Postmans You want me to shed light on a convention I dislike and find useful only in very specific situations*? Sorry, can't help much here.

It is annoyingly common despite not being very logical. The only reason to play it is "because others expect us to" (but not all others). And literally when I was asking for a logic behind it, that was the answer. Not sure who made that a convention, it appeared commonly surely after3rd/4th year of Hanabi on BGA.

I am sure whoever planted it in the community, he/she was thinking about safe handling initial hands. But it included assumptions that are contradictory to general game reasoning - quick getting plays and late cluing saves, thus cutting efficiency / clearness of a clue.
-- - we want to mark saves as late as possible to avoid wasting clues - but first clue 2, then clue 1s, and then few turns later I need to save-clue 2s again because of newcomer2. Or to clue by color as a play one of the twos, furtherly delaying the chop save of these 2s.
--- We want to play 1s and cards as soon as possible, ergo clue things playable as soon as possible, ergo if I'm not clued a playable nor chop save - and I don't see playable nor chop save to make - I can discard in order to get playables in my hand.
--- giving information: I also like to clue 1s for additional reason of negating 1 on the hand - cluing 1 on hand like 1b 1y 2r 3r 2m allows me to safely save by red color next turn (if partner doesnt clue red and nothing multi is drawn by him) - sometimes handy for efficient saving or saving cards not saved otherwise. And even if it would be 1 then a single card neg1 color (other than 1 color) - it's quite nice way or marking 2s by color but clearly not a play
---(I concur with your @feydriva reasoning behind multi-1 or color-1 clues too.)

Additional note: "2 then 1" believers (but not only) think that 1 then 2 (given on chop but when there is still 1 to play) believe that left 2 is to be played, disregarding option of consecutive saves (two 1s clued; 1 play; chop2 clued; 1play; next-card-after-2 unique chop save (typically 5, but can be a twin for first discarded 4 or sth).

In general view of first two clues in the game, there are some nuances depending on whether it's first or second player (and if second, what was clued in first move) - the number of cards clued, position of them (xxXxX, XXxXx, xXXXx, xxXXx, XxxxX etc...), number marked if number. Starting clues are fascinating topic, shame it is reduced to "clue 2 before 1s or 1s then a play 2s".

Regarding 2 saves on 3p... Can't wait this post I do save them on 3p, bah, I expect saving them from players I play with. There was a time I played almost exclusively 3p games (totally recommend, it nicely messes the way you think about the game :> and in master tables it cuts your elo nicely too, when you gain 0 on maxxed score and minuses on any below...) and I highly believe it improves the results. There are less eyes on the game and slightly different tempo control, ergo harder to get workable finesses and too easy to lose a useful card because of the assumptions what can the next person will do.

* Basicly, to save it in advance because of a later layered saves
Example Hand 3r 1y 2b 2g 2r 3r. If you start by 1 then 2, 2 is most likely being treated as a play. Cluing 2 first assures safe 3r (even in case of discard in first turn, which is possible if first clue of the game was 2 and partner doesnt see plays nor useful saves) and 1y at the same time.

[feydriva]

Thanks both for time for this answers!!!
For Ank agree of course.

For Khoo, thanks for answer really but we could not play together because after your post on other topic (11 August 2020, 13:06) I give you a RT, can't play with someone who think like that...

[Khoo1]

For Khoo, thanks for answer really but we could not play together because after your post on other topic (11 August 2020, 13:06) I give you a RT, can't play with someone who think like that...

I appreciate your response here. Enjoy your games.

[zeinab001]

if you hint me 1 befor 2 even if there is three 1s and you hint me 2 on chop then i play the 2 cauce you hinted me after the 1s if they arent color hinted 1s

[smallman]

its really amazing how many sheep just do this 2 clue first method, it really is baffling. I weep for humanity

[Stroom]

In 2P, saving 2s is quite important. If the other 2 is at the end of the deck, you will eventually have to save 3 cards until the end of the game on top of everything else.

This could cause less than maximum when the other 2 is in the last 3 of the deck and one of the players has all the other cards of the same color. In a 50-card deck and 5 cards in hand, that's about 1/15 chance. So in one game out of 15 when you let a 2 be discarded. more likely the chance is 1/22 though... But there are other colors that can also have the important card at the end. Which also pushes the chance of <30 higher. I do not like these chances. Rather just save 2s.

If your partner has 1-2-5-5-2 and you have a useless hand (or you have all 1s of the same color on chop so the other player is waiting for you to discard) - what do you do?
5 first - makes it seem like the rest is useless - a 2 is lost.
1 first - the other player plays a 1. Now you either use 2 and hope that the other player won't discard or use 5 and the other player thinks he can discard and the other card is the same card as you need to save it the next turn.
2 first - as it makes sense to save 2s in 2p, you can give 2 first and the other player can be cautious - using a clue on you as well. Then you use 1 to make the partner play and then a 5 and all cards are saved.

You could come up with several different cases like this. 1B-2Y-4R-5B-4R
1-2 order will probably make the player discard 4R and then you can't save one of the cards.
1-5-4 will make you lose 2Y.
2-1-5 will ask the other player NOT to discard right away as you might need to save more cards. So he clues something back, plays 1 then discards 4R and then you can clue 4 as your 4th clue, saving all essential cards.

Any other clue combination does not really make the other player NOT discard in case you have a useless hand.

If you have established 2 first as a caution clue, it can help you kickstart the flow of the game faster. It helps you both use 2-3 clues to mark everything that is useful for the next 4-5 turns and the following discards are relatively safer.

Building on top of that:
2 first then 1 is a usual play.
2 first then 5 can mean "please discard - you have a duplicate on chop".
2 first then marking nothing can also mean that you want the opponent to discard for whatever reason.
5 first can also mean that the chop is useless for now.
1 first can mean that you want the player to play, probably the rest is not immediately important (you can mark the 5s later when the 1s are played).
1 first then 2 can mean play left 2 next. This will speed up the game and you don't have to use a color clue on the 2 later, saving clues as well.
1 first then 5 can mean you might want to save more cards after the next discard. Or you want to pre-save 5 and when you discard later and the chop in the partner's hand happens to be what you just discarded, you can save that chop without losing the 5.

There are so many common patterns that happen in 2p games that you want to prepare for and prevent. Over hundreds of games you'll start seeing that some preventative moves will help out in the long run - conserving clues (don't need to give every clue ASAP when you think you can mark multiple cards at a time later) and preventing double discard situations from happening

So... If you need to save 3 different numbered cards, using 2 first offers you one grace turn where the other player does not suddenly discard the chop card that is important in the long run. You can not really do it with 1-5-2 or 5-1-2 order.

[brucellosis]

In my 2p, we typically clue 2-5-1 if those cards appear in the other's hand, and delay discard accordingly...