Trash Bluff Conventions

[Agent Smith]

Hello, I would like to get some clarity on answering trash bluffs. My understanding with bluffs is that only the player in front of you should answer, however, I have noticed that sometimes several players answer. So for example, if I am Player 1 and I clue unplayable 1's to Player 4 then Player 2 will answer with left card (correct) but sometimes Player 3 will also answer left card.

Thanks.

[Khoo1]

I am no expert, so more experience players can clarify.

As a guide, it is prudent to use 1 clue token for 1 intent.
Additional reveals maybe beneficial or unintended effect.
If in doubt, give players token to clarify what they intent.

If you tell player 3 that player 3 move is not right,
then player 3 may feel you are rude and arrogant.
Without cooperation, can you play Hanabi right?

Some player 3's may even blame player 1 for giving bad clue.

Hence, one suggestion is to use methods that most players understand.
As all play along, they start to understand what the table understands.

Just my 2 cent
The right answer you seek is on table at that moment.
Learn your players and learn the deck of the moment.

Have fun.

Edit: On another note.

If trash bluff clue 1 but there is space in playing area for 1 then ... ?
If trash bluff clue 1 but that 1 is really intended to fire 1 then ... ?
So when you use a method, consider what happens after then...

TLDR:
Is it not skillful players who makes it easy for team mates to achieve success ?

[Romain672]

So, here is a full explanation, I got a question about that recently too, so I suppose the 'non logical' things could be depending of playstyle.

The base of the move is that:
Played: All 1 except r1.
B: r1-x-x-x
C: y1-x-x-x.
A clues 1 to C.
B saw that, wonder why A clued 1, and deduces he has r1, so he plays it.
What's the point of it? It protect C's chop by preventing him to discarding since he now has a trash card. If C's chop is y3, it's really good to keep that card around.

This can be a bluff too:
Played: All 1 except r1.
B: g2-x-x-x
C: y1-x-x-x.
A clues 1 to C.
(check my next example for another interpretation)

Then now, if we begin to assume two missing 1s (which was your question):
Played: g1, y1, w1, m1.
B: r1-x-x-x
C: x-x-x-x
D: y1-x-x-x.
A clues 1 to D.
B and C's goal is to make that clue not bomb, that's the reasonning B and C should have for every (non stupid) clue imo (in my opinion).
So B plays.
Then C now need to wonder if D is going to bomb or not. Here the answer is no (D's 1 is known trash), so imo he should not play. (for very experienced player, this could be a 'suboptimal trash bluff' as C, but that's so confusing, I really advise you to not assume it outside of high level table)
[[[There is no doubt about that if B played b2: C can't play the remaining 1s anymore.
There is that other thing where people could assume to always play if that could be a finesse, if they assume finesse has full priority. But the odds of that happening are so low... You need a trash 1 in D, a 1 in B's finesse positon, and a playable in C. (or the two missing 1s in B's slot 1&2)
I assume players don't think like that.
Feel free to argue into that if you want.
Please note take that reasonning would change others things since I belive 'layered finesse' (warning this term is ambigious) would became logical.
So B should assume r1-b1-x-x (if C didn't answer and D didn't play).
But usually this kind of 'layered finesse' isn't a thing in bga. That's why I don't like that interpretation.]]]

.

So this was the base. Now you need to know these clues are possible with a 2 (or any number):
Played: r1 and all 2 except r2.
B: r2-x-x-x
C: y2-x-x-x
A clues 2 to C.

Or with color:
Played: g3, m5.
B: b1-x-x-x
C: g1-x-x-x
D: x-x-x-g(5) - g5 was saved with 5 previously
A clues g to C.
Be careful with this one because B could maybe got all remaining copies of g4 if he got something else to do, and if the clue is needed for another reason (double save for C per example).

Now where it can became interresting is with multiples 1s clued:
Played: All 1 except r1.
B: b2-x-x-x
C: y1-1-x-x.
A clues 1 to C.
So here, if r1 is leftmost, B discard, so after B play, C has negative r1 in slot 1.
But the point is, there is a good chance B could assume it was an extraction to C if r1 was rightmost.
If that extraction is impossible (y1-r1-m2-x with m2 played), why A did that clue? Reclue of 1? I never saw that even if that's logical.
If that extraction is suboptimal (y1-r1-r3-x), why A didn't clued red? Here logically it should ask B to play his slot 1 as a 'suboptimal trash bluff'
If C's hand is r1-r1-x-x, yeah that make sense. But again Bob could clue red in some cases.
But... That is just so much complicated to see these exceptions which are rare.
I assume that players always assume all clued card are trash.

And for finish, let's talk about finesse-trash bluff with reverse or not;
Played: All 1 except r1.
B: x-x-x-x
C: r1-x-x-x
D: y1-x-x-x.
A clues 1 to D.
or:
Played: All 1 except r1.
B: x-x-x-x
C: y1-x-x-x
D: r1-x-x-x.
A clues 1 to C.
This is a pretty rare spot. I believe A would do that mainly only if B got something else to do, which then make the delay of B has really few cost.
What if B got nothing to do.
I assume it's two valid clue, and B should discard. But, I would not do that clue out of tables with very experienced player.

And I think I covered all cases. Tell me if I forgot one.

[Agent Smith]

Thank you for the detailed post. I will have to read it a few times to understand fully. But in general I think my problem comes if there are 2 or more 1's left to play, as this creates confusion. If this happens again I should probably not skip to 4'th player unless 3rd player actually has a playable card.

[Romain672]

In short, like writed in my big post, I assume B play is enough for that move. So C should not play and D discard.
But you have alternative interpretations.

[Agent Smith]

Yes this is how I interpret it too but you are right. And this is what makes this game fun imo: many different ways to play it

[Romain672]

Apparently, I just learn 'finesse trash bluff' has high priority on Hyphen-ated conventions.

This is the case asked on this post:
Played: g1, y1, w1 (m1).
B: ?-x-x-?
C: r1-x-x-x
D: x-g1-x-x
A clues 1 to D.

I still don't get the difference of that situation with a normal 'out of position bluff':
Played: g1, y1, w1 (m1).
B: ?-x-x-?
C: r1-x-x-x
D: x-g3-x-x
A clues g to D.

I really would like to argue with someone who believe on first situation B should discard, but on second B should play his finesse position.
Imo, B should play in both situations.

[Travis Hall]

Apparently, I just learn 'finesse trash bluff' has high priority on Hyphen-ated conventions.

This is the case asked on this post:
Played: g1, y1, w1 (m1).
B: ?-x-x-?
C: r1-x-x-x
D: x-g1-x-x
A clues 1 to D.

I still don't get the difference of that situation with a normal 'out of position bluff':
Played: g1, y1, w1 (m1).
B: ?-x-x-?
C: r1-x-x-x
D: x-g3-x-x
A clues g to D.

I really would like to argue with someone who believe on first situation B should discard, but on second B should play his finesse position.
Imo, B should play in both situations.

Well, the difference between those two situations is that in the second case, B and C are told by the clue that they are seeking to play g2. In the first case, there is no specific card that would make the clued card playable. The first case is just relying on B and C being aware that they have to tell D not to play somehow, and thus any card not previously hinted at in any way should do.

So, in the first case, any playable card should do, and B sees a playable card in C’s hand, so should be able to cede the play to C as long as C trusts B to never miss a bluff.

But in the second case, because B knows we are seeking g2, and cannot see g2 in C’s hand, if everyone is in agreement that we should favour finesses over bluffs then B should play, trusting that the finessed card is there.

I’m not a fan of this approach, though. I’d want to have good reason to clue a bluff past the next player. If I want to draw the r1, isn’t it usually clearer to let B clue it? Maybe I’m holding r2, and allowing r1 to be properly finessed would be better.

[Romain672]

If I want to draw the r1, isn’t it usually clearer to let B clue it? Maybe I’m holding r2, and allowing r1 to be properly finessed would be better.

Ok ty.
Yes it's usually better but B can have another play, or a trash discard, or four trash discard.
It's not unlikely.

[Travis Hall]

If I want to draw the r1, isn’t it usually clearer to let B clue it? Maybe I’m holding r2, and allowing r1 to be properly finessed would be better.

Ok ty.
Yes it's usually better but B can have another play, or a trash discard, or four trash discard.
It's not unlikely.

I said I would want to have a reason to clue the trash bluff past the next player, and those would be reasons. Implicitly, though, the reason has to be good enough to outweigh the reasons not to do this - mostly the problems with ambiguity and possible misinterpretation. I wouldn’t say never do this, but do consider whether it is really worth doing.