Board Game Arena

This is a 2-player game on avalanche, with no black powder and no flamboyants.

I am the first player, and this is my partner's hand:

I gave a red clue, and then a green clue.

Most players give a 1 clue here, with second clue being a 2 or red. Perhaps even waiting several plays after the 1 clue to make sure the 2 or red is a clear play. There is no doubt I have "wasted" a clue by using two colors to get the 1s played.

Here's why I think it's worth doing:
First, it's very clear. Sorting out the 1s in 2-player games is different than multi-player. My partner, receiving a red clue instead of 1s, can clue (or play) with knowledge. I generally don't clue M1 with a color, so my partner can be confident it's R1. Also, my partner is experienced and knows to play G1, not the multi, after the green clue.

Second, it's possible there will be more inefficiency starting with 1s. 30% of the cards are 1s. It's most likely that I have two 1s in my hand, which means more than 50% chance of a bomb (-1 token), or spending a clue to avoid a bomb. It's also most likely that it's not possible/practical for my partner to clue colors for both of my 1s. Looking though your games, you'll see that giving colors like this to play the first two 1s, is only possible less than 5% of the time.

If I am holding three 1s, there is about 75% chance we have a duplicate, and about 25% we have 2.

Starting with color also helps with decisions they may have about clues for my 2s, saving R3 or G3, and helps with info concerning double discards. I like waiting until they have played twice before giving the 2 clue as well, giving them a chance to draw another 2 hopefully.

I do admit, if I am holding no 1s at all, my way is more costly. I just wonder if anyone else would play it this way?

+1 to red+green over 1

You should have used a 1 clue and then a 2 clue - this means that the other player should play all his 1s and then the leftmost 2 (from the initial situation so whatever cards he drew after playing the first 1 do not count)

Using colors to mark multi 3 - that is usually not a good move since it is not a critical card. And it is especially confusing as you use green clue that changes the color of one of the cards. Yes, I would probably play the green card but I would think that the multi is also playable. In addition, to the logic that 1 -> 2 would have marked all playable cards, the red-green-2 would mean you wasted one extra clue... but for what? If the multi was a 5 you could have used 1-2-5 and hopefully save another 5 I could have drawn while playing 1-1-2.

It does not matter what cards you have in hand. Especially if you go first. Giving a color clue could sometimes also mean that the left is multi 1 (and then you get a 1 clue that marks the rest of the marked reds as 1s so you know that you can play one of those 1s and discard the rest). Bombing once with the 1s in the beginning is acceptable. It helps keep the game moving and you can get on track faster. If you start the game by playing around duplicates, you either waste a lot of clues and/or a lot of moves being afraid of playing, which could cause even more problems.

Edit:

Even 1 -> red might work if the other player does not draw a red/multi. Or if the other player clues something in return. Then the second red means play the leftmost red after all the 1s.

(Nearly 20k 2p plays under my belt)

I appreciate the comments, and welcome disagreement.

Stroom, I looked at your last 10 games from your perspective. I didn't replay the games, but just looked at your partner's hands. If these were the cards in your own hand, you would be better off with my red - green clues 6 times out of the 10. There may not be much benefit on hand #2, but I think we get the wasted clue token back.

Stroom wrote: ↑09 December 2021, 18:01 Using colors to mark multi 3 - that is usually not a good move since it is not a critical card.

I hate to let 3s go. I see marking the M3 as a bonus, not something I want to avoid. Since 3 cards are already playable, keeping that 3 is good imo.

Stroom wrote: ↑09 December 2021, 18:01 And it is especially confusing as you use green clue that changes the color of one of the cards. Yes, I would probably play the green card but I would think that the multi is also playable.

This green clue should always mean the green card, not the multi. So this is not an issue. Also, I know my partner thinks this way too.

Stroom wrote: ↑09 December 2021, 18:01 Giving a color clue could sometimes also mean that the left is multi 1

I already said I generally don't clue color to play M1 at the start, because it tends toward confusion. Also, they either play R1 (and then know), or clue me, and then I clue green which makes it clear either way.

Stroom wrote: ↑09 December 2021, 18:01 If you start the game by playing around duplicates, you either waste a lot of clues and/or a lot of moves being afraid of playing, which could cause even more problems.

My way just avoided wasting a lot of clues...1 extra clue, and 1 clue only. We are going straight into plays.

Stroom wrote: ↑09 December 2021, 18:01 Bombing once with the 1s in the beginning is acceptable. It helps keep the game moving and you can get on track faster.

I agree 1 bomb is acceptable. But losing 1 clue token is not? You will lose this token with the bomb, and my point is that more often than not you will spend this token anyway, or lose it bombing, or save a clue by not needing to clue my R1.

+1 for r to open. it is much more flexible. can give 2/1/g to follow depending on draw. i feel ppl over-plan for the hand as-is, and under-rate the option value of draws. the leading example of this is ppl's desire to clue 2->1 if 2 doesnt match, when it is invariably more desirable to allow more draws before giving save clues (i know you all get confused that chop 2 could mean play--even when there was a chance to clue 2 before it is about to be chopped, but ...)

the argument against is that it is inefficient (relative to 1->2) given hand as-is. ironically, those making this argument don't see the efficiency arguments of delaying 2 save in 2p games

1 -> 5 is the best here. Not sure why you would use a color here.


2 -> ... -> blue. Or just mark nothing? But then it's a wasted clue. So better mark 2 to let the other player know that the last card is probably not critical.


1 -> 2 is the best as it commands the other player to play all 1s then left 2. No need for color here. You could even continue with 3 and 4 to play those. Or white to mark the 3 for playable and 4 to play the last card. 1 -> white -> 4 or 1 -> white -> 3 -> 4 could work too.


Not sure how you think a color clue would fit here. 1 -> 5 -> ... -> 4 is the easiest way here.


1 is self explanatory here. No matter what I have in my hand. If we bomb with a 1 we can try being more careful.


This is the only case where you'd use 2 -> 1 clue. Should you try to save the multi 3 with a color clue? I do not really see why. It woudl most likely be marked with a follow-up clue after the other player plays all his 1s.

I hate to let 3s go. I see marking the M3 as a bonus, not something I want to avoid. Since 3 cards are already playable, keeping that 3 is good imo.

At the very beginning of the game it does not make much sense trying to save 3s as the hands could get clogged. Happens more often than not. Yes, it might help sometimes but statistically saving 3s does not make sense (you have to save 2s and 5s too already so that's potentially 10 cards filling the hand - now if you add a few 3s into the mix, the other player won't know which 3 or color-marked card is actually critical or not)

This green clue should always mean the green card, not the multi. So this is not an issue. Also, I know my partner thinks this way too.

Sure. If you play like that, it is OK to clue like this. But in the general sense, seems more like a waste in this specific case.

I already said I generally don't clue color to play M1 at the start, because it tends toward confusion. Also, they either play R1 (and then know), or clue me, and then I clue green which makes it clear either way.

Yeah, you shouldn't usually use color to make someone play M1... but sometimes it just makes handling the rest of the hand easier (if the player has a bunch of 5s or other critical cards in hand) And if you count that one bomb in the beginning is OK, then marking M1 for play is viable. Although marking a multi with 2 colors is not usually a play clue for the multi. Either way it's comment for the original situation so there's no point in trying to apply a rule for every possible case.

My way just avoided wasting a lot of clues...1 extra clue, and 1 clue only. We are going straight into plays.

You used red -> green -> 2. I would have used 1 -> 2 or 1 -> red. Same effect but using one less clue. Also, if any new playable cards appear in the opponents hand and you want to save M3, it is doable with a color clue later.

I agree 1 bomb is acceptable. But losing 1 clue token is not? You will lose this token with the bomb, and my point is that more often than not you will spend this token anyway, or lose it bombing, or save a clue by not needing to clue my R1.

In this specific case, red -> green -> 2 is a waste of 1 clue. In 2p you must conserve clues more as you could often end in a situation where you are forced to discard rather than try to save cards. So you should start being a bit conservative with the clues.

If you want to look at good examples of games, games between me and ondiandreas are the best examples.

I think my last post was confusing. I did not post those hands as examples of when it's good to clue color. They are examples of what could be in your own hand when you are first player giving a clue to the hand in my original post. I will clarify.

So, this is your partner's hand, you clue first

This is what he sees in your hand...red then green clues to him was better.


this is your partner's hand, you clue first.

This is what he sees in your hand...red then green clues to him was slightly better.


this is your partner's hand, you clue first.

This is what he sees in your hand...red then green clues to him was better.


this is your partner's hand, you clue first.

This is what he sees in your hand...red then green clues to him was better.


this is your partner's hand, you clue first.

This is what he sees in your hand...red then green clues to him was better.


this is your partner's hand, you clue first.

This is what he sees in your hand...red then green clues to him was better.

Wreckage wrote: ↑10 December 2021, 07:36 ...

I understood it like this and it perfectly supports your point. Of course you can also find a lot of examples where it wouldn't, so maybe you need a bigger sample size.

I tried to post a reply with analysis of every hand but it all got deleted when I tried to post. Ehh... In general, for most of those hands my method would use one less clue. Sometimes you can also mark the multi 3 if that's what interests you. With red-green it would more often cause situations where it double-marks the same card (red 1, green 1, red 2 or multi 3) and could cause a bomb anyway.

Overall - if you give a red clue and then the other player immediately plays it (in some cases it does not make sense to clue back as the first turn - trying to make you discard chop) and you intend to use green clue after that, the odds of the player drawing another green or multi is about 40%. This means that the green clue would probably not be possible. You have to use 1. and later a 2 clue anyway. So it's like giving 1 clue and 2 clue but then you also used red and green for the same effect. Only multi 3 is saved.

If you give a 1 clue and then 2 - some other 2 being drawn is around 30%, 3% that it is the same as the one you already have., 5% that it's multi 2. But the general idea of 1-2 is that no matter what the other player draws, you only count the cards you had in the beginning of the game. So you completely mitigate the whole 30% risk.

Also, after the 1 clue you can also choose to use a red clue to make the player play the leftmost red after red 1 - yes drawing another red or multi chance is there too and it's 40%... But there is an additional option what the second clue can be so your theoretical risk of not being able to mark all 1s and 2s is basically 0%. You only take the 40% risk if you plan to use red clue later.

My method might cause a bomb for 2 or 3 of those hands. There is some threat of 2 bombs but if both players follow the rules correctly, there should only be 1 max.