Board Game Arena

A x x x x
B x x 2k x
C x x x x
D x 5 5 1k

Player B has known 2k, and player D has known 1k. Player A clues 4 to player D "saving" their chop (newest card in this case but that doesn't matter). Player B bombs their first position because it's an "early save" as 1k was playable after 2k so the 4 didn't need saving. Player A argues that the save allowed player B to clue player C's playable red cards instead of needing to play 2k and that it wasn't an early save. Who is correct?

Personally I think player A is correct and it's not an early save, but player D agreed with B that it was an early save, so we were split. All masters.

I'm talking about BGA conventions, not any other sites.

nathanl22 wrote: ↑28 April 2026, 04:22 Who is correct?

It depends on what conventions you agree on.

I'm talking about BGA conventions, not any other sites.

There is no one well-defined convention-set across all BGA (master-) players (although some players try to make you believe so). There are many different ideas around and sub-groups that agree on most ideas and even among the most popular conventions and biggest groups of players - the conventions still keep changing over time.

However - my preferred way (and what most of the players I enjoy playing with use) is highly focused around a discard- and clue-management. That basically means everyone can give every clue from any position. So in your example A saving on D is a perfectly fine save and not early (as long as player D on their next move might be discarding). It's not an early save and warrants no response.

Cluing a save/play from far away can have various reasons:

• B might have a good clue to give or even a finesse or bluff on C.
• B and C might have useless cards on chop and therefore you'd rather let them discard and keep your own unknown chop card.
• Or from earlier gameplay you have a suspicion to have something nice (or even dangerous) on chop (because of similar decisions earlier in the game where others let you give the clues instead of motivating you to discard).
• ...

Of course one could argue the save is early as it could be done later by another player and therefore doesn't NEED to be done by A. But in my opinion that kind of convention makes gameplay very inflexible and by that limiting your options in keeping nice cards (like i.e. in the beginning some r3 that is not yet playable or unique but maybe the 1 is already out and it would be nice to keep the 3 a bit longer and see if r2 turns up).

But I have no proof that my way of playing is more successful in theory than the stricter interpretation of what "early" means. So I wouldn't swear to be playing the "better way".

Thanks, Silene. I agree with everything you said; I also prefer the interpretation that allows saving in this situation in case B wants to do something besides play. However I understand there isn't a universal convention so I'll keep in mind which sub-group of players I am working with (although that can be a bit of a headache and it would be nice if we could agree on most things )

Fair warning - I was player B.

as long as player D on their next move might be discarding

But that is literally the point of contention. Player D had literally no reason to discard. They have the 1 to play...

Player A argues that the save allowed player B to clue player C's playable red cards instead

I would argue that if Player A actually believed that the red cards should have been clued then the wise move on their part was to clue the red cards. Since at that point everyone has something to play. Marking the chop card, when they already had the 1 card to play, had literally no upside.

https://en.doc.boardgamearena.com/Tips_hanabi defines an early save as:
A save clue with a known playable card in the same hand, or does not mark the chop card1 (i.e., a play clue).

https://hanabi.github.io/variant-specif ... early-save defines an early save as:
A player is said to be Loaded if they have a globally known play or a globally known safe discard.
Granted they think early save is a fine practice - but that is a side issue. They at least call it by what it is - an early save.

The player had a globally known playable card. I am struggling to see how you could read either of those definitions and not have them match the save clue here.

As shown it is an early save as:
There is nothing to prevent B to play 2k, and D to play 1k.

Best and easy to understand play is
A clues Red to C
B plays 2k
C plays marked red card
D plays 1k

As shown there is no reason to make things complicated
Simple and clear clues are often best

I just feel that we missing out some information.
What we know: C player have playable red card that can be clued. 4 clue to D locking hand so some need to unlock as fast as possible. B has 2k and D have 1k that is known.
I assume all player do what think its best for the team.
When 4 clue happend player A lock player D, so player B need to play 2k to unlock it.
Player B see that player A can clue player C with red or discard but instead player A clue 4 to player D. Player B assume that player A dont give bad clue so the 4 clue have extra meaning so he blind play slot 1.
So the real question is B player trust A and assume something wierd happening(maybe 2k is not 2k and 2k on finesse position?)
,or assume its just a bad clue

As I understant it, B from there doesn't have possibility to clue C because if B don't play 2K, D hand is locked (or bomb if a 4 is playable). But if B plays 2K to unlock D, then D can play 1K and the 4 clue is not a save anymore, so it's something else. Hence it seems to me that whatever the convention, a right move would be A clue C, B plays 2k, C plays, D plays 1K, 4 being saved later.