-
Conventions pervert minds
A few days ago, I had an interesting conversation with a player used, like 99% "good players or more" on BGA, to the "play left discard right" technique. I invited him and another such player on a table where I wanted to play with no conventions and no finesses, only logic and basics (see Definitions).
During the game, there was a situation where I (player A) had no clue tokens left and player B's chop card was critical. I had just been clued a card to play. I discarded to let B know that he should save his chop.
In the end game conversation, that player told me "ok you want to play with no conventions, but discarding to tip the next player not to discard his chop is a convention".
I found this very interesting, since it shows that playing with coded conventions (which are derived from an initial logical trick and then go astray) distorts how one perceives logic.
Playing newest card of several clued with one clue (leftism) is logical only in some situations and most players on BGA play so in situations where it is not. And they get so used to it, so blinded by how easy this convention is, that they forget it is not always logical.
And they end up seeing convention in purely logical moves. To make myself clearer, here is why intentional discarding is logical.
Player D > player A, this is yellow, play it (there are no clue tokens left).
Player A > I discard.
Player B > What the--?? He knows he has to play it and he chooses to discard instead, man, what was that?!. Why is he doing this? Is he stoopid? Oh, wait a minute, there were no clues left. If he played, I would have to discard. Eureka, perhaps he didn't want me to discard. Ok, I have to save my chop.
This is a logical reflexion that even a smart newbie could have.
I will be happy to teach anyone a logical game with no conventions on BGA. Just send me a PM on Boardgamearena.
For more basics, also see "Over-assuming -- do you have what it takes for finesse?".
-
Commentaires
Sometimes you have no choice anyway (particularly in 2-player game).
And once you know the trick, you can do it on purpose as player C did, to force A to discard intentionally to save B's chop.
If there were clues left and player C's hand was ok, the fact that player A discards instead of playing would tell player B he should save his two chop cards, otherwise A could simply clue his chop.
4frMardi 19 Mai 2015 à 00:09talking about convention take a look at this starting hand...
http://it.boardgamearena.com/archive/replay/150518-0909/?table=14090356&player=83914350&comments=
what is the best move?
I'd go with:
- Bamm > azigos Y
- Frollo > azigos 1
- azigos > averza 1
- averza plays M1
- Bamm > Frollo 1Although 1 clue, then play Y1, then 1 clue works fine too.
6frMardi 19 Mai 2015 à 22:148TenVendredi 4 Août 2017 à 22:58How about:
Bamm > Azigos Y
Frollo > Azigos 1
Azigos plays R1
Averza > Frollo's 4
Bamm > Azigos R (or 3 if another red pops)
Should enable Frollo to know that both his non-4s are playable.
We could also imagine variants where we don't give Azigos' Y. If Frollo doesn't consider any conventional order on his starting cards, he should still understand that both are playable from my PoV.
9AlexJeudi 28 Janvier 2021 à 13:41There's no perversion here. Conventions initially comes from the same logic (and they go astray, yes), and here you used a logical trick which happened to be a convention derived from such trick. Don't confuse actively avoiding conventions and accidentally stepping onto one. To get it to an extreme, you could call playing 1 after getting the clue about 1 a convention, because that's what conventional player would do. That doesn't stop it from being logical, but it's also a convention.
-
Jeudi 28 Janvier 2021 à 14:14
We may simply be having a disagreement about the definition of "convention".
Playing 1s after getting a "1" clue is pure common sense, (optimization) logic. There’s no need to AGREE that a "1" clue means "play them". You just have to go with it if you want to achieve a high average score. So it is not a convention under my definition; it may be under yours.
Likewise with single-card, asap clues (most often means "play it").
And so on.
-
10AlexLundi 1er Février 2021 à 02:57Yep, there is probably a disagreement in definitions. It's possible that your friend also meant not the same kind of convention you mean.
He recognized it as some particular convention, but it is also a logical move.
What I'm trying to say here, there is a fallacy in your logic in this post: the friend said that you used a convention (by his definition of "convention"), and from that you make a conclusion that his logic is perverted/distorted.
But... I don't know your friend, and didn't see that situation, maybe his logic is really distorted :)
Suivre le flux RSS des commentaires
Ajouter un commentaire
|
 Créer mon blog |
Créer mon compte |
Isn't this an error of player C who should either discard or save the chop of player B? depending from the card he can see on your chop?