# Reactor 2.0 Winstreak Agreements

Seeds played: 51

Current Winstreak: 34
1. https://hanab.live/replay/1569830
2. https://hanab.live/replay/1569857
3. https://hanab.live/replay/1570593
4. https://hanab.live/replay/1570655
5. https://hanab.live/replay/1570898
6. https://hanab.live/replay/1571396
- Desync on turn 12: Timo didn't react to a hot clue.
7. https://hanab.live/replay/1573458
8. https://hanab.live/replay/1573617
9. https://hanab.live/replay/1575799
10. https://hanab.live/replay/1575835
11. https://hanab.live/replay/1587398
12. https://hanab.live/replay/1596770
13. https://hanab.live/replay/1601192
14. https://hanab.live/replay/1608708
- Desync on turn 33: Fafrd thought that a fill-in was reactive, Sodium thought it was a stable stall clue.
15. https://hanab.live/replay/1626190
16. https://hanab.live/replay/1626766
- Dry deck, 3 bdrs
17. https://hanab.live/replay/1627158
18. https://hanab.live/replay/1627195
19. https://hanab.live/replay/1629107
20. https://hanab.live/replay/1633188
21. https://hanab.live/replay/1635658
22. https://hanab.live/replay/1636537
23. https://hanab.live/replay/1649966
24. https://hanab.live/replay/1651191
- Desync on turn 21: Sodium interpreted a stable discard clue as a reverse-reactive double discard
- Desync on turn 31: Conventional ambiguity about whether Reuben is cold while deferring a reactive clue
25. https://hanab.live/replay/1654085
26. https://hanab.live/replay/1661161
- Desync on turn 22: Fafrd targeted unclued trash instead of fixing clued trash
27. https://hanab.live/replay/1663185
28. https://hanab.live/replay/1663212
29. https://hanab.live/replay/1665492
30. https://hanab.live/replay/1668663
31. https://hanab.live/replay/1668720
32. https://hanab.live/replay/1669274
33. https://hanab.live/replay/1669299
- Desync on turn 1: Timo signalled a bdr hoping that declining a reactive clue would indicate to Sodium that it wasn't trash.
34. https://hanab.live/replay/1672284

Old Winstreak: 16
1. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1529187
- Desync on turn 20: Fafrd thought g3 elim would be global and make sjdrodge loaded.
2. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1529216
3. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1529606
4. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1530483
- Desync on turn 11: Fafrd played a r2 which was told to discard
- Desync on turn 11: Doodles thought the filled-in trash p1 was the focus of the reactive clue
5. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1531274
- Turn 5: Is Bob allowed to gentleman's discard his queued playable without it turning Alice's clue into a reactive clue?
- Possible Principle: After Alice clues Cathy, Bob should only take conventionally expected actions unless he is okay with Cathy trying to interpret it as a reactive clue.
6. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1535371
7. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1537460
8. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1539095
9. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1539112
10. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1539137
11. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1545676
12. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1547792
13. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1558980
14. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1560008
- Desync on turn 21: Fafrd didn't deprioritize the gotten p1 for initial targeting
15. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1560065
16. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1566430
17. https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1569814
- playable blindness on turn 12 leads to critical discard

This document is structured into sections discussing conventional design questions and possible answers to them. During play, players can refer to the table below for the answer we are currently rolling with.

## Current Decisions

Alternative table. This is Fafrd's preference for easy reference and as a way to remember recent discussion conclusions.

|Row| Subject | Current Policy | Motivation |
|------|---------|----------------|------------|
|1|Good touch playables|Good touch playable cards are queued plays. If there are too many good touch cards to be all good, none are queued without further signaling, but the rightmost must play before discarding chop.|This is simple and easy to use|
|2|Gentleman's Discards|GD cards are queued plays.|Matches with good touch|
|3|Bad touched cards|If a bad touched card is queued to play, fixing is higher priority as a reactive target than signaling a playable.||
|4|Fill-in Focus| A reactive fill-in clue can focus on a filled in playable which is possible valid reactive target (not gotten). If Ava has no playables, retroactive finesse focus applies. ||
|5|Elim|Elim does not affect clue interpretation.|Better for sync and error recovery|
|6|Error recovery|After an error, any possibly responsible clues are called off. If Ruben goes back for such a clue, Ava is expected to follow.||
|7|Crosshand dup extraction|If Ruben must agree to an apparent bdr as a reactive target, he targets Alice's initial target as dup extraction.|We want to kill crosshand dups to avoid double locks|
|8|Locked clues to Cathy|If Alice is locked and Bob has a known discard, Alice can clue stable to Cathy|This can help Bob unlock Alice|
|9|Known dup targeting|Alice is allowed to target Ava to play a card which is known queued in Alice's hand, though it is the lowest priority play in Ava's hand. It is higher priority than any finesse interpretation. Cards which play through a globally known play in Alice's hand are also the lowest priority finesse targets.||
|10|Negative fill-ins|Stable negative fill-ins are allowed for ranked clues that touch a new card|This allows clueing a 5 to make a 4 play|
|11|Conflicting reactions|If Ruben is asked to react to a new reactive clue while an older one is pending, the old signal is cancelled and Ruben must respond to the new one. If Ruben goes back for the old signal later, Ava is expected to follow.||
|12|Bluffs|Ruben should not entertain possible bluffs|Better for sync|
|13|Shared knowledge|Reactive targeting is based on global knowledge, not the shared knowledge between Alice and Ruben.|Ava's understanding and reads can matter|
|14|Same hand playable dups|If Ava has a clued and an unclued copy of a playable card, the clued copy is the agreed target for reactive play signals.|This prevents bad touch|
|15|Rank Stalls|Rank stall: rank clue on new cards to a loaded player||

## Recent Agreements

### Good Touch Critical Bomb
If a good touch card that has exactly one playable identity bombs and that identity is critical, all other good touched cards queued as exactly that identity are unqueued.

### Expected Deductions
Any touched cards in Ava's hand (including previously touched) that are proven trash directly by the reactive targeting rules + Ruben's reaction (without reference to any previous turns) are marked globally as trash.

Ava is not expected to reason about what reactions may be impossible. The team should mark trash as if any reaction was possible for Reuben.

### Help Yourself Promise Delay
When a help yourself clue touches multiple unclued cards, position is not promised until the focused card is immediately playable.

### Good touch queue timing
A card becomes queued from good touch the moment that it becomes immediately playable or trash from global empathy, or will become playable after that players other queued plays.
If there are more touched candidates than possible playables, none are queued without further help.

### Hot and cold clues

The Cold Phase starts when score hits 10. The card drawn by the 10th play is the first chop.

Alice is cold = Alice is locked or it's the cold phase and Alice does not know about a play

Bob is reversible whenever he has a play. He is also reversible when he has known trash and Alice is cold or Cathy is locked

A player is skippable whenever they have a queued play and the other doesn't. A player is also skippable if they have known trash and Alice is cold

The meaning of "skippable" and reversible is given below in [How do we tell whether a clue is stable or reactive?](#How-do-we-tell-whether-a-clue-is-stable-or-reactive)

> We say a player is "skippable" if Alice is allowed to give a clue which "skips over them" (i.e. gives them an opportunity to react) without assigning them a safe action.
> We say that Bob is "reversible" when Alice can clue Bob, expecting him to take an already known action and entertain a reverse reactive/bad stable clue.
>
> When Bob is skippable, Alice can give good stable clues to Cathy.
> When Bob is not reversible or Bob is skippable and Cathy is as well, Alice can give good stable clues to Bob.

### Stacked reactive clues
When Alice is hot, the first player out of Bob and Cathy to run out of plays is Reuben and the signalled actions are added to the end of Reuben and Avas' queues.
Targeting in Ava's hand is based on play stacks at the time that Reuben runs outs of plays and can interpret the reactive clue.

### Targeting gotten cards
Initial reactive target deprioritizes queued plays.

### Targeting delayed playables
Delayed playable cards can be targeted iff the intervening card(s) are all in Ava's hand

### Reverse reactive cancelling
If Alice clues Bob and he immediately takes a play/discard which was not gotten prior to Alice's clue, the team treats Alice's clue as stable

### Direct crosshand dupe extraction
Contrary to what the wiki says, stable clues touching new cards and filling in a cross-hand dupe are focused on the new card. If the clue is only a reclue, then it can indicate a discard of a crosshand dupe.

### Good touch overload avoidance
Good touch playable cards all of whose playable identities are already fully known elswhere are treated as trash.

### Good touch default actions
If you have more good touch candidates than playable identities, none are automatically queued, but you cannot be given ptd, if left to your own devices, your default action is to play rightmost.

### Direct rank discard-alls
Stable direct playable rank clues touching all previously-untouched cards are discard-all clues, not play clues.

### Bluff target global status
#### Note: Bluffs are not recommended
A bluff target is promised to be 1 away globally

### Immediate reaction principle
When Alice gives a reactive clue, she expects the reaction to occur in the round she gives it. Neither Reuben's nor Ava's action are considered conventionally known until a reaction occurs. If the reaction doesn't occur in the round the clue is given, or a clearly unintended reaction occurs (such as a bomb or critical discard) the team is expected to entertain that Reuben no longer intends to react to the clue at all.

Reuben's reaction is not global until it happens, which means Reuben can be considered cold or locked if he defers to give a clue. This also means reactions must occur on the same round as the clue was given or else the clue will be cancelled. When this happens, Reuben going back for it later turns it back on, same as other cancelled reactive clues.

## What is the focus of a reactive clue?

A card touched by a clue is called its "focus" if the clue would give the same signals were it to touch only that card. This section concerns how the focus of a reactive clue is determined.

### Discussion

Why prefer filled-in playable focuses? (A)
- It matches intuition from stable clue focus.
- It means we don't need a special case for how Cathy interprets play slot 1 reactions on clues which fill in a playable.

Why prefer newly clued cards? (A, B)
- It matches pattern recognition from ref-sieve.
- It increases variety of available focuses. For example, when the leftmost red card in hand gets clued with rank, the next leftmost red card becomes focusable with red.
- It means that our initial signals are more often on unknown cards, which is good because we want play slot 1 to be a viable reaction as much as possible. (Although we could again special case play slot 1 reactions.)

Why prefer fill-in focuses over no-info reclue focuses? (A, B, C)
- It matches intuition that a clue which fills in a card is not a "no-info clue".
- It trades single-play clues for double-play clues.

Why prefer focuses which cause the leftmost initial target? (A, B, C)
- It means we can more often target slot 1 with initial play/initial discard signals.
- Since our rank clues are left-referential, it gives them predictable focus availability.

Why trade single-play clues for double-play clues? (B, C)
- There are some game contexts where the former are valuable and the latter are often not enough worth giving. (e.g. occupied clue-giver, endgame)
- It enables more finesses.
- It is more important to have a diversity of available play signals than available discard signals, since there are usually fewer slots in hand that are okay to play signal than slots which are okay to discard signal.

Conversely, why trade double-play clues for single-play clues? (A)
- It guarantees that we have a clue which gives an initial discard signal to slot 1, so we can get play slot 1 + discard slot 1 in either order.

### Current Answer: Stable Intuition

We determine the focus of a reactive clue according to the following algorithm:
1. If the clue fills in a playable card, the leftmost such card is the focus.
- Here "playable" means that the card is a valid play target for this reactive clue.
2. Otherwise, if the clue touches any previously-unclued cards, the focus will be the newly-clued card which results in the leftmost initial target.
3. Otherwise, if the clue fills in any cards, the focus will be leftmost newly-filled-in card.
4. Otherwise, it is a no-info clue, and the focus is the leftmost touched card.

Equivalently, we can describe this in terms of our priorities for the initial target of a reactive clue:
1. We prefer initial targets which the clue filled in as playable.
2. We prefer initial targets which were previously unclued.
3. We prefer initial targets which were previously unknown but got filled-in by the clue.
4. To break ties, we prefer the leftmost initial target.

In addition, the "[retroactive finesse focus](#Retroactive-Finesse-Focus)" convention described below is on.

### Previous Answer: Double-Play Bias

We determine the focus of a reactive clue according to the following priorities:
1. Prefer focuses with double-play meaning.
2. Prefer newly-clued focuses over previously-clued focuses.
3. Prefer focuses with leftmost initial target.

In particular:
- Number clues are focused on filled-in cards before new cards and already number-clued cards.
- Color clues are focused on new and filled-in cards before cards already clued with color but not number.
- Color clues make no distinction between

In addition, the "reactive tempo clue" and "retroactive finesse focus" conventions described below are on.

#### Cheatsheet

In order of focus priority.

| Type of Clue | Prior Clue on Focus | Signaled Actions | Initial Target |
| ------------ | ---------------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- |
| Color | Unclued | Double Play | Direct |
| Color | Number | Double Play | Direct |
| Color | Color (but not Number) | Single Play | Direct |
| Number | Color (but not Number) | Double Play | Direct |
| Number | Unclued | Single Play | Left-Referential |
| Number | Number | Single Play | Direct |

### Untested Answer: Strong Leftmost Bias

We determine the focus of a reactive clue according to the following priorities:
1. Prefer focuses with double-play meaning.
2. Prefer focuses with leftmost initial target.

In addition, the "reactive tempo clue", "reactive direct play clue", "retroactive finesse focus" conventions described below are on.

### Retroactive Fill-In Finesse Focus (On)

For Bob (the reacter):
- If a reactive double play clue fills-in a 1-away card in Cathy's hand and Cathy has no playables in her hand, Bob always reacts by playing slot 1.
- If a reactive single play clue fills-in a 1-away card in Cathy's hand and Cathy has no playables or trash in her hand, Bob always reacts by playing slot 1.

For Cathy (the receiver):
- If a reactive clue fills-in a 1-away card in Cathy's hand and Bob reacts by playing the connecting card from slot 1, Cathy treats the clue as focused on the filled-in card and takes no further actions from it.
- If Bob reacts any other way, Cathy determines the focus of the clue normally.

### Reactive Tempo Clue (Off)

For Bob (the reacter):
- If a reactive clue fills-in a playable card in Cathy's hand which is the expected target in her hand (i.e. the leftmost playable), Bob always reacts by playing slot 1.

For Cathy (the receiver):
- If a reactive clue fills-in a playable card in Cathy's hand and Bob reacts by playing slot 1, Cathy treats the clue as focused on the filled-in card and takes no further actions from it.
- If Bob reacts other than playing slot 1, Cathy determines the focus of the clue normally.

### Reactive Direct Play Clue (Off)

For Bob (the reacter):
- If the leftmost newly clued card touched by a reactive color clue is playable and the expected target in her hand (i.e. the leftmost playable), Bob always reacts by playing slot 1.

For Cathy (the receiver):
- If a reactive color clue touches new cards in Cathy's hand but does not reveal any playables and Bob reacts by playing slot 1, Cathy treats the clue as focused on the leftmost newly clued card and plays it.
- If Bob reacts other than playing slot 1, Cathy determines the focus of the clue normally.

## How are reactive targets chosen?

When Alice gives a reactive clue, she and Bob (the reacter) have to agree on what Bob's reaction should be, and therefore what the clue will signal to Cathy. In particular, Alice and Bob look at Cathy's hand and determine a card which is the "expected target" and whether to give it a play or discard signal. This section concerns the algorithm they use to find this expected target.

### Discussion

- How do we handle the multiple copies of a same-hand dupe?
- How do we handle cross-hand dupe extraction clues? (Play + discard clues when the receiver has no trash.) We discussed always play slot 1 if you can, but the doc says to try to target a card which could be a duplicate of a _clued_ card in the reacter's hand.
- Do we want to prioritize discard targets more often? Maybe at low clue counts or with not much known trash in hands?

Faf's discussion notes:

Same hand dups:
Unlued copy is preferred target for discarding, clued copy preferred for play signals. This means the unclued copy will be ignored fully for play signals even if it's the leftmost playable.

cross hand dup extraction:
if alice gives a play + discard clue and cathy has no plays or safe discards, bob prefers the initial target + slot 1 reaction as dup extraction, (and leftmost bdr otherwise?)

global vs mutual targeting:
the target in cathy's hand should only consider globally gotten cards, even if alice and bob could agree that another card was already known playable.

### Doc Answers

The reactor 2.0 doc has multiple sections which answer this

https://hanabi.wiki/conventions/reactor-intro#the-expected-signal-to-cathy

- We don't reaffirm signals to Cathy's hand that she already has been given.
- Plays take priority over playing 1-aways, which take priority over discards.
- Discarding touched trash takes priority over untouched trash.
- For finesses interpretations, Bob should play slot 1 if he can.
- Remaining ties are broken by leftmost card in Cathy's hand.

https://hanabi.wiki/conventions/reactor-intro#the-expected-signal-to-the-receiver1
1. Discard play-queued bomb.
2. Play leftmost playable.
3. Play focused 1-away.
4. Play leftmost 1-away.
5. Discard leftmost unknown touched trash.
6. Discard leftmost trash.
7. Discard the closest card which could be a dupe of a touched card in the receiver's hand.

## How do we recover from errors?

error recovery:
after a bomb bob may give up on the original clue, but if bob chooses to go back and find the intended reaction then cathy is expected to also figure out what happened.

## What do Gentleman's Discards do?

## When do discards give conventional elimination notes?

elim:
any useful card that discards can trigger elim, however this elim does not affect future clue interpretation by default

## How do we tell whether a clue is stable or reactive?

We say a player is "skippable" if Alice is allowed to give a clue which "skips over them" (i.e. gives them an opportunity to react) without assigning them a safe action.
We say that Bob is "reversible" when Alice can clue Bob, expecting him to take an already known action and entertain a reverse reactive/bad stable clue.

When Bob is skippable, Alice can give good stable clues to Cathy.
When Bob is not reversible or Bob is skippable and Cathy is as well, Alice can give good stable clues to Bob.

Current answer: https://hackmd.io/H5OrlGYTT1y_OoBchjuK9w?both#Hot-and-cold-clues

### Discussion

Possible answers

"hot and cold clues" (current) https://hackmd.io/H5OrlGYTT1y_OoBchjuK9w?both#Hot-and-cold-clues:

- skippable = has known play and other player doesn't OR (has loaded action and Alice is cold)
- Bob reversible = has a play OR (has known trash and (Alice is cold or Cathy is locked))

"sodium headcanon":
- skippable = has a known play or (has known discard and Alice is locked)
- Bob reversible = Bob is skippable and Cathy isn't

"Timo Proposal":
- skippable = has a known safe action (play, trash, stable discard target)
- reversible = has a play OR (has known discard and Cathy is locked)

Motivation for reversibility when Bob has known discard and Cathy is locked: Hypothetical reverse reactive green clue on https://hanab.live/replay/1539050#14.

Relevant turn: https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1539095#24

### Possible Principles
Principle: We never skip over locked players. In other words, a player can be skippable only if they have a known action.

Principle: Reactions are expected to occur in the round that their corresponding reactive clue is given. If a reaction does not occur in the same round, it is called off for conventional intepretations. If it is later demonstrated on the
Consequence: When Bob and Cathy both have queued plays and Alice gives a bad stable clue to Cathy, Bob must react immediately rather than waiting in case his reaction plays on top of a queued play.
Consequence: If Alice gives a reactive clue to Cathy and then Bob gives a clue instead of reacting, the reactive clue is called off. (Although Bob can go back and take his reaction to put it back on.)
Consequence: If Alice gives a reversible clue to Bob and then Bob gives a clue which gets an action from Cathy, Alice's reversible clue is called off. (Although Cathy can go back and take her reaction to put it back on.)

Principle: If Bob is given a reversible clue and then cuts off his information channel by giving Cathy an action, then he can never assume the clue was stable.

Principle: Reuben must react to a bad stable clue in the same round it was given if he has the opportunity, otherwise Ava will assume it is good stable.

### Good Stable Clues

Types of stable clues:
- Direct play clues
- Referential discard clues
- Lock clues (referential discard clues targeting chop)
- Fill-in clues (filling in a previously unknown playable/trash card)
- Playable rank clues
- Fix clues (revealing a queued play was trash)
- Direct discard clues: clues on new cards which give empathy trash
- Dedupe clues: Clues which reveal a cross-hand dupe
- Help-Yourself clues
- Starting hand stalls: rank targeting slot 1 on the first turn of the game
- Rank stall: rank clue on new cards to a loaded player
- Fill-in stall: Clue to a loaded player touching only already-clued cards and giving new information to them

Question: Can we give help yourself clues to Cathy when Bob is loaded?

#### New Proposal (November 25 2025)

If Alice is hot, she may not give any of the following stall-like clues:
- Help-yourself clues
- Rank stalls
- Fill-in stalls

The following clues are considered bad stable, and if Alice tries to give them to Cathy, Bob should react:
- A stall clue, help-yourself clue, or a fill-in dedupe clue when a clue which gave a safe action was available
- A clue which only signals a strict subset of the safe actions of an otherwise equally good clue (e.g. cluing color to a single 1 when number touching multiple 1s all of which Bob knows are good and not duplicated in his playables was available)
- A clue which queues trash as good-touch playable when an otherwise equal clue which doesn't was available. (e.g. cluing 1s to get a good 1 and a trash 1 when color on the good 1 was available)

Bob should only decide a clue is bad stable if he can prove that it is bad regardless of the identities of any unknown queued plays he has. For example, Bob should just play his unknown card if it might be playing into the focus of a direct color clue, or should consider the possibility that color cluing a given playable in Cathy's hand was not an alternative, because a duplicate of that playable is already in his queue.

#### Timo Proposal

The following list gives the priorities which Alice must follow when deciding between stable clues. If Alice gives a stable clue and an intervening player can prove that a lower priority clue was given when a higher priority clue was available, they should react to turn it into a bad stable clue.

1. fix clues, direct play clues, fill-in play clues, and playable rank clues
2. referential discard clues on trash, fill-in clues on trash
3. any clue besides a help-yourself clue
4. help-yourself clue

Question: Should given trash signals be allowed at low clue counts?
Question: Should direct discard clues on cross-hand dupes be allowed over discard clues on trash?

Relevant turn: https://hanab.live/replay/1528214#13
Is this blue clue a good stable clue as a help-yourself? Under this proposal, no. Finesse into y3 would take precedence if there wasn't !y2 context. Is it then a double discard clue under this convention??

#### Other Ideas

We could say that Alice should find a stable clue to Ava which requires nothing from Reuben's hand if possible, e.g. If Reuben has an unknown queued play, Alice should giving a stable clue to Ava on a card Reuben knows he is not playing, and Alice should try not to give a stable clue to Ava on a card that plays on top of his unknown play, since this forces him to decide against a finesse.

## How do we treat good-touch-playable cards?

option: default action is to play good touch card but any signal takes precedence
option(current): good touch action is queu-ed same as a normal play unless forced otherwise

Timo's Good Touch Proposal: https://discord.com/channels/923261838836248646/1349044707661189222/1355776392394178751
> I propose the following configuration (at least for 3 player - I make no comment on 4p+):
> - Players are expected to play from good touch before discarding chop if they are given nothing else to do, but good touch plays do not count as queued actions for the purpose of determining reacter vs receiver.
> - Stable "playable rank" clues (e.g. stable 1s clues) still queue all of the touched cards because the purpose of such a clue is explicitly to give a play signal to the touched cards.
> - It is legal for a good touch playable card to be targeted by a reactive clue, so if the reacter plays a good touch playable card after a clue, then they are demonstrating that as their reaction.
> - Targeting priority for the receiver treats good touch playable cards like any other immediately playable card. (Typically good touch playable cards will be on the right side of the hand though, so will be the last to receive play signals.)
> - Targeting priority for the receiver prioritizes discard signals on cards which are *not* good touch playable. (This is because receiving a discard signal at all indicates that there are no playables, so instantly gives a known trash note to any good touch playable card for free.)
> - Note that finesses still have higher priority than discard signals on cards which are believed to be good touch playable.
> - My rationale for this choice is that a scenario in which Cathy's default action is to bomb trash is not much different from a scenario in which Cathy's default action is a dangerous chop discard. In either case, should Alice give a stable clue to Bob, Bob will typically clue Cathy. In the case where Cathy's chop is dangerous, we already prioritize finesses over trash discard signals, so this seems no different. One benefit of this is that once Cathy plays a 1-away card, she can infer for free that her good touch playable card is trash.

## How are reaction slots determined in the presence of expected/default actions?

https://hackmd.io/-_RWEN-ASTq7sdP9Nujjtw

## Interesting Turns

- https://hanab.live/replay/1523767#17
- Do we target g4 or b3? (Probably just g4...)
- https://hanab.live/replay/1523652#14
- This was a really cool deck where play + discard clues really shined. This turn was a cross-hand dupe extraction, a move Timo had never seen before!
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1524020#11
- Is this a bad stable clue? What cards is Alice allowed to target with a stable discard clue in Cathy's hand?
- Timo Proposal: Good stable clues must target trash if possible, then non-criticals if possible.
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1524020#13
- If faf gives a bluff/finesse on y4 here, can Timo discard slot 1 as y3 should faf have it?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1524020#23
- Is r3 queued due to elim notes? When do elim notes affect clue interp?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1524020#29
- Does Faf have ptd on slot 1 after the 4 clue? What should this do if the card referred to by the new 4 was not also the chop?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1524045#19
- Is b4 queued?
- Proposal: Stable discard clues from locked players give a "chop" note, not a "kt" note, so discarding it is a default action but e.g. can count as a reaction if preceded by a clue.
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1524045#27
- This worked as a reverse reactive despite r3 only being known from elim prior to the clue. Can we adopt some agreement that allows reverse reactives to work even when just Alice and Bob agree that Bob has a loaded action as long as Bob demonstrates the action right away?
- https://hanab.live/replay/1524100#7
- Stephen clues 1s which conventionally should be reverse reactive but maybe just works since Faf plays right away
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1528010#24
- Can Libster expect Timo to gentleman's discard p4 and therefore consider Fafrd queued and give stable fill-ins to Timo?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1528172#44
- Is blue here an endgame stall?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1528198#28
- Does Timo have a clue which doesn't force Stephen to draw?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1528198#37
- Bob gets to demonstrate that it's not reverse reactive
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1529606#11
- What happens when Bob clues after receiving a reverse reactive clue?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1536717
- Desync on turn 0: Decided to score 0
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1539095#40
- Do we target r5 here? What if sodium's r4 was known?
- https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1542437#26
- It seems like a bad convention for timo to have a chop here. What if his slot 1 was y5?

### Challenge Games

- No starting clues:
- https://hanab.live/replay/1536725
- Designated cluegiver:
- https://hanab.live/replay/1538560
- Scarce ones:
- https://hanab.live/replay/1509452
- The steak game:
- https://hanab.live/replay/1545627

## Ideas to revisit

### Short term questions

what does 5s to slot 1+2 mean?

how does focus work on a no info reclue? do we focus leftmost and then decide if it was no info or not, or do we focus the non-filled in card

We have had a few times that we tried to treat signalled discards as deprioritized for new clue focus/targeting, but the current agreement says that is for queued plays only. Should it be expanded to include discards?
-https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1546514#8

Should Alice be allowed to give a clue that gets a card which is not the expected target in Cathy's hand because Bob knows the expected reaction makes no sense? If so, What should Cathy think about it?

Think about error recovery systems

When a card bombs, should ctd/kt cards be revoked if they are potentially newly critical?

Can deprioritization of a gotten target move focus from an unclued card to a clued card?

Solidify exactly when GDs do and do not promise position

Can a locked player give a stable lock clue to another player?

### Long term ideas

Revisit good touch
option: Good touch plays and gds are queued actions.

What is a bad stable clue? (Unstable Clues)

Cold phase starts at score 10
Reactive clues target leftmost playable in Ava's hand

Do we want to prioritize double discards over finesses? Maybe under certain circumstances only?

Conflicting Ideas:
"Don't skip over a player unless they have a safe action"
"The best stable clue should be legal for stalling players to give"

Proposal: Allow reactive targeting for delayed playables that depend on fully known cards in Alice's hand
-reverse reactive situations only?
delayed playables that depend on card not in avas hand could be allowed with lower priority?
allow play through fully known cards only?

Make the stack not be a queue, reactive clues resolve the round they are given?

If Alice is locked, it would be nice to have 1 expected stable clue to Cathy allowed which leaves Bob locked

Proposal: Stable clues that reveal a cross-hand dupe do not have any additional meaning

Should gds of unknown plays promise position?

### Common errors

- Prioritizing fixing clued trash instead of targeting leftmost trash
- Not noticing a reverse reactive situation when lock plus KT applies
- Making a mistake with finesse targeting
- Forgetting to deprioritize gotten cards as initial signal targets
- Confusing hot/cold and skippable/reversible

Idea: If a reactive clue resolves unconventionally, it is conventionally considered cancelled. If Reuben goes back for it, Ava should follow.
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1545676#29

## Discussion Notes
### Notes 6/24/25

Define our goals for each game
Type 1: Winstreak
Type 2: Practice
Type 3: Experiment

Lets set solid decisions for some of our conventional gaps and then hunt the streak

If Bob has a signaled discard which could be a bdr, Bob is not locked and cannot stall
(We agree this isn't the theoretical peak of hanabi conventions)

Global elim? For same hand dups that have been discarded?
NO ELIM

Discussing modes of errors:
False global elim
Wrong target in Cathy's hand (esp if a lower rank playable exists)

#### New agreement:
If Ruben has a reaction queued and receives another reactive signal, they are expected to respond to the new reactive signal and the old reactive clue is cancelled and becomes an optional action. If Ruben goes back for the first reaction, then Ava is expected to respond.

### Notes 6/25

Fill ins:
Filling in 1 away card and new card
play+discard if possible, but if cathy has no plays and no trash then bob targets the filled in 1-away
if connector plays, no discard signal for cathy
this helps us finesse into nearly locked cathy
dup extraction not allowed here, if no trash discard then bob targets the 1 away as a play

how does this work on a newly touched discard clue that looks like possible dup extraction on a crit
target leftmost non crit as discard

### Notes 6/26

If Bob has a queued play, Alice clues Cathy, and Bob discards the play, should Cathy believe it is a gd or a reaction?

Add a *Principles* section to resolve situations that come up without a convention agreement? One such principle follows:

Possible Principle: After Alice clues Cathy, Bob should only take conventionally expected actions unless he is okay with Cathy trying to interpret it as a reactive clue.

### Notes 7/2

Considered and rejected idea:
When Bob recieved a potential help-yourself play clue, He and Cathy could agree to deprioritize the next playable in that suit in Alice's hand for reactive clues that round. We decided not using this currently because help-yourself clues are not sufficiently defined.

For discussion:
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1537460#7
How do we focus when some of the touched cards are already gotten? We allow initial signal to target gotten cards (at least as discards) so it's odd to ignore them when touched, but could allow more slot 1 reactions?

Can a player with a chop gives stable discards to Cathy if Bob has kt?

Should help yourself clues promise position of the playable if multiple cards touched

When are bad stable clues enough to cause a reaction? If Timo had y5 and Fafrd was locked, would y5 help yourself to timo be 'bad' enough?
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1537725#14

### Notes 7/3

We like the idea of not focusing gotten cards because it's nice to put the inital target on cards which could be final target to get more slot 1 reactions.

New possible agreement: (Now adopted)
We ignore the 'gotten' status of cards when determining initial meanings for reactive clues and just decide based on empathy.

This gives up on some slot 1 reactions in favor of simplicity.

How strong is good touch?
Cross-hand dups allowed
If 2 blue cards, one has !4, do we believe b45 exactly? NO!

Proposal: Good touch applies to cards which are known playable or trash, which cannot depend on other cards also being assumed good.

Proposal: If the global empathy on a card is such that all of its identities are trash or playable, then it is considered queued for the purpose of reactive clues. If multiple such cards exist, they queue from right to left by default.

Problem: Imagine Bob has a queued y4 and Cathy has a clued yellow card. Is Cathy's yellow card queued from good touch? If so, then Alice can give stable clues to Bob.

Do we want to add 1s order meaning?

### Notes 7/4

Idea:
If Cathy is locked and Bob has any safe action, Alice can give reverse reactive clues to Bob.

To what extent does it matter if Alice is locked?

Designing for midgame and endgame are in conflict. In the endgame we want Alice to be able to decide she should stall, but in the midgame we care about whether Alice is locked to try to get more eficiency.

Vague idea: conventions could change at a set threshhold (score 10) to get the best of both worlds

Idea:
skippable = has a known safe action (play, trash, stable discard target)
reversible = has a play OR (has known discard and Cathy is locked)

Currently trash can only be skipped if Alice is locked

Good touch proposal: (adopted)
A card becomes queued from good touch the moment that it becomes immediately playable or trash from global empathy.
If there are more touched candidates than possible playables, none are queued without further help.

We have some concern that we can make too many trade-offs towards allowing less efficient clues in the mid game and the clue count will become an increasingly large problem.
When playing through easy midgames and optimizing endgames, it can be tempting to change the conventions which made the midgame strong without realizing the consequences.

Things that can be included in clue interpretation flow charts:
Is Alice locked?
Are we in the endgame?

#### Major convention shift:

Split the game into a "Hot Phase" and "Cold Phase" along the existing line of choplessness. Many decisions which involve trade-offs between efficiency and endgame considerations can be handled differently in these different phases.
This is not fully agreed to, and suggests many details to be filled in yet.

### Notes 7/6

The value of a discard signal largely depends on how many other actions are in that hand. If the discard is the only safe action, it is quite low value.

Should we be able to get chops on low clues? What if Alice has all good cards and we don't have enough clues to lock?

We want to make sure our cold phase/chop condition is easy to track and sync on

score >= 10, clue count >2, card draw can be chop

maybe clue count/number of unlocked players should be involved in deciding cold phase transition

idea: make rank clues also call for double plays in late game

deferring a crit play is rarely good, should hot clues apply?

Alice's status should matter at least somewhat to clue interpretation

### Notes 7/8

Previously:
Cold phase starts at score 10
Cards drawn during the cold phase are on chop by default (including the score 10 draw)

Hot Phase and Alice unlocked: Hot Clues
Cold Phase or Alice locked: Cold Clues
Cold Clues:
- skippable = has a known safe action (play, trash, stable discard target)
- reversible = has a play OR (has known discard and Cathy is locked)
Hot Clues:
- skippable = has queued play while other player doesn't
- reversible = has loaded action

Does fill-in focus apply to queued plays?
It doesn't help get slot 1 reactions
It feels unintuitive, maybe not even better for sync
Proposal(adopted on trial): Initial reactive target deprioritizes queued plays -----
Should this include kt? What about potential bdrs?

When is a delayed playable card targetable?
Proposal(adopted): Delayed playable cards can be targeted iff the intervening card(s) are all in Ava's hand -----
-rewrite fill-in focus to only apply to cards which are valid reactive targets

Idea queued to discard (qtd) terminology

Hot and Cold clues
Should Alice's status be considered?
Proposal: Having a play/crit play makes Alice's clues hot
Proposal: Bob is reversible whenever he has a play. He is also reversible when he has known trash and Alice or Cathy is locked

Alice is cold = Alice is locked or it's the cold phase and Alice does not know about a play
Proposal: Bob is reversible whenever he has a play. He is also reversible when he has known trash and Alice is cold or Cathy is locked
Proposal: A player is skippable whenever they have a queued play and the other doesn't. A player is also skippable if they have known trash and Alice is cold

Stacked reactive clues
Proposal(adopted on trial): When Alice is hot, the first player out of Bob and Cathy to run out of plays is Reuben and the signalled actions are added to the end of Reuben and Avas' queues.
- Targeting in Ava's hand is based on play stacks at the time that Reuben runs outs of plays and can interpret the reactive clue.
-Concern: How do we stay in sync about queue length? How does error recovery work here? Can a player stop to fix? What if Cathy has 2 known plays and doesn't know the expected order for them?
-Follow up: precise definition of what counts as queued
-Follow up: reconsider if we like good touch queue timing for this purpose?
- Clues to Reuben are undefined? Stable?

Good touch?
bad stable clues?
do gds promise position

Proposal: Bombing a queued card with only one playable identity unqueues any queued playable with only that identity in all other hands.
Relevant turn: https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1542481#23. Discarding here and then playing g4 causes
Update: See https://hackmd.io/H5OrlGYTT1y_OoBchjuK9w?both#Good-Touch-Critical-Bomb for the actual wording we adopted.

### Notes 7/12

Should gds allow players to act on private knowledge?
Should players be allowed to gd instead of playing as a reaction if the card is exactly known (like from a finesse)

If Bob plays early from a reverse reactive clue, treating it as stable, do we want it to cancel Cathy's reaction? yes

We could consider making critical cards kigher priority targets than non-crits

Bad stable clues get in the way of fix play+discards, particularly if the stable meaning would be dup extraction

### Notes 7/13

Variant idea: Dead Suit
The dead suit is like a normal suit (maybe dark?) but cannot be played or discarded
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1546476

### Notes 7/15

Proposal: Cancelling a reverse reactive clue by treating it as stable should require taking stable meaning besides just globally known empathy.
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1547792#8
Here if Timo clues 2, playing an empathy playable 2 shouldn't cancel the reactive signal

Proposal: A playable rank clue play signals the focused (leftmost newly touched) card, and carries no additional meaning besides good touch for the other touched cards.

Should too many 1s prevent them from being queued?
Note that 1s are queued when playable, and if extra 1s are clued later that does not unqueue the older ones

It would be nice to have a good touch play order clearly defined to know when a fix is needed

### Notes 7/29

It would be nice if this was legal
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1559284#26
Idea: If a stable clue counterfeits a playable which discards, it isn't interpreted as a reaction?

### Notes 7/30

When considering whether players are skippable or reversible, does 'locked' mean exactly locked or just has no known action? When we have chops, Cathy won't know about her action until her turn when she has nothing else to do, and our current terminology may not account for the difference properly.

Proposal: Stable clues that reveal a cross-hand dupe do not have any additional meaning

### Notes 8/6

We have had a few times that we tried to treat signalled discards as deprioritized for new clue focus/targeting, but the current agreement says that is for queued plays only. Should it be expanded to include discards?

### Notes 8/7

We are not thrilled with hot and cold clues as they currently exist. They haven't become intuitive with some experience and we are frequently needing to check the doc and interpret the confusing exact wording to try to sync on answers. It would be nice to develop a cleaner configuration for them.

Timo would like to revamp the cold phase

Alice cold, cold phase, bob loaded, cathy has chop
Alice wants to stable play clue bob, would like the cancelling reverse reactives idea

Sodium mentions that we could also benefit from making rank clues double plays. Revamping the cold phase and reconfiguring reactions can go together.

We also consider formulations where we make it Bob's job to not confuse cathy when a potentially confusing scenario arises

### Notes 8/13

We seem to be caught between worlds in our error recovery system. We like to sync to the mistake by demonstrating where our conventional status is, but we also want to be able to fix a known mistake and resync to how things ought to have gone.

### Notes 8/15

Does GD's promising position depend on a card being immediately playable, or are delayed playabled promised as well? Which way does playable through a player's own hand go?

When exactly does a clue become reverse reactive?
If Bob is both skippable and reversible then clues to Bob are stable? Does it depend on Cathy being skippable?

### Notes 8/18

Can a locked player give a lock signal to another player?
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1575799#30
Is this a discard signal because sodium is already locked, or is it a stable lock clue as normal?

If reactive rank and color were swapped, cold alice giving stable discards to cathy would be nice

### Notes 8/26

Some confusion about expected actions allowing reverse reactions vs unexpected actions cancelling them. Particularly, if playing an elim card could allow a stable clue to become a reverse reactive. Currently it could not, but Timo did not realize this implication to our current agreement.

### Notes 9/3

We encountered an example where the rule that locked players cannot lock other players causes trouble.
[Link](https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1591692#23)
If sjdrodge did not have a p3, the only way for him to lock sodium would be for Fafrd to first clue sjdrodge to make sure he is unlocked. This makes the difficult scenario worse, compared with allowing 2 players to be locked at once.

Why do we target fully filled in cards for finesses? If the missing card is playing from slot 1 we can get it directly, and if it's older there's a fair chance we had other better options sooner.

### Notes 9/10

Prioritizing finesses over double discards seems pretty annoying when we have a dry deck, and it seems like everyone has had at least some frustration with double discards being unavailable

We have some concern about first chop coming too soon, especially with the current agreement that locked players can't lock other players.

discussed existing idea:
proposal: stable direct playable rank clues touching all previously-untouched cards are discard-all clues, not play clues.
Seem in favor pending Timo's input, helps with situations with 4 touched cards where it's tough to discard signal the 5th card. Makes sense because a color play clue would always be available if any were good so if rank is given it's already an odd choice.

Also revisiting finesses into cards that are fully filled in
maybe say that a fully filled in card cannot be the reactive target?

### Notes 9/22

Can a fill-in clue be a stable clue/stall? In this example, Fafrd is the best player to stall, but we were not clear about whether filling in b3 would be a valid stable clue or a reactive signal.
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1608708#33

Rank stalls desync: We have some memory of rank stalls being allowed, but it is not in our currently documented agreements.

Proposal: A clue which fills in a card as neither playable nor trash is a valid stall.
Proposal: A rank non-playable clue given when Alice is cold/locked and Bob and Cathy are both loaded is a valid stall.
Definition: A stall clue is a stable clue which gives no action, which is permissible when Alice is cold.

How do we feel about our current cold phase configuation? Timo expresses dislike for the way it makes things awkward. Should Bob be expected to entertain bad stable clues?

#### Stable Clues Clarification Proposal

##### Stable Color Touching One New Card

- Color to a possibly-(delayed)-playable new card is a (help-yourself) play signal.
- Color to an empathy trash card is a direct discard signal.
- (?) Color to a known-unplayable not empathy-trash card is a stall.

##### Stable Rank Touching One New Card

- Rank to a trash card is a direct discard signal.
- Rank direct playable to all untouched cards is a discard-all signal.
- Rank direct playable is otherwise a play signal on the leftmost.
- Good unplayable rank to an unloaded player is a referential signal on the leftmost (chop or noncritical) referred-to card. The signal is generally a discard, with the exception that referring to chop is a lock signal.
- Good unplayable rank to a loaded player is a stall.

##### Stable Reclues
Stable reclues hold only their good touch and empathy meanings. Can be play, discard, fix, or stall.

##### Stable Focus

Idk this seems tough to write out fully. I don't think it has recently been a major desync issue.

#### Cold Phase Clarification Proposal
Suppose Alice is cold.

- Bob never needs to respect that a stable clue might be reverse bad stable.
- A clue may be reacted to as bad stable if it:
- Tells a critical to discard.
- Tells an unplayable card to play.
- (?) Is a stall when a sufficiently clearly preferable non-stall stable signal could have been given.

### Notes 9/26

Help yourself clues are mostly useful when players are locked, in the endgame it might be nice to turn them off and allow direct clues to crosshand playables.

### Notes 10/11

If a player has multiple queued bombs (from 1s maybe), which is the expected target? Fafrd's prexisting intuition is leftmost, but sodium suggests target the next queued bomb, which for 1s would be rightmost. This is likely preferred going forwards.

### Notes 10/13

Noticed that it feels like we get chops too early currently, it causes us trouble if we want to signal locks

### Notes 10/19

Had a casual game with a bluff clue which brings the thought of different models for handling undefined actions.
We could choose to not entertain illegal interpretations of strange actions, or we could choose to accept undefined actions and have a framework for how to adapt in the moment. This might be adjacent to error recovery.

### Notes 10/27

It would be nice if HY clues were right focused. Sometimes we are more likely to give an HY clue if they are out of order because it will be harder to get it otherwise. Also, the oldest is a better default target.
We also mentioned that the HY missing card being not global can be inconvenient.

We have a kind of strange different type of fixing for HY clues. Normally fillin as non playable for a queued card means discard, but with HY it can retarget the play signal.

We noted that conflicting reactions calling off the older reactive clue isn't helpful when the first Ava has no plays.
Conflicting reactions confusingly doesn't apply if it's not clear that the seconed clue is reactive.
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1643096#31
Is the yellow clue reactive? Or is Ava allowed to give a stable clue while waiting for a reverse reactive?

### Notes 11/4

Many desyncs. Notably when a reactive clue is cancelled, is Ruben considered locked for his clue? One model would be to say he wasn't locked before the clue so it wasn't a locked clue. Another idea would be to say that if Ruben is confused and doesn't want to react then when he ignores the reactive clue we could say it's as if the clue was never given and Ruben was considered locked and cold for the clue.

### Notes 11/7

We are leaning towards allowing Ruben to defer if he isn't confident and give cold clues as if locked. Timo wants to allow deferring early on to make 1s queued before the deferral clue is given. If Ruben was hot when giving the clue then that 1s clue would be inconsistent.

### Notes 11/14

If a gd is queued to play in Cathy's hand, is a color clue to Cathy touching 2 cards fixing the gd and focusing leftmost, or stacking another play on the queue? Also, if slot 5 was left untouched, should Cathy believe the gd was layered or fixed? Is slot 5 still queued after?

### Notes 11/16

We encountered an interesting spot where it's relevant when a card becomes queued from good touch. If a blind play is queued which matches a queued good touch play in the same hand, should either card be targeted as a fix, or is the player expected to play the blind card first or follow the queue strictly?
https://hanab.live/replay/1663185#14 if Fafrd had g4 queued slot 1

### Notes 11/18

Should a clue to Cathy be considered as a HY clue while Bob is loaded? Or is it bad stable?
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1665492#18

### Notes 11/21

Do we have global expectation that everyone keep track of possible playable identities?
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1668663#15
Since all 1s have played, is Timo's play global kt, or is it a queued bomb? In less obvious cases this could cause desync.
Timo suggests the play signal is really a note of possible identities when it was given so that can give global kt.

In practice, the stable rank touching all new cards = discard all convention is not being well remembered (at least be Fafrd and Timo)

### Notes 11/22

On the subject of stacked reactive clues and cancelling reactive clues:
We almost never use stacked clues and would be fine with turning them off. This would mean that a reaction has to happen on the same round as the clue was given.

It could be a problem to say that Ava is expected to follow a cancelled and revived reactive clue. If Reuben is really confused and cancels a clue, then his later actions shouldn't necessarily force Ava to follow. On the other hand, we can say that if Reuben has to take some unexpected action later then that's inconsistent with playing like we could afford to cancel the clue, and Reuben could be expected to figure it out when pressured.

Proposal: Reuben's reaction is not global until it happens, which means Reuben can be considered cold or locked if he defers to give a clue. This also means reactions must occur on the same round as the clue was given or else the clue will be cancelled. When this happens, Reuben going back for it later turns it back on, same as other cancelled reactive clues.

Alternate Proposal wording: When Alice gives a reactive clue, she expects the reaction to occur in the round she gives it. Neither Reuben's nor Ava's action are considered conventionally known until a reaction occurs. If the reaction doesn't occur in the round the clue is given, or a clearly unintended reaction occurs (such as a bomb or critical discard) the team is expected to entertain that Reuben no longer intends to react to the clue at all.

#### Cursed variant ideas:
One crit 4: One of the 4s is critical and players don't know which one
Discard it in a hole

### Notes 11/24

How do we feel about reverse reactive clues which require Bob to play to make Cathy's reaction playable?
https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1672284
Several times, Fafrd is asked to choose what to play based on what Timo is likely to be playing as a reaction. This means Ava is forced to think about what Reuben is likely to do, which otherwise isn't ever expected.
In order to allow such finesses, we have to require Alice to predict what Bob will choose to play. This would mean that Bob does not have free choice of play specifically when there is a current reverse reactive clue.
We could also try to have clear rules for how Alice and Bob will sync while also not expecting/allowing Cathy to adjust her reaction based on the information.

Idea: When a player has multiple plays which are known to be in different suits, they have free choice what order to play them. When a reverse reactive clue is given, Bob does not have free choice because Alice must be able to predict what he will play.

Idea: Cathy is expected to interpret a reverse reactive clue when it is given and not adjust based on what Bob chooses to do (so long as Bob doesn't cancel the clue). This means that Cathy can not be finessed for a card that plays after Bob's intervening play.

Idea: If Bob has a choice between plays where exactly one might enable a reaction for Cathy then Bob is required to choose that play.
If multiple plays could connect, but one is a certain color match, Bob could be required to play that one.

Idea: The choice of what to target (reverse reactive finesse targeting) could be a matter of priority to allow clues that clearly should work to be conventional.

Proposal: Cathy is expected to interpret a reverse reactive clue when it is given and not adjust based on what Bob's choice between known plays (so long as Bob doesn't cancel the clue). This means that Cathy can not be finessed for a card that plays after Bob's intervening play.
How does Bob choose between possible plays?
If Bob has a choice between plays where all but one are known not to play into a card in Cathy's hand then Bob is required to choose the play that might connect.
If Bob has a choice between plays where exactly one is known to play into a card in Cathy's hand, then Bob is required to choose that play.

https://hanab.live/shared-replay/1672284#10
If Fafrd clues g, what happens? Is sodium's clue cancelled? What should sodium target?

How does the play queue work? Are cards expected to play in order even when they are known to be different suits, or are players allowed to exercise judgement about what to play first?
Stephen says there is not a queued order to cards that are known to not play into eachother.

What does discard order mean? How do we react to out of order discards?

Is a finesse that is waiting for another play in Ava's hand a valid target?

Alternative (Revised) Proposal:

When Alice gives a reverse reactive clue, how do Alice and Bob agree upon which card Bob is expected to play (so Alice can tell Cathy to play cards on top of it)?
In order to determine Bob's expected play, Alice and Bob follow these priorities, only taking into account empathy+conventional information prior to Alice's clue.
1. Bob prefers to play cards all of whose playable identities lead into Cathy's hand
2. Bob prefers to play unknown cards
3. Bob prefers to play cards some of whose playable identities lead into Cathy's hand
4. Bob prefers to play older queued cards

When Cathy interprets Alice's clue, she will target a 1-away-from-playable on top of Bob's play with lower priority than targeting trash or other 1-aways, but higher priority than dupe extraction.

After Alice's clue, Bob may only deviate from his expected play if he can prove he isn't messing up the clue, with one exception: If Alice gives a dupe extraction clue, it is her responsibility to make sure it won't be messed up by Bob playing his queued cards out of order and making a card in his hand 1-away. Because of this exception, it suffices for Bob to prove that his expected play doesn't lead into Cathy's reaction.

If Bob can see that his expected play under this policy cannot possibly lead into Cathy's reaction but knows that some other play of his might, he should take that other play.

For example
- https://hanab.live/replay/1672284#4
- Faf's expected play is slot 5 because prior to the clue it was the oldest and otherwise equal to slot 1. Then taking into account the clue he sees that playing slot 5 as r1 can't work because the r2 reaction would target an already gotten card. So faf is expected to play slot 1.
- On timo's turn, Faf's play proves he holds a y2, so it's easy to interpret the clue as a finesse into y3.
- https://hanab.live/replay/1672284#12
- Faf's expected play is red 1 because he knows it leads into timo's hand. He checks and sees that a r2 reaction is plausible so plays r1.
- timo targets r3 trusting that sodium knew which play faf would take