---
# System prepended metadata

title: Permission to Play 2p

---

# Permission to Play 2p

A "connector" is a fully known playable card which "*could* lead into the partner's hand", that is, not a 5 and not playing into own hand.

When Bob is unloaded, playing a non-connector gives ptd and playing a connector or discarding gives *permission to play* (abbreviated "ptp" in this doc).

Let's call a situation where Alice can give Bob ptp a "ptp-situation". In ptp situation, clues mostly mean the same thing they would normally, except that if Alice gives a clue which would normally mean to play slot 1, it instead means to *discard slot 1*. (This is usually a color on slot 2, but it could also be a self-color bluff, for example)

In a ptp-situation, when Alice gives a clue, Bob marks slot 1 as `!f` (not playable), and interprets the clue accordingly, for example, a 1 clue touching slot 1 would be known trash. Similarly, unlike in a ptd-situation, Bob does not write a `cm` or "useful" note on slot 1, because Alice could not tell it to discard without spending a clue anyway.

Sometimes in a ptp-situation, Alice gives a clue touching slot 1 that because of the `!f` note is known trash, in this situation the clue should have a meaning analogous to a good touch known play in slot 1 in a ptd-situation. e.g. a rank clue revealing slot 1 is trash should also mean slot 2 is, and a color clue should still mean a referential play.

**Having prior permission to discard makes Bob loaded for the purposes of the above**

## Cool turns so far

- https://hanab.live/replay/907279#6
  - Timo decides between 2 and discard. Either way, after a discard, Faf will be in a ptp situation. If timo clues 2, then the ptp situation will be slightly nicer because p3 can be given ptp. The downside of cluing 2 is mainly that it sieves in an unseen card, but that card is rarely trash anyway at this point in the game.
- https://hanab.live/replay/907279#24
  - Here Timo can discard y3 instead of playing r2. Do we like that both actions give ptp? What if discarding y3 gave ptd instead?
- https://hanab.live/replay/907253#46
  - Is r4 a connector? Probably since r5 isn't globally known? It depends on whether "playing into own hand" includes unlocking a queued play that *could* be on top of a known play.
- https://hanab.live/replay/907064#18
    - Does hallmark have a way of telling Timo to discard p4? We agreed that purple should actually mean discard p4 instead of discard slot 1, because a self-color bluff on another card is available, and unlike in a ptd-situation, where purple on a playable card gives valuable info (the exact identity), knowing the exact identity of a trash card is not that useful.
      - Possible generalization: When Bob has only one unclued card in a ptp-situation, cluing it directly never means to discard it
      - Possible generalization: Even if there's more unclued cards, giving a color clue that touches and refers to slot 1 (i.e., by touching slot 1 and slot 2) doesn't mean to discard it. Maybe instead it means wraparound play
- https://hanab.live/replay/906686#2
  - Should sjdrodge be allowed to clue 1s instead of discarding or will 1s make Timo think that slot 1 is trash? The conventions dictate that timo writes a !f note on slot 1 after a clue, but in fact timo knows that slot 1 could always have been given ptp. Maybe a 1 clue like this only promises trash in slot 1 when there are 1s that have already been played

## Questions

### 8 Clues
Should playing a non-connector at 8 clues give "permission to discard" (even though it can't actually discard on the next turn), or should it just require a stall?
- If we say it gives ptd, then sometimes Alice will want to give a clue:
  - When Bob has a playable or trash and a useful card on chop, Alice will want to clue it
    - Is this ever sad? It's good to give a discard clue on trash here to avoid Bob giving an 8 clue stall. It's probably a wash to give a play clue on a duplicate of Alice's play and get a bomb because the alternative is an 8 clue stall + a discard clue on the playable, which results in the same clue count. Maybe the 8 clue stall would've given another safe action though.
  - When Bob's chop is critical (or a 2?), Alice will want to give a discard clue and get a BDR
    - This is sad if Alice's playable would've played into Bob's hand and given him a safe action and that BDR could have been avoided later
- If we say it gives no ptd
  - Sometimes Bob will want to lock Alice and be unable to. Assuming we still say that clues that would lock at 8 clues are actually stalls, then Bob actually never has a way to lock. Bob should probably just take a risk and bomb slot 1 anyway if Alice's hand is really scary
  - Then if Alice gets clued a known play on the next turn, she is in a ptp-situation; Bob is not loaded with a prior ptd

### Playing 5s

Playing a 5 is a lot more similar to discarding than playing any other card: It gives a clue back and doesn't unlock any new playables. Should playing a card which is known to be a 5 give ptd or ptp?

- Maybe it's simpler to say ptd because that way players aren't forced to decide whether their unknown plays are known to be 5s?
- Probably by the time 5s are playable, most cards in the deck are trash, so perhaps ptd is significantly more likely to be desired?
- If there's free choice between playing an unknown card and a 5, we could have a separate convention that says that playing the 5 is a "known prio bluff" (borrowing terms from h-group) and therefore triggers a slot 1 play.

### Free choice

When a player can play a connector or discard a trash, both actions give ptp. We want to be able to give ptp to the connecting card, so should we say that discarding actually gives ptd?

### No-info clues in ptp states

What should giving a no-info clue mean in a ptp state? Discard slot 1 and play slot 2? (A combination of no-info double bluff and the principle of converting "play slot 1" into "discard slot 1"?)