Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AdamH]

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/98778/hanabi

I got this game for Christmas and have played it with a variety of groups of people. Nobody in our groups has yet to see a game with a perfect score of 25 (so we haven't broken out the rainbow cards yet) but I have a few observations I'd like to share.

Hanabi seems to be best played with the same group of people -- I find myself having the most fun when I've played a few games with a particular group and we can really open up our play style. With different players who think differently, the group doesn't really function well and it can be frustrating. With a group I'm familiar with, we keep finding new ways to insert subtext into our clues and it's a lot of fun when it works (and when it doesn't work)

Newer players seem to want to give lots of clues -- and this is a really bad thing. One of the worst things you can do is to have a play (play or discard a card) given to you and then not do it, especially if you're going to spend a clue token. Is it due to a fear of discarding an unknown card? Playing an unknown card? Usually in games with people like this I find myself just blind-discarding cards the whole time because running out of clue tokens is really bad.

Our group has found that blind-discarding, especially in the early game, is quite a good thing. Don't know what to do? Blind-discard your oldest card! It's predictable (so people will know to warn you of important cards you're about to discard) and it gets information out there when we can't find any good plays to make. It's much better than giving clues about discardable cards (which, the more we play, the more we've realized that this is pretty much never a good idea).

Standard protocol seems to be that if a clue is given that singles out a card in someone's hand, that card should be played (unless it's clearly impossible, like I'm telling you about a 5 in your hand or something weird.)

I really enjoy some of the more "meta" clues we give: A says "B, I'm going to give you a clue; C, this card is a 4". Now it's B's turn and he knows a certain card in his hand is yellow, see C's yellow 4 in hand and knows his yellow card must be a 3 that plays -- two clues in one by slightly abusing the phrasing of a clue (which is still technically within the rules of the game).

Does anyone else have any fun "meta" clues or protocols their group uses to squeeze in more information? Is a score of 25 really possible without something that's blatantly cheating?

[Teproc]

I love this game to death, but we pay with a variant, which is the "win or lose" variant (it was in the rules, but it's an edition that only exists in French so I don't know if you have that in the US).

It's basically the same as the base game, except it doesn't end when you run out of cards. But if you don't complete all 5 colors, you simply lose. Thankfully, it's a lot easier to do it because when you finish the pile you can deduce everyone's hand and it gets pretty easy. Getting there is not though, since anytime you discard a five or a second copy of any card (except ones), you just flat-out lose.

It's a lot more tense, which I like. I find the end result of the game base to be kind of meh : you never actually win, but you don't lose either, so you're just playing to a score, which isn't very exciting to me.

We do those meta clues A LOT, because the game is still hard (and VERY hard when you play with the multicolored cards), but we don't actually say we're giving a clue to B in that case. We still do talk too much sometimes, because we're only humans, but we try to avoid it.

[theory]

I think there are three truly great board games that stand out from every other game I've played: Dominion, Twilight Struggle, and Hanabi.

I really enjoy some of the more "meta" clues we give: A says "B, I'm going to give you a clue; C, this card is a 4". Now it's B's turn and he knows a certain card in his hand is yellow, see C's yellow 4 in hand and knows his yellow card must be a 3 that plays -- two clues in one by slightly abusing the phrasing of a clue (which is still technically within the rules of the game).

That seems abusive, but you know, it's something for each group to determine!

Another version of what you do, which is perfectly legitimate, is that in the endgame, when you're all looking for a certain card, cluing the next person can tip off the previous person that their newest card is the one you're looking for.  If you all need the Red 3, and A suddenly draws it, B can now tell C about his 4.  C knows it's not playable yet but will be soon.  A knows that B will only tell C about that if they found the Red 3, and given that A can't see it he knows he must have literally just drawn it as his newest card.

In our group, there's an established groupthink where people will blind discard their oldest cards, as a rule.  This is extremely helpful in general and although I think it's OK, I am open to persuasion otherwise.

We do those meta clues A LOT, because the game is still hard (and VERY hard when you play with the multicolored cards), but we don't actually say we're giving a clue to B in that case. We still do talk too much sometimes, because we're only humans, but we try to avoid it.

We give out "cheater" tokens, which don't really do anything but are a lighthearted way to remind people to play by the rules.  You can't get a true perfect game with one of them.

[AdamH]

That seems abusive, but you know, it's something for each group to determine!

[...]

We give out "cheater" tokens, which don't really do anything but are a lighthearted way to remind people to play by the rules.  You can't get a true perfect game with one of them.

Our interpretation of the rules is that the only words that are allowed to be spoken are the ones allowed in the rulebook -- I stated an action I was going to take and then changed my mind and took another action Besides, we've sort of replaced that with staring deeply into someone's eyes for an uncomfortable amount of time before giving such a clue, which you would probably feel is more legitimate. It's much more entertaining too

It's along the same lines as asking someone "what do you know about your hand?" (which is allowed by the rulebook) is the same as saying "discard that card you know is bad, you idiot, I/we have a plan and I/we don't want you to screw it up."

I do like the idea of cheater tokens, though. I mean, the game is about bending the rules and sneaking in information in between the lines as much as you can.

We could come up with a protocol that if you give a clue that singles a card out in someone's hand, that the one to the right of that one is a player, so now you get extra information. While that's technically not cheating by the rulebook it's definitely not within the spirit of the game (and also definitely not fun). So of course it's open to interpretation.

[Teproc]

@Adam : what you're doing is akin to saying : "This card is a 2... and by the way, this one too". So it's outside the rules. It's fine, the rules of the game are pretty elastic and it's impossible to give nothing away (like, just by taking a lot of time to think, you're giving out information), but it's not strictly within them.

[AdamH]

@Adam : what you're doing is akin to saying : "This card is a 2... and by the way, this one too". So it's outside the rules. It's fine, the rules of the game are pretty elastic and it's impossible to give nothing away (like, just by taking a lot of time to think, you're giving out information), but it's not strictly within them.

People have tried doing this before and it's resulted in the wrong thing getting communicated. If you asked my group if that was allowed, "THIS CARD IS A 2, and this one too" they would say it is neither allowed by the rules nor a smart thing to do. In this case, we'd making the person shuffle the cards in their hand that met this clue so that information is lost.

Now, yeah we want to get the same result without directly saying it. I mean, that's kind of the point -- to squeeze in extra information when the rules aren't looking. Perhaps you've had success with this type of clue?

[Twistedarcher]

Hanabi's a fun game, I like it a lot. I've gotten 25 with 2 players, but haven't been able to get there with 3+.

I agree that your example is a little bit outside of the rules, and I would probably discourage it with my friends.

Your tips are definitely helpful, I'll have to try them the next time I play (and hopefully not throw anyone off).

[Teproc]

@Adam : what you're doing is akin to saying : "This card is a 2... and by the way, this one too". So it's outside the rules. It's fine, the rules of the game are pretty elastic and it's impossible to give nothing away (like, just by taking a lot of time to think, you're giving out information), but it's not strictly within them.

People have tried doing this before and it's resulted in the wrong thing getting communicated. If you asked my group if that was allowed, "THIS CARD IS A 2, and this one too" they would say it is neither allowed by the rules nor a smart thing to do. In this case, we'd making the person shuffle the cards in their hand that met this clue so that information is lost.

Now, yeah we want to get the same result without directly saying it. I mean, that's kind of the point -- to squeeze in extra information when the rules aren't looking. Perhaps you've had success with this type of clue?

When I said we do meta clues, I was more referring to using info in other players hand. Like, if I say "you have a 4", and all 4s are playable but the red one, and both red 4s are in some other player's hand, that's obviously meant to mean you should play your 4.

One rule we have that is really important (again, I do play with a variant so it might not apply to the normal game), is to never discard when you have a blue token. If you have a blue token, you're supposed to use it. That way you can leave people with dangerous hands (several fives or cards that have already been discarded once) without having to indicate what they should NOT discard. Now this doesn't work with 2 players (because you get stuck with the same player giving info all the time) and they are certain times when you can break that rule, but it's a good guideline.

Also one thing I always say to newer players : If I give you info, it's probably to make you play a card. It's not always true of course, but early on new players always hesitate if there are already three 1s on the table and you indicate a 1 to them, when 95% of the time it's because you're supposed to play it.

[AdamH]

When I said we do meta clues, I was more referring to using info in other players hand. Like, if I say "you have a 4", and all 4s are playable but the red one, and both red 4s are in some other player's hand, that's obviously meant to mean you should play your 4.

[...]

Also one thing I always say to newer players : If I give you info, it's probably to make you play a card. It's not always true of course, but early on new players always hesitate if there are already three 1s on the table and you indicate a 1 to them, when 95% of the time it's because you're supposed to play it.

Ah, in our group we've realized that the explosions are there to be used. We tend to go for it (play cards) whenever there's any question of what we're supposed to do -- the "meta clue" you describe is certainly something we've used before in our games, and then once a person plays a card with certainty when given that clue, someone else can deduce cards in their hand because they know those cards were visible and they can't see them.

I'm speaking of clues that go beyond the mechanics of the game and process of elimination, like subtext. If those are illegal by definition to you, then fine, but I think our group has come to the conclusion that we'll never get 25 points without using these types of clues, and they're also by far the most fun clues to give or receive.

One rule we have that is really important (again, I do play with a variant so it might not apply to the normal game), is to never discard when you have a blue token. If you have a blue token, you're supposed to use it. That way you can leave people with dangerous hands (several fives or cards that have already been discarded once) without having to indicate what they should NOT discard. Now this doesn't work with 2 players (because you get stuck with the same player giving info all the time) and they are certain times when you can break that rule, but it's a good guideline.

This is really interesting, I/my group feels exactly the opposite about clue tokens. If we run out of clue tokens, it's usually because something bad has happened. I usually feel like after two turns of the game, people have had enough time to tell me about important cards in my hand and blind-discarding my oldest card is always a safe move to make. If a new card makes it all the way there it must not have been important, and this option really helps with sequencing our moves. Perhaps we should try this strategy out?

[Lekkit]

I bought the game, the rules were German only, and because of it we decided to play Five Crowns that night instead. I still want to try it out, since it seems fun.

[Jimmmmm]

Would Hanabi work as a forum game?

[AdamH]

Would Hanabi work as a forum game?

It's been tried before here, but I really don't think it would be much good. It would be a group that doesn't have any experience playing together, and it's hard to stare furtively into your teammates' eyes over the forums. 

[Jimmmmm]

Would Hanabi work as a forum game?

It's been tried before here, but I really don't think it would be much good. It would be a group that doesn't have any experience playing together, and it's hard to stare furtively into your teammates' eyes over the forums. 

From looking at the game that was played it seems like it worked pretty well and was enjoyed. I'd play if another one was run.

[yed]

It is better to play with the rainbow cards. Try it if you did not already.

[Teproc]

Hanabi is pretty much made to be played on the Internet imo, precisely because you can't "cheat". So I would certainly be interested !

Adam, I think your method is probably better in the normal game, it's an entirely different dynamic where I suppose you have to take more risks if you're trying to get the 25. You can't take any risks in the variant (or at least you don't want to), because you might just discard a ward that makes you lose on the spot.

Rainbow cards are cool but they make the game much, much more difficult.

[Kuildeous]

I did not play the forum Hanabi game, but I would imagine that it'd be a little easier in the fact that you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

I actually ordered this little gem from Amazon earlier this week. Apparently, free shipping has been bumped up to $35, so I had to pad my $30 order. I thought Hanabi would make a fine addition. And besides, it shouldn't take up too much space in the gaming closet, which is chock full of larger games. I really should consolidate all my Dominion cards into one card mega-box.

[AdamH]

you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

We've found that holding your cards facing different directions helps us to remember what our cards are. People that are shy about doing this and arranging their cards weirdly seem to be the same ones that forget the clues they were given.

[Kuildeous]

you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

We've found that holding your cards facing different directions helps us to remember what our cards are. People that are shy about doing this and arranging their cards weirdly seem to be the same ones that forget the clues they were given.

I'm not following what you mean by different directions. You hold them outward, right? My experience with the game is very limited. I marked up a standard deck of cards and attempted to play Hanabi using those, so I have an idea that rearranging your hand is good practice, but I'm not sure what you mean with your statement.

[theory]

you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

We've found that holding your cards facing different directions helps us to remember what our cards are. People that are shy about doing this and arranging their cards weirdly seem to be the same ones that forget the clues they were given.

I'm not following what you mean by different directions. You hold them outward, right? My experience with the game is very limited. I marked up a standard deck of cards and attempted to play Hanabi using those, so I have an idea that rearranging your hand is good practice, but I'm not sure what you mean with your statement.

The back of the card is asymmetric.

For people who are learning the game, we permit them to do things like hold certain cards above others.  This helps them remember what they know, and more importantly helps us remember what they know.

[AdamH]

I'll put cards I know something about below my hand, facing the table, or maybe off to one side. I'll put cards I don't know anything about facing up like I would normally hold a card.

[Teproc]

Oh by the way, if any of you has the Asia expansion for Ticket to Ride, I would strongly recommend using the racks from that game to hold cards in Hanabi. Scrabble or Mah-jong racks don't really work (or at least mine don't), but those are pretty great.

[Twistedarcher]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

[yed]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

For me that is cheating.

[ConMan]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

We generally allow it, although it can get a little tricky if, for example, they were told they had three 2s, then played one or two of them, and drew more 2s to replace them, as then it's on us to remember which ones they knew about already. But we will always happily remind people of which cards they should know they have - especially if they're trying to check whether they've rearranged their hand correctly.

[AdamH]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

For me that is cheating.

Same here.

[Axxle]

I play with allowing a player to state what they know about their own hand, but others can't say anything unless giving a clue.

And rearranging cards is totally allowed, I thought it's even in the rule book?

[eHalcyon]

I finally got a copy of Hanabi.  The box is a bit hard to open.  The lid fits very snugly.

[Jimmmmm]

I finally got a copy of Hanabi.

Me too!

[sitnaltax]

We consider reminding people what clues they have been given to be legit; I think it's in the same spirit as the Dominion point tracker. It's very unsatisfying to lose a game just because you misremembered which one of the cards was the 3 you were intending to play. Anything that could have been written on a Post-It and stuck to the back of the cards, that's fine. However, the request has to start from the person asking. (Typically it's "this card is yellow, right?")

This article is by far the best strategy guide: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/804762/the-elusive-25-point-game-tips-for-effective-han

[AdamH]

We consider reminding people what clues they have been given to be legit; I think it's in the same spirit as the Dominion point tracker. It's very unsatisfying to lose a game just because you misremembered which one of the cards was the 3 you were intending to play. Anything that could have been written on a Post-It and stuck to the back of the cards, that's fine. However, the request has to start from the person asking. (Typically it's "this card is yellow, right?")

But it's so funny when we load a person up with 5 different clues about their hand and watch them squirm! And it's even more funny when we give them one clue and they can't even remember that!

[Twistedarcher]

We consider reminding people what clues they have been given to be legit; I think it's in the same spirit as the Dominion point tracker. It's very unsatisfying to lose a game just because you misremembered which one of the cards was the 3 you were intending to play. Anything that could have been written on a Post-It and stuck to the back of the cards, that's fine. However, the request has to start from the person asking. (Typically it's "this card is yellow, right?")

But it's so funny when we load a person up with 5 different clues about their hand and watch them squirm! And it's even more funny when we give them one clue and they can't even remember that!

The second part may be funny if you play with the same group, but its really frustrating if you're with newer people and I've found it can be a turn off to the game. If someone misremembers it WILL matter and that person is gonna end up feeling like crap sometimes.

[Jimmmmm]

Is anyone willing to run a game?

[AdamH]

Our group just got our first perfect score tonight of 25! No fuses and no cheater tokens -- it didn't seem like a super-awesome draw but we went into the endgame with lots of clue tokens left and we didn't get burned by critical early cards being at the bottom of the deck.

Time to add in the rainbow cards.

[Kuildeous]

Got to play with a fairly logical group, but it was still new for some people, and a few nuances got missed. Oops. The highest we scored was 19.

Even what I thought was a brilliant move didn't get picked up well. Out of curiosity, is this was others would have done?

I saw that player 2 had blue and yellow 1. Player 5 had red, green, and white 1. I told player 2 of her 1s, and player 3 told player 5 of his 1s. I had figured that was all the information that was needed, but other clues were spent to elaborate on the colors of those. I cried a little inside, but I also don't want to make a player feel bad for wasting a clue. If you were given that kind of setup, would you have done the same?

[Jimmmmm]

I would have played them. My thought is if you tell 2 different people about their 1s then the onus is on everyone else to let them know if there's one they can't play.

[Teproc]

@Kuildeous : I'm with you on this, no need to specify. That was a very lucky setup, but if I were a player with the 1s, I would just play them until someone gave me info contradicting it.

In fact, we had an interesting case once, with 4 players I think, where players A and D had perfect 1s, but A was playing first, so she indicated two 1s in player B's hand. Player B immediately discarded one of the 1s, which was a great play I think, making it clear to everyone that she knew these 1s weren't relevant, and would in fact mess up the whole positive dynamic if she played them. Needless to say player A was a bit confused at this initially, but it worked great and was an interesting play/situation I think.

[Jimmmmm]

In fact, we had an interesting case once, with 4 players I think, where players A and D had perfect 1s, but A was playing first, so she indicated two 1s in player B's hand. Player B immediately discarded one of the 1s, which was a great play I think, making it clear to everyone that she knew these 1s weren't relevant, and would in fact mess up the whole positive dynamic if she played them. Needless to say player A was a bit confused at this initially, but it worked great and was an interesting play/situation I think.

It's brilliant little plays like this which make this a wonderful game.

[Kuildeous]

I do like the looks of some players when someone plays a seemingly strange move. "I just told you that. Why'd you discard it?"

Of course, it can backfire, but it's lovely when it works.

[AdamH]

Looks like I forgot to post here. With the same group of three people we added in the rainbow cards and played the variant where the rainbow card is just a sixth color. We played three games and got another perfect score. I'm inclined to say that this variant is easier than the original game, so next up is the variant where the rainbow cards match all color clues.

[Kuildeous]

Tonight's RPG has been canceled on account of too many no-shows, so we are defaulting to board games.

I really want to bring Hanabi, but I'm kind of afraid of one player. He doesn't grasp logic very well. He can hardly grasp rules. I can't believe how many times I've had to explain rules of a game multiple times.

But I really want to play Hanabi! Maybe I'll bring it anyway and expect some learning experiences. And maybe he's one of the cancellations. And who knows; maybe he'll surprise me.

[AdamH]

It can be really frustrating to play with someone in the wrong mindset. In most games they can just lose and I'm fine, it's rare that they're in a position to kingmake or anything, but in Hanabi we're all on the same team.

The tendency is to do nothing but give clues the entire game, which is a really really bad thing. Even when they know that they have a playable or discardable card most people will do this, and there are some that will continue to do nothing but give clues after told that it really messes a lot of things up. I wonder if it's because they are in a mindset that they shouldn't trust the people they're playing with?

Anyways, usually the best thing I can do when playing with someone like this is to blind-discard every turn, which just isn't fun at all. For me, Hanabi is a game best played with the same group many times.

[eHalcyon]

It can be really frustrating to play with someone in the wrong mindset. In most games they can just lose and I'm fine, it's rare that they're in a position to kingmake or anything, but in Hanabi we're all on the same team.

The tendency is to do nothing but give clues the entire game, which is a really really bad thing. Even when they know that they have a playable or discardable card most people will do this, and there are some that will continue to do nothing but give clues after told that it really messes a lot of things up. I wonder if it's because they are in a mindset that they shouldn't trust the people they're playing with?

Anyways, usually the best thing I can do when playing with someone like this is to blind-discard every turn, which just isn't fun at all. For me, Hanabi is a game best played with the same group many times.

It may be because they want to contribute, and clue-giving feels like a much more significant contribution than playing a card.  I've experienced this.  I think, "I really want to give this clue, it will be so helpful!" but then someone else gives me a clue before my turn.  Now I feel as though my turn has been dictated.  I no longer have the choice to give my awesome helpful clue.  Instead, I have to react to the clue I was given and play this card.  The other player who gave me the clue is the one who made a choice.  I'm just following through.

This is ridiculous, of course, and playing my card is as important as any clue giving.  But you feel much less clever when you are sort of just doing what somebody else told you to do.

[Kuildeous]

It can be really frustrating to play with someone in the wrong mindset. In most games they can just lose and I'm fine, it's rare that they're in a position to kingmake or anything, but in Hanabi we're all on the same team.

The tendency is to do nothing but give clues the entire game, which is a really really bad thing. Even when they know that they have a playable or discardable card most people will do this, and there are some that will continue to do nothing but give clues after told that it really messes a lot of things up. I wonder if it's because they are in a mindset that they shouldn't trust the people they're playing with?

Anyways, usually the best thing I can do when playing with someone like this is to blind-discard every turn, which just isn't fun at all. For me, Hanabi is a game best played with the same group many times.

It may be because they want to contribute, and clue-giving feels like a much more significant contribution than playing a card.  I've experienced this.  I think, "I really want to give this clue, it will be so helpful!" but then someone else gives me a clue before my turn.  Now I feel as though my turn has been dictated.  I no longer have the choice to give my awesome helpful clue.  Instead, I have to react to the clue I was given and play this card.  The other player who gave me the clue is the one who made a choice.  I'm just following through.

This is ridiculous, of course, and playing my card is as important as any clue giving.  But you feel much less clever when you are sort of just doing what somebody else told you to do.

You're probably right.

I also suspect that it may be a fear of doing the wrong thing. Why did that player tell me that card is a 3? Should I play it? Should I discard it? I don't want to screw up the game, so I'll take the safe route and give a clue. That's always a good play!

I'm speculating like hell here, but I could definitely see it happening.

Anyway, too many people canceled entirely, so even board/card games didn't happen. Too bad because the player I was worried about was one of the cancellations. I was actually looking forward to introducing the game to this group.

[Awaclus]

I bought Hanabi and just played it for the first time yesterday. Man, this game is awesome on so many levels.

[AdamH]

I played a game of Hanabi with my fiance this weekend, I recently got her hooked on the game (which is surprising because she's usually not into board games, but the full-cooperative aspect is something that really appeals to her so I'm looking to Pandemic and the like) and we played some 3P and 4P games and wanted to try out 2P (I had tried it before and it seemed awkward). To my surprise we played one game and got a perfect score *very* comfortably. I mean, we're both pretty good players, but it didn't feel like we were really using clues very efficiently so we were both pretty surprised. So I tried thinking about Hanabi in a certain way to see if I could make sense of this.

IN A 3-PLAYER GAME (EXAMPLE)

There are 50 cards in the deck, and 15 of those cards start in hand, so when the deck runs out we've made 35 plays/discards and ideally you can get 3 more after that so that means you can have at most 38 plays/discards before time runs out. If 25 of those are plays, that means you can discard 13 cards at most over the course of the game and still have a shot at the perfect score.

You start with 8 clue tokens, let's say you get 13 from discards and (we'll be generous) 4 more from playing fives. This means you 25 clues to give in order to play 25 cards in the best case.

APPLYING TO THE GENERAL CASE

Using similar calculations for other numbers of players (which changes the number of cards that start in players' hands and also the number of plays after the deck is drawn) we have:

2 players: 29 clues
3 players: 25 clues
4 players: 25 clues
5 players: 22 clues

Now there are are ways to burn clues other than take the clue action -- explosions, not playing a 5 early enough (or at all), initiative issues at the end of the game that cause people to not effectively use all of their actions, so you can just count those as using this limited "clue" resource. But in the best case you get this number of clues to pass along enough information to play 25 cards.

It seems that as the number of players increases, you're expected to get the same information across using less clues, which means the game probably gets harder. Now there are mitigating factors, like the fact that it's probably easier to give better clues when people have less cards in hand and more cards are visible to more people. Also, initiative and sequencing can be awkward in 2P games sometimes. On the other hand, I've never played a 5P game of Hanabi without at least one person in the group who will never do anything except give a clue, no matter what happens, and endgame sequencing only gets harder with more people.

So the conclusion is that Hanabi gets more difficult to "win" the more players you add to the mix.

Also, the intuition that one clue -> play one card is kind of like the "Copper" of Hanabi; you need to use it to get things done, but a hand of all Copper is not going to get you a Province in the same way that this will not get you a perfect score in Hanabi -- you have to do better. You have to get more value out of your clues. (with the possible exception of 2P games).

Another interesting calculation to make has to do with one of the variants using the "Rainbow Cards" -- where it just acts as a sixth color and nothing else. This adds 10 more cards to the deck and 5 more plays to make, so it's 5 extra clues you get to make 5 extra plays, plus the possibility of playing another five to squeak out one more clue token. I've found that this variant makes the perfect score easier to get and in the context of this calculation that makes sense, since it seems to act as a "buffering" effect at the very worst.

2P: 29/25 -> 35/30 : 1.16 -> 1.17
3P: 25/25 -> 31/30 : 1.00 -> 1.03
4P: 25/25 -> 31/30 : 1.00 -> 1.03
5P: 22/25 -> 28/30 : 0.88 -> 0.93

You can look at it a lot of different ways, but even in 2P you get more wiggle room with this variant.

[yed]

so I'm looking to Pandemic and the like

I recommend Space Alert!

[Voltaire]

And rearranging cards is totally allowed, I thought it's even in the rule book?

It definitely is both allowed and in the rule book.

EDIT: And to specify, I mean something like holding cards at different levels, upside down, etc. is in the rules.

[Awaclus]

And rearranging cards is totally allowed, I thought it's even in the rule book?

It definitely is both allowed and in the rule book.

I've found that it's not recommended though. When you keep the cards in the order you draw them, it's easy to tell which ones have been there for a while and which ones are new. When you rearrange the cards, it's easy to get confused and discard/play wrong cards by accident. Turning the cards 90, 180 or 270 degrees and placing them slightly higher or slightly lower than the other cards has always been enough to contain all of the information in my games so far.

[eHalcyon]

So the conclusion is that Hanabi gets more difficult to "win" the more players you add to the mix.

But you aren't accounting for the fact that you see more cards with more players. That gives you more information to start, allows you to be more efficient with clues and also mitigates bad luck like stalling due to key cards not being drawn early enough.

[AdamH]

So the conclusion is that Hanabi gets more difficult to "win" the more players you add to the mix.

But you aren't accounting for the fact that you see more cards with more players. That gives you more information to start, allows you to be more efficient with clues and also mitigates bad luck like stalling due to key cards not being drawn early enough.

You're correct. This is not taking that information into account. On the other hand, I think it's still beneficial to keep this comparison in mind while playing 5P games, knowing that the value you get out of clues has to be higher and you need to use those 5P-only tools to make that happen.

[blueblimp]

I did roughly the same calculation as AdamH, to explain why 5P seems so hard to full clear (in time) even without unluck or obvious errors. Observing the roughly 1-to-1 hint-to-play ratio makes the game less exciting, because it means that you're relying on lucky clumping (allowing multiple plays for one hint) to score well and that any "clever" use of a hint is basically wasted if it doesn't result in a play. Without clumping, you'd need some rather ESP plays to beat the 1-1 ratio, as you almost always need to know SOME fact about a card before playing it.

I still like how the game blew my mind on the first couple plays, but I don't feel very drawn to repeat play.

[Awaclus]

Is there a way to get around the problem that has been ruining all of my otherwise perfect games lately, i.e. there are enough cards left in the deck, there are enough clue tokens left, but the bottom card is a red 3 or something when the other copy of that card has already been discarded? Just play more games until some day that doesn't happen?

[jsh357]

I bought this the other day, hoping to play it soon.  It better be good or I'm never listening to you bozos again.

[AdamH]

Is there a way to get around the problem that has been ruining all of my otherwise perfect games lately, i.e. there are enough cards left in the deck, there are enough clue tokens left, but the bottom card is a red 3 or something when the other copy of that card has already been discarded? Just play more games until some day that doesn't happen?

Yeah, that's just an unfortunate draw when that happens.

[Qvist]

Is there a way to get around the problem that has been ruining all of my otherwise perfect games lately, i.e. there are enough cards left in the deck, there are enough clue tokens left, but the bottom card is a red 3 or something when the other copy of that card has already been discarded? Just play more games until some day that doesn't happen?

This is exactly my problem. I think I haven't even had a perfect game yet, as everytime there is a possibility in winning this game, the last or second to last is important and there isn't enough time to finish it in time.

[AdamH]

Well there are of course things you can do to make that less likely. Discarding fours early is much better than discarding twos early. Also, if you're constantly high on clue tokens rather than only having two left, it's much easier to make it so the correct person draws the last card and you get better endgame control.

[Voltaire]

Played this last night with strangers (so no group meta, and 3 had never played the game before) and we got 15 (five player). I actually felt pretty good about that.

[Kuildeous]

Is there a way to get around the problem that has been ruining all of my otherwise perfect games lately, i.e. there are enough cards left in the deck, there are enough clue tokens left, but the bottom card is a red 3 or something when the other copy of that card has already been discarded? Just play more games until some day that doesn't happen?

This is why I just jump straight to the variant where you play out your entire hands but you have to have a perfect game.

Since I'm competitive enough to consider anything less than 25 as losing, this fits my philosophy well.

[Teproc]

Is there a way to get around the problem that has been ruining all of my otherwise perfect games lately, i.e. there are enough cards left in the deck, there are enough clue tokens left, but the bottom card is a red 3 or something when the other copy of that card has already been discarded? Just play more games until some day that doesn't happen?

This is why I just jump straight to the variant where you play out your entire hands but you have to have a perfect game.

Since I'm competitive enough to consider anything less than 25 as losing, this fits my philosophy well.

Yep. Hanabi is one of my favorite games, but I cannot play the normal version. It's just boring to get to the end of the game and go "Oh, 23 this time. Great ?".

With the variant it's super tense because you might lose at any moment if you don't play it properly, and you get the actual satisfaction of winning when you do.

[blueblimp]

Is there a way to get around the problem that has been ruining all of my otherwise perfect games lately, i.e. there are enough cards left in the deck, there are enough clue tokens left, but the bottom card is a red 3 or something when the other copy of that card has already been discarded? Just play more games until some day that doesn't happen?

This is why I just jump straight to the variant where you play out your entire hands but you have to have a perfect game.

Since I'm competitive enough to consider anything less than 25 as losing, this fits my philosophy well.

When I played it, we actually started out with this variant, and decided it was awful for our group. Basically, it's way too easy to win with unlimited time, and because you're just trying to be super careful and not take shortcuts, the game drags. With the normal rules, you're rewarded for taking risks that speed things up.

[AdamH]

This is why I just jump straight to the variant where you play out your entire hands but you have to have a perfect game.

To me, this is not unlike playing Monopoly and playing with the Free Parking rule. You aren't playing Monopoly anymore, and most would argue that it makes the game easier/worse.

I've played maybe 150 games of Hanabi and been a part of 5 perfect games. They are rare and difficult, and do require a fortunate draw to get, but the fact that they're so difficult to get makes them very special.

[Teproc]

The Monopoly Free Parking rule is bad because it makes the game drag, the Hanabi variant does no such thing (quite the contrary).

I also resent the superiority you seem to be feeling here. You prefer to play the main version, it's not "better", you just prefer it.

As far as it being easy to win... try it with multicolored cards, that's what we mostly do nowadays. A game that you win 5 out of 150 times does not sound like fun to me. If it does to you that's fine, but please don't start telling me I'm playing an inferior version of the game.

[Awaclus]

We did it! Got a perfect score today.

Felt pretty nice after a slightly less successful game today, where I deduced that since my 5 can't be red, yellow or green, it's got to be blue, and turns out it was actually white  . Counting to five is hard.

[AdamH]

That last game I played was a 4-player game with my fiance and some of my family. My fiance was to my right and going first. She looks around for a little longer than normal and eventually points out the only 1 I can see. All right, so that's the only 1 on the board, eh? Let get some more cards out to get the game going -- BLIND DISCARD!

It was a 5.

It's been over two weeks since that happened and I still haven't lived that move down.

I mean, in general it's not a good idea to blind discard the first time around the table, and that's totally what I did. But I thought I'd take a chance.

I've found that in Hanabi when you're taking a chance, chances are things aren't going so well and they're about to get a lot worse.

[Awaclus]

Now we got 30 with the rainbow cards.

Few things in life are more satisfying than discarding a card that you could have played to tell the other player that her newest card is another copy of that same card, and having this result in her actually playing the card without receiving a single clue about it.

[GendoIkari]

I've played a couple times; great game. Definitely something I want to play more. I worry about how to avoid excessive meta gaming when playing a lot with the same group. If you know too much about when people give what clues and such, you could give more info than the game intends you to give.

[Awaclus]

I've played a couple times; great game. Definitely something I want to play more. I worry about how to avoid excessive meta gaming when playing a lot with the same group. If you know too much about when people give what clues and such, you could give more info than the game intends you to give.

The point of the game is to give more info than the game intends you to give.

[GendoIkari]

I've played a couple times; great game. Definitely something I want to play more. I worry about how to avoid excessive meta gaming when playing a lot with the same group. If you know too much about when people give what clues and such, you could give more info than the game intends you to give.

The point of the game is to give more info than the game intends you to give.

But where does it become "cheating"? You could come up with all sorts of meta-rules with your own group about what certain things mean; that's clearly outside what the rules intended to allow you to say. I dunno, something like "every time I tell you that you have exactly 1 yellow; you should play that yellow. But every time I tell you that you have exactly 1 red; you should play that red."

[AdamH]

Our group says we're only allowed to use the phrases provided in the rulebook. Long gazing sessions into each other's eyes are allowed.

Of course you can put in all kinds of weird rules for things but I guess you have to decide at what point things stop being fun...

[ConMan]

I've played a couple times; great game. Definitely something I want to play more. I worry about how to avoid excessive meta gaming when playing a lot with the same group. If you know too much about when people give what clues and such, you could give more info than the game intends you to give.

The point of the game is to give more info than the game intends you to give.

But where does it become "cheating"? You could come up with all sorts of meta-rules with your own group about what certain things mean; that's clearly outside what the rules intended to allow you to say. I dunno, something like "every time I tell you that you have exactly 1 yellow; you should play that yellow. But every time I tell you that you have exactly 1 red; you should play that red."

A lot of those kinds of rules run directly into problems - What happens when you have no more hint tokens and you need to pass that information? What if the person two spaces ahead of you has a single yellow card that can only be played if the person between you successfully plays *their* yellow card? And so forth.

In general, I'm okay with conventions being developed that have a certain logical structure behind them, and especially if there are edge cases (yay!) that necessitate breaking the convention to convey more information - so the idea of discarding your oldest card with no information is based on the premise that if no-one has given you any information about it then it's probably something that's not worth keeping; but at the same time maybe it's just that it's a hard card to give information about because of the other cards in your hand. And then if it's clear that I *am* following that general rule, and then suddenly I discard a newer card, it says that I actually do have some information about it and I need to communicate that to the other players. Similarly, the convention to avoid giving clues about discardable cards, which then means that if you're giving someone a clue about a card they can safely discard it potentially means either that the rest of their cards are *not* discardable, or that the discarding of that card lets someone else know that they have the other copy of that card in their hand (otherwise why would this person so flippantly discard their yellow 3?). But all of that comes organically through gameplay, and if I'm playing with a group that includes newer people I won't necessarily tell them that I'm following those conventions, instead I'll just try to help them get that feel for it through the play of the game.

[Awaclus]

I've played a couple times; great game. Definitely something I want to play more. I worry about how to avoid excessive meta gaming when playing a lot with the same group. If you know too much about when people give what clues and such, you could give more info than the game intends you to give.

The point of the game is to give more info than the game intends you to give.

But where does it become "cheating"? You could come up with all sorts of meta-rules with your own group about what certain things mean; that's clearly outside what the rules intended to allow you to say. I dunno, something like "every time I tell you that you have exactly 1 yellow; you should play that yellow. But every time I tell you that you have exactly 1 red; you should play that red."

You need meta-rules to win the game. It's literally not possible to get 25 points if you have to receive 2 clues about every card, and it would be a super boring game as well. Unspoken meta-rules such as "when there's a red 1 on the board and I tell you that you have exactly one 2, it's a red 2" exist even in your first game — this meta-rule could be simplified to "assume that your teammates aren't idiots", and as your team becomes more experienced, you can transfer more information with each clue you give and sometimes discarding or playing certain cards too. And it will be super fun, and beating the game will still be a challenge, but not impossible. Meta-rules like "every time I tell you that you have exactly 1 yellow; you should play that yellow" will just hurt you, because if you receive a clue about a single yellow in your hand, in most situations you'll conclude that the only reason why you would receive that clue is that you should play the card, and then there are some situations where you might want to conclude that you received the clue because it's the only remaining yellow 4 in the game so you aren't allowed to discard it.

In a way, you could say that the point of the game is to find the meta-rules that make you win games — such as "discard your oldest cards first", "if you received a clue about multiple cards and one of them had been in your hand for centuries and you just drew the other, play the one that you just drew", etc. In other words, these are just plain good plays, and your team will win games when everyone can assume that everyone in the team plays well.

And then if it's clear that I *am* following that general rule, and then suddenly I discard a newer card, it says that I actually do have some information about it and I need to communicate that to the other players.

That's pretty cool, we've been using that to communicate "I'm doing something stupid intentionally, and there's a reason why I'm doing something stupid intentionally just to do something stupid intentionally so don't make the play you would otherwise make in this situation".

[Kuildeous]

That's pretty cool, we've been using that to communicate "I'm doing something stupid intentionally, and there's a reason why I'm doing something stupid intentionally just to do something stupid intentionally so don't make the play you would otherwise make in this situation".

That's a difficult one for me to get across to some people.

I've gotten incredulous looks like I'm an idiot for making such a stupid move, and I feel like it's giving away too much information by saying, "Why did I make such a dumb move?" Maybe I'm too worried about it, but it sounds almost like, "That CARD is a 3." It feels like I'm putting too much emphasis on something when I have to explain myself, so I just accept the unspoken accusations of incompetency and etch the moment in my brain so I can explain the situation when the game is over.

I mean, I try to explain beforehand that if something feels wrong, then everyone needs to take a long, hard look at the situation. It may be on purpose.

[AdamH]

I've gotten incredulous looks like I'm an idiot for making such a stupid move, and I feel like it's giving away too much information by saying, "Why did I make such a dumb move?" Maybe I'm too worried about it, but it sounds almost like, "That CARD is a 3." It feels like I'm putting too much emphasis on something when I have to explain myself, so I just accept the unspoken accusations of incompetency and etch the moment in my brain so I can explain the situation when the game is over.

I mean, I try to explain beforehand that if something feels wrong, then everyone needs to take a long, hard look at the situation. It may be on purpose.

I've found that this kind of thing comes with playing with the same group a few times; and I think it comes down to how much you trust the people you're playing with. There are certain people I've played with several times that when they make a move that seems bad to me I automatically assume it's not bad because of something in my hand. Other people, not so much.

Explaining after the game is over is probably the only "legal" thing to do, but if I'm about to make a move that seems bad and I don't think my point is going to get across, I usually stare into someone's eyes for a good 10 seconds before I make the move, without saying anything. Just so they know I have some idea what I'm doing.

[Awaclus]

That's pretty cool, we've been using that to communicate "I'm doing something stupid intentionally, and there's a reason why I'm doing something stupid intentionally just to do something stupid intentionally so don't make the play you would otherwise make in this situation".

That's a difficult one for me to get across to some people.

I've gotten incredulous looks like I'm an idiot for making such a stupid move, and I feel like it's giving away too much information by saying, "Why did I make such a dumb move?" Maybe I'm too worried about it, but it sounds almost like, "That CARD is a 3." It feels like I'm putting too much emphasis on something when I have to explain myself, so I just accept the unspoken accusations of incompetency and etch the moment in my brain so I can explain the situation when the game is over.

I mean, I try to explain beforehand that if something feels wrong, then everyone needs to take a long, hard look at the situation. It may be on purpose.

Seriously, "assume that your teammates aren't idiots" is the best piece of advice in the excellent strategy article someone linked earlier. I do this even if I'm playing with less experienced people, because the game doesn't really allow any misplays so either it works out and you can still win, or it doesn't, and you lose more but it's fine because you would lose anyway. And in any case it's a learning experience for the new player.

I have discarded a newer card on purpose just once, and it ended up being a card that I could've played, and that resulted in my teammate thinking that I had somehow figured out what card it was and that I was trying to tell her that she has the other copy of that card in her hand, and then we lost. It was probably a lost game anyway; after all, I had to be pretty desperate to do something like that.

[jsh357]

FYI, Hanabi is now on Boardgamearena!  So if you were on the fence, you can try it for free!

Ought to have a hanabi stream at some point.  That'd be a hoot.
http://en.boardgamearena.com/

[Awaclus]

Oh my god, we should play f.ds Hanabi games!

[AdamH]

Just played a game on here. The interface was really clean, though it took me a bit to figure out what was going on.

There should be a thread for F.DS Hanabi games and I would totally stream them

...when I get some time 

[Awaclus]

Oh and in the version I have, you're not allowed to discard when all of the clue tokens are available, but it's possible in this online implementation. My version is the old one where you can still tell someone where his 3s are (and point nowhere) if he doesn't have any, so I'm not sure which one has it wrong. I tried to utilize this rule to force my teammate to do something other than discarding, but then he went and discarded the second yellow 3 anyway. Well, it's not like that game was even winnable in the first place, since he also thought that receiving a clue about a 5 early means that you should discard it.

I'm never going to play with randoms again.

EDIT: Opponent, teammate, they're almost the same thing.

[AdamH]

My name on there is AdamHorton, I may be around for the next 30-60 minutes or so if someone wants to try this out.

[Awaclus]

My name on there is AdamHorton, I may be around for the next 30-60 minutes or so if someone wants to try this out.

I would like to play.

[Rabid]

My name on there is AdamHorton, I may be around for the next 30-60 minutes or so if someone wants to try this out.

I would like to play.

And me, this is a great online version

[mpsprs]

I'd also play!  (Though I've never played the game before, it sounds awesome)

Edit:  I'm mpsprs there as well.

[Voltaire]

Sweet, I'm Voltaire there too.

[Kuildeous]

Seriously, "assume that your teammates aren't idiots" is the best piece of advice…

A tall order for random groups, but I think the risk is worth it. I'd rather trust in someone who later turns out to not have a clue than to ruin the game by second-guessing someone else's motives, especially when he was right all along.

And well, sometimes losing is hilarious. Not Galaxy-Trucker-losing hilarious but still pretty funny.

Is the online version atemporal, or does everyone need to be logged in at the same time?

[AdamH]

Is the online version atemporal, or does everyone need to be logged in at the same time?

I've played a synchronous version, but I saw stuff about turn-based games as well. I didn't check it out, though. I want to poke at this when I get some more time (but with the holiday coming up that might not be soon).

[Awaclus]

Is the online version atemporal, or does everyone need to be logged in at the same time?

Both are possible, the person who creates the table can choose. I think. The matchmaking interface is super confusing, but OTOH it's also pretty versatile.

[Voltaire]

Is the online version atemporal, or does everyone need to be logged in at the same time?

Both are possible, the person who creates the table can choose. I think. The matchmaking interface is super confusing, but OTOH it's also pretty versatile.

The interface for the game itself is great. Got a 25 last night with a stranger who (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr) pointed out a clever thing he did after I clearly didn't get it, so as someone who likes "pure" Hanabi (even when that leads to scores of 12 or something) it was unfortunate, but hopefully it made him happy.

[Watno]

/in, name should be Watno

[Rabid]

I have created a group "DominionStratergy" and invited people from this thread.
Should make it easier to find games with each other.

[Watno]

I opened a table for members of that group: www.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=11231839

Also, why isn't the group caleld DominionStrategy (without the extra r )?

[Rabid]

Doh, new group created:
http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!group?id=1146938

I opened a table for members of that group: www.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=11231839

Also, why isn't the group caleld DominionStrategy (without the extra r )?

[Watno]

Just got a 24 with 2 strangers, after we messed up heavily in the beginning by pointing out a second 1 of a color already played.

Playing the newest / discarding the oldest card when in doubt is a really good convention.
I remember the rules allowing rearranging your hand, which just sounds like a terrible thing to do, since it will stop others from anticipating what you will do.

[Twistedarcher]

Have an account, would be down to play some time.

[Awaclus]

I'm never going to play with randoms again.

And then I went and played with randoms again, got 25 with 5 colors.

[Kuildeous]

A friend of mine brought out her shiny Deluxe Hanabi, and I'm in love. The game is pretty awesome with cards, but it's much easier to manage with tiles. For one, you don't have to cramp your hands the entire game holding cards up for everyone to see. Also, it's invariable that you'll turn away from someone, so he'll ask to see your cards. But the biggest advantage to tiles is that you can rearrange your hand three-dimensionally.

I chose a convention to put 5s on their ends. When I had redundant numbers, I moved them toward the back into my pile to discard. It just allowed for nicer organization of your fireworks.

I like it, but I don't $50 like it. Maybe I'll find it for cheap somewhere.

[AdamH]

I've never heard of this. Sounds intriguing. Does it take up that much space? One of the nice things about the cards is that I can fit it in my Box O' Shorties™, which is just a cardboard box made to hold trading cards that I put several short mostly-card games in so it doesn't take up that much space in my bag. If the tiles would work well here it might be a good thing to pick up.

I saw this on Amazon for like $35

[Kuildeous]

The tiles do take up more space. They are about the size of dominos, but they're really thick. At least twice the thickness, if not thrice. So you're likely not going to knock a tile over and accidentally reveal it. It was a little awkward shuffling the tiles on a carpeted tabletop because the friction was greater on bottom than on top so it was easy to roll a tile when mixing.

It was still a convenient size, but it's heavier obviously, and it's a much larger box than the original. I'm trying to think of another game that is comparable, but most games I have are in flat boxes. This one is more shoe box shaped, if that makes sense. Not the same size as a shoe box, though.

[pedroluchini]

I'm trying to think of another game that is comparable

Mahjong? https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=people+playing+mahjong

[Kuildeous]

I'm trying to think of another game that is comparable

Mahjong? https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=people+playing+mahjong

I don't see any boxes in that link, but the tiles are roughly the same size, yeah. You have 10 of each color, so there should a total of 60 tiles. There is also room for the clue and doomclock tokens. There are also two little hollow inserts. It's like you could fit tiles in them, but I don't know for what purpose. Mostly, the inserts are used to keep the tiles in place, which may have been their original intent.

[yed]

How many multicolor cars do you have?

In german version I have normal  10 (3x1 2x2 2x3 2x4 1x5)
In czech version I have only 5 (1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 1x4, 1x5).

What is the "right" count?

[Ghacob]

How many multicolor cars do you have?

In german version I have normal  10 (3x1 2x2 2x3 2x4 1x5)
In czech version I have only 5 (1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 1x4, 1x5).

What is the "right" count?

10.

There is one way to play, one variant, that uses 5 multicolor, but the game should come with a full set of 10

[Kuildeous]

The three versions I've seen all had 10 cards of each color.

Frankly, I'm not sure that 5 cards would be very fun. It can easily lend itself to impossible games. What if no player had a 1 card in the opening hand? You can't discard or play anything to make room. All you can do is maximize your score by telling people which cards are 5s so they can be discarded. And even if a 1 is played, what if the corresponding 2 isn't out there? And so on.

Granted, with 5 players, this is a little more manageable. It's highly unlikely that nobody would have a 1. I guess if that happens, the second player will know instantly that they can't win when he sees no 1s and the first player doesn't tell him he has any 1s.

Having one of each card just doesn't sound that fun to me, but I admittedly have not tried it, so I can't dismiss it entirely. At the very least, you'd be missing the strategic component of blind discards. I like that because you can really see the anguish on the person's face as he contemplates discarding that card nobody told him anything about.