If the president in Secret Hitler believes the law passed to have been a force will the call of cards matter?

I play Secret Hilter a decent bit. Assume all players play the game perfectly.

When a law has been passed it is META for the President and Chancellor to "call" how many fascist cards they saw. My hypothesis is that if a fascist law has been passed, a regular "call" of the cards is not necessary.

Notation: I will refer to the calls the president makes and the Chancellor as (x,y).

If a fascist law is passed it will be via one of the following cases:

If the president receives 3 fascist cards. (3,2) If the president receives 2 fascist cards and discards the liberal card. (3,2)

If the president receives 2 fascist cards and discards a fascist card and the chancellor plays fascist.

• Either both are fascist, and it is in both player's best interests to lie. (3,2)
• Chancellor is fascist and the president is liberal. (2,2). Not applicable to question

If the president receives 1 fascist card and discards a liberal card and the chancellor plays fascist.

• Either both are fascist, and it is in both player's best interests to lie. (3,2)
• Chancellor is fascist and the president is liberal. (1,2). Not applicable to question

Is this a correct assessment or have I missed anything here? Hence, from my perspective, it seems that if a fascist law has been passed, a regular "call" of the cards is not necessary.

You are forgetting a key point. Lets say that the president passed 1 liberal and 1 fascist card there is still information to be gained. This revolves around the answers not only to this question but to previous ones as well.

Liberal president - fascist chancellor: Actual draw was 1 liberal, 1 fascist and one other and the pass was done to expose the chancellor as a fascist. In this case the president can use the fact that a choice was present to out the chancellor. However this can also be used by the chancellor to try and discredit the president and it all depends on how well you are keeping track of cards. It could also lead to people believing that both are fascist and the pass was done to get a fail rather than out one player.

Fascist chancellor - liberal president: 1 liberal, 2 fascist and passes both fascists. Learning the makeup of the cards (even if a lie is told) could help reveal the lies such as near the end of a cycle finding out that there are to many fascists cards drawn and that someone lied.

While it might not provide a lot of information it will still provide information and the act of not asking that question also provides information.

The possible pulls in a round of Secret Hitler are the following:

1. Three Liberal laws
2. Two Liberal, one Fascist
3. One Liberal, two Fascist
4. Three Fascist laws

Do keep in mind that the deck is stacked with more Fascist laws on purpose, so it makes scenario 4 more likely than 3, 3 more likely than 2, and so forth.

No matter the initial pull of three laws, it's always useful for President and Chancellor to "call" the laws they pulled/received.

This is additional information that may inform you on their roles. It is very common for a Fascist president to pull from scenario 4 or 3, and then force a Liberal Chancellor to play a Fascist law claiming they had no choice. At the same time, maybe a Liberal president might pull from scenario 3, giving one of each to the Chancellor who proceeds to pass a Fascist law. Any disagreement between their "calls" is valuable information, as well as who voted to approve the pair of President/Chancellor to begin with.

In other words, if a Fascist law is passed, staying silent is not a good strategy for Liberal players, since it buries information. It might, however be a valid Fascist strategy to further disrupt the other team into doubting allegiances.

• I would also mention that it isn't that uncommon for example two to happen with a Fascist/Fascistcombo and have them lie and say it was all Fascist laws and being able to disprove that based on past information. Apr 30, 2021 at 17:01

Your analysis is rather difficult to follow, so I'm not going to try to decode what part is faulty, and just give my own analysis of why it is useful.

First, if you're playing that Hitler doesn't know who the other fascists are, and Hitler is the president, and they pass two fascist laws, they have a strategic decision to make. If they think the chancellor is liberal, they can claim to have passed one liberal law and one fascist law. If they pass two liberal laws and think the chancellor is fascist, they can lie and say that they passed one liberal law and one fascist law.

If a liberal passes a liberal law and a fascist law, and the chancellor passes a fascist law, then the liberal knows the chancellor is a fascist, and probably should share that information.

Also, it's good to announce how many of each type you saw in general, since that gives people more information as to what laws are left.

BTW, that's a use of "meta" that is how a lot of people use it, but isn't consistent with the original meaning.