 An alternative to restricting attention to only truthful strategies is to use semantic meaning to constrain the starting point of pragmatic reasoning. Approaches that do so are the optimal assertions approach (Benz 2006, Benz &amp; van Rooij 2007), iterated best response models (e.g., Franke 2009, 2011, Jäger 2014), and related probabilistic models (e.g., Frank &amp; Goodman 2012, Goodman &amp; Stuhlmüller 2013, Franke &amp; Jäger 2014). The general idea that unifies these approaches can be traced directly to Grice, in particular the notion that speakers should maximize the amount of relevant information contained in their utterances. Since information contained in an utterance is standardly taken to be semantic information (as opposed to pragmatically restricted or modulated meaning), a simple way of implementing Gricean speakers is to assume that they choose utterances by considering how a literal interpreter would react to each alternative. Pragmatic listeners then react optimally based on the belief that the speaker is Gricean in the above sense. In other words, these approaches define a sequence of Theory-of-Mind reasoning: starting with a (non-rational, dummy) literal interpreter, a Gricean speaker acts (approximately) rationally based on literal interpretation, while a Gricean listener interprets (approximately) rationally based on the behavior of a Gricean speaker. Some contributions allow for further iterations of best responses, others do not; some contributions also look at reasoning sequences that start with literal senders; some contributions assume that agents are strictly rational, others allow for probabilistic approximations to classical rational choice (see Franke &amp; Jäger 2014 for overview and comparison).