 What about answering a second time to the opponent’s move 3? Even though his repetition rank is \(\rank{2}\) and the opponent stated \(\Pa\) at move 5, the proponent cannot answer a second time to move 3 by choosing the first disjunct. This is because move 3 is no longer the last unanswered challenge made by the opponent: at this point, move 5 is the last one. Thus, the proponent has no further possible move and he loses the play. Notice that, unlike the proof-theoretic account of intuitionistic logic, the meaning of the Excluded Third does not amount to knowing what could count as having a proof of it but to the fact that it can constitute the thesis of a play that ends with one of the players winning or losing. The proof-theoretic account of knowing what counts as having a proof manifests itself, in a dialogical setting, in terms of having a winning strategy. See  Section 2.2.1  for classical dialogical games which have rules that allow P to win.