One of the reasons this doesn't quite fall under typical paradox scenarios is that your statements here are imperative statements - you're not so much presenting descriptions as much issuing instructions. Whenever you tell someone to not do something, in the rules of the game that's something they should do, so in practice you're telling them to do that thing.
Your third instruction is, properly paraphrased, a request to "do the thing that I tell you to do". You can see this by taking a sample statement (e.g. "don't turn around") and plugging it in - you tell them something that they should "not" do, and then under the rules of the game you tell them to "not" do that thing. So you're just repeating the initial instruction.
In the absence of anything else to tell them to do, then, it's not that you're issuing an impossible instruction but rather that you're issuing a vacuous instruction - you're saying "do this" with nothing for the "this" to latch on to. So giving no response is a reasonable and correct reaction.
What else might be reasonable and correct? Well that depends on what we think about the nature of your instructions. If your intent is that your friend should just try to find some action that satisfies the constraints you've set, then any action would be correct. If your intent is that your friend should try to find out the one action that you specifically intended them to do, then perhaps nothing is the only correct action.
So what do you think? Are you content that your friend should find a satisfactory response? Or would you rather they look to deduce what you were intending them to do?