Defending your own: thirty-seven arguments of redness

Handing a civilian to the blacks and removing him is only half the job. The other half is the art of steering the result of a vote and the whole game through the defence of your own team's players. This lesson explains when defence is needed, how it is built and which thirty-seven arguments of redness are in the blacks' arsenal.

When a word is enough and when it is not

In positional play it is usually simple to defend a partner: call him red. With this you direct the table's attention to yourself or to other candidates. But the rule fails in two cases.

1. Both are considered mafia. Then your word "red" is worth nothing: the link "a black calls a black red" is obvious.
2. You spoke about the colour limply and unsure, or the table does not play positionally and does not listen to speeches. A colour given in passing creates no defence for the partner.

To pull a slot out of the zone of suspicion you need an argument. They split into groups by what exactly serves as the ground.

Thirty-seven structures of defence

In the book the author, as in the chapter on attack, suggests writing next to each structure the percentage of redness of a player by that sign, applicable to the realities of your own games. We go through them by groups.

Group A. Quality of speech and position (1, 2, 3, 5, 7)

1. The player thoroughly gives information on every player.
2. He is not afraid to make contact.
3. He gives a clear position.
4. He spoke wonderfully.
5. It matters to him that he is listened to.

A black, as a rule, avoids specifics: any specific claim can be checked. So a developed position works for redness. If the player spoke in detail and you refer to that, you are not inventing an argument but pointing to a visible fact.

Group B. Behaviour as a black and as a red (8, 9, 14, 15, 16)

1. As a black he speaks differently (with an example).
2. As a black he plays differently.
3. As a black it is impossible to say such a stupid thing.
4. The argument cannot be invented while being mafia.
5. As a black he would not have drawn so much attention to himself.

All five work through the comparison "if he were black". An example from past games matters here: the word "differently" without a case sounds groundless, while "last game, when he played mafia, he did it like this" is remembered by the table.

Group C. What the player did for the town (4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 17, 25, 35, 36)

1. He cannot be black, because in round zero he cut off all his own paths to victory and handed out colours.
2. He passed my provocation perfectly.
3. In round zero he threw all the blacks out of the team.
4. A departed, well-known civilian called him red.
5. He reconciled two red players.
6. He turned a check away from the killed player or the sheriff.
7. He voted every player off the table.
8. He saved the table from a break in round zero.
9. He broke into a black player in round zero.

These are moves, not words. Moves paint red more strongly than speech because they cannot be undone. Arguments about round zero are especially strong: the remark "threw all the blacks out of the team" excludes the version that the player is actually connected to them.

Group D. Checks and the sheriff (18, 19, 24, 31, 37)

1. He asked for a black to be checked.
2. He asked not to check a black, because we remove him anyway.
3. The real sheriff, or both sheriffs, revealed themselves to him.
4. He was given a black check and is looking for the real sheriff. As mafia he would know who the don is.
5. He knew who the sheriff was and stayed alive for several rounds.

The last argument is not about what the player can do but about what was disadvantageous for him. The mafia, knowing the sheriff, would kill him on the very first night. So a player who "knew" and did not kill is red.

Group E. Technical devices of defence (20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34)

1. He catches a foul to split the table.
2. He catches a foul by interrupting a black player.
3. At nine a known mafioso gathered votes against him.
4. Players from different teams turn to him.
5. He looks for beacons or has seen a beacon.
6. Nobody pays attention to him, he is "outside conflicts".
7. He split the table correctly so that, even as a black, he could not break it.
8. He explains to weaker players what to do and how.
9. He proposed a vote between two blacks.
10. He made a car crash between two blacks.
11. He did not put a hand for lifting reds at ten.
12. He could have won three on three or two on two with the mafia.

Many of these follow one principle: "such a good move is disadvantageous for a black". But a warning at once: part of these arguments rests on a specific situation. You cannot refer to "could not break it" where in fact the player had the chance to break.

How to build a defence

1. Pick an argument that the player really matches. Invented details are also used by blacks, but that is metagame, and you will have to answer for it.
2. Agree in advance within the team who defends whom. A double defence of one slot looks suspicious.
3. Do not defend until you are asked, if you have no obvious reason. Premature defence reveals the link.
4. Back an argument with moves: actions that will be taken as red are stronger than words.
5. In practice games try to make two or three moves that paint you red in the table's eyes, and watch how the players react.

The ideal result of working through the list: you can pull your own black player out. Mark the structures that can be voiced about any player regardless of his moves, and keep them in reserve.

For the red

If you hear a long defence of someone you were not discussing, ask yourself: how does this argument differ from an ordinary assessment? Often the defender gives an argument not about the player but about the result ("it matters to him that he is listened to"). Ask what changes if the argument is removed. If nothing, the argument was not needed and you see only an attempt to defend.

Application

1. Save the players of your team.
2. Make actions that will be taken as red.
3. Give clear colours.

Self-check questions

1. Give three more points of painting red.
2. Give five arguments in favour of one of the sheriff lines.
3. How does the delivery of a speech affect the perception of firm positions? Are there players at your tables whose opinion is not taken into account? Why?
4. In which cases is it better for someone other than the don to be the false sheriff?

Practice

Take the analysis of a game and write out which of the thirty-seven defence structures were heard, from whom, and whether they worked. Then invent three new structures that are not on the list.

Typical mistakes

• Defending too early.
• Using an argument refuted by the facts of the game.
• Two players defending one player.
• Saying "red" without an argument.

Source of the idea. The chapter "We defend" from Dmitry Novik's book "Mafia in the Style of Zen" (2020). The grouping and explanations were compiled by us.