The double free vote at five

According to Dmitry Novik, the critical round at five players differs little from the one at seven. It is simpler because there are fewer people at the table, and there are no fundamental differences. But it is exactly here that the author lost many games through misunderstanding the concepts discussed below: he arrived at them only by analysing lost games. This lesson covers the double free vote: what it is, when a red needs it, how to read the hands and how to play this round as mafia.

What the extra-points rule says

The basic rule of play for extra points is simple: found a mafia player, gather the civilians' hands for removing the candidate and take him off the table. Everything described in this chapter the author calls insurance and moves for the case where you have not worked out the situation at the table. You do not need to apply the chapter's tricks in every game; the author stresses that he only wants you to understand them.

A separate case. If the sheriff and the red checks are gone, and a black check and an unknown player were voted out earlier, you can play a counterweight between the player who left on the vote and the candidate he bequeathed to be removed after him. Otherwise vote and gather hands against whoever, in your view, is mafia. This is a recommendation from the "simple game" concept.

What the double vote is

The double free vote is a tie split in which the hands scatter 2-2-1 in any variation. This situation can be created artificially, by deliberately withholding a vote from a red player, or it can happen by accident.

The author's main advice to civilians concerns the number of nominated candidates. There must be at least three: first, so that the mafia is nominated at all, and second, so that there is room to withhold hands and potentially split the table.

When it is acceptable to split the table

Splitting the table is acceptable where the vote is free, with no red check telling you whom to remove. One more condition must also hold: either you are suspected and could be removed in the guessing round, or you yourself have not decided on the black player. Then there is no point in finishing off this or that player straight away; it makes sense to colour yourself by splitting the table. The split also helps, through the scatter of votes, to see potential black pairs (players voting together) and to listen to the players once more during the tie split.

The author puts the essence of the trick briefly: as a civilian you must not add the deciding third hand; instead, make a 2-2-1 tie split.

Reliability layouts

At the critical round such a tie split gives fairly reliable layouts. The author names percentages; these are his estimates, not a calculation.

1. Withheld a hand instead of winning. A player who withheld his hand instead of winning with either team at 2 against 2 is red (80 percent). The Academy's logic: if he were black he would have completed the vote, because at five players a black victory comes with the removal of a red. A red, on the contrary, does not want to finish off until he is sure.
2. A red under the first hands. If you are a red and put your vote under the first hands, and the player was not finished off, you voted against the mafia (75 percent).
3. A red in the second pair. If you are a red and voted in the pair, and the player was not finished off, you voted against the mafia (75 percent). The author adds: do not change your hand.
4. Players who played against each other vote together. If players who played against each other vote together, they are mafia, and the one they want to remove is a civilian (80 percent).

Example

(Made up for the Academy.) Five players are at the table: no. 1, no. 2, no. 3, no. 4, no. 5. There are no red checks. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are nominated. The split plan: nos. 1 and 5 vote for no. 2; nos. 2 and 3 for no. 4; no. 4 for no. 3. As a result no. 2 has two hands, no. 4 has two, no. 3 has one: 2-2-1, nobody leaves. The civilians listened once more and saw who put a hand where. If someone broke the plan, it is visible who exactly did it.

The round at five as mafia

As in the critical round at seven, the author's default recommendation is to nominate your own suspicious mafioso under the first hands in order to buy votes by the count of the game. If you were not nominated and only two hands went to the candidate under the first hands, that gives you the win. Catch the third vote together at 2 against 2. And do not forget the tendency of undecided "clever ones" to saw the table.

If the run-up at five through nomination works, the hands will gather to remove a red player for a 2-against-2 victory, because by the count the town will have problems. If the hands do not gather for the removal of a red, in the guessing round you will have arguments and the whole layout for the win. Your speech: "I nominated the mafia, I removed him with my own hand!" Losing a black is not critical, and any outcome suits you, from a win on the spot to a favourable continuation in the final round. But in the second case you have to vote out your own.

How to nominate your own black so that he does not leave

For effective hand-gathering you need a "rocket": arguments, a confident "black", a call to action. That is why you must not use the "rocket" when nominating for the run-up. Simply call him black, voice suspicions, but do not call to action, or do it carefully. In the round at five there are two black players for us, so we can calmly, within the logic of the game, put a hand for removing the blackest candidate (a civilian) rather than the one suspected at the very beginning (our own mafioso).

The author jokes that the book will be bought by 0.04 percent of players, finished by 20 percent of them and applied and remembered by 5 percent, so for everyone else it will be a "no-read" good enough for a run-up. He himself notes in a footnote that the statistic is inflated and derived from surveys about reading self-development literature; for the Academy this is not a fact but the author's irony.

If you lured out a red hand

If you decided to saw the table in order to "lure" a red hand to deliver on a civilian, then as soon as the hand has gone down, it is better to finish off at once, 2 against 2.

If your own team removed you

If your own black removed you, leave badly: no testament, no speech. This colours your mafioso, and in the guessing round he will have an advantage over those civilians who did not remove you. As mafia you must know how to leave badly when your own remove you: this is how you colour them.

How reds secure the round

(Practical advice from the Academy, based on the chapter.)

1. Agree on the splitting scheme in advance and say it out loud.
2. Check that the deciding hand does not belong to a player without grounds.
3. Watch who broke the scheme and remember him for the guessing round.
4. Do not change an already placed hand without a new fact.

Self-check questions

1. How many candidates must be nominated in the round at five, and why?
2. What does "you must not add the deciding third hand" mean?
3. Which four reliability layouts does the author name?
4. Why should a black not use the "rocket" when nominating his own?

Practice

Play the 2-2-1 scheme five times, changing the line-up each time and deliberately breaking the scheme in one game. Work out how the violator looks to the others and which of the four layouts this gives.

Typical mistakes

• Nominating only two candidates.
• Not announcing the voting scheme.
• Casting the deciding hand without grounds.
• Changing a hand after the player was not finished off.
• Using the "rocket" when nominating your own black.

Source of the idea. The chapters "Double free vote for 5 players" and "The round for 5 players as mafia" from Dmitry Novik's book "50 Shades of Red" (2021). The percentages belong to the author. The logical explanations, example, questions and practice were written for the Academy.