Finding blacks at seven and five: three tells

In late rounds, the mistakes of individual blacks are joined by the strategy of the mafia team as a whole. Here are the three main signs worth keeping in your arsenal when looking for blacks at seven and five players.

Tell 1. The claim "the departed was black" without arguments

A player is mafia if, without arguments, he claims that an unchecked player who left in a non-critical round was black. There are three reasons:

a) he knows the colour: his man was voted out; b) in the vote, hands are being gathered for removing a single candidate, and to avoid losing potential votes (not to turn them against himself) he claims there are fewer than three blacks; c) he simply lacks candidates for removal.

If there are no black checks at the table, you can calmly remove such a player as a counterweight: he says in plain text, "guys, this is not a critical round, if I leave the game will go on." Such statements are a typical mistake of beginners with a black card: they try to strengthen their position with extra information and become redder.

Distinguish this case from another: the speaker counted that none of the blacks voted against the departed, only reds, or that the departed was black by his own count. That is a completely different matter, and the principle above does not apply to it.

A counterweight is a situation in which, by the logic of the game, there is at least one black between two people (they are on different teams, one or both call each other black). It differs from a balance in that with a balance the continuation of the game is guaranteed, and with a counterweight it is not: its participants may turn out to be prize-winners of a special olympiad.

Tell 2. The player drifts, doubts or behaves inadequately

At a high level of play the principle works at seven as well. The fewer living at the table, the clearer it is. Take five, where our player unambiguously considers one of the remaining four red or at least will definitely not remove him (the most standard situation). In his eyes there are three players, two of them mafia. Where is there room to get tangled, to speak unclearly, to have no position? It is simple:

In a conflict of players, there is one mafioso and one civilian.
The player left outside the links is black.

(The word "count" here means the logic of the game: two blacks can thus deceive a civilian by calling each other mafia.)

If a player begins to drift, mumble, give no positions and layouts, most likely he wants to sit out beyond conflicts and win that way. In critical rounds a position (one clear argued mafia and a layout of the players outside conflicts) must be present. If it is not, the player must be raised: there is enough information already. He is being cunning and hiding information so as not to make enemies.

Tell 3. A sharp change of line without grounds

A player is mafia if he played with one sheriff and then sharply, without grounds, changed his opinion and chose another team. Grounds for changing an opinion: he was found black; the sheriff gave as mafia someone the player unambiguously called red; he himself by the count of the game comes out black on the team of the one he trusted. In practically all other cases, a change of position means the blacks failed to play the mixed-colours strategy: one mafioso is playing against another.

Voting with an odd number of players

With an odd number three candidates are nominated. The vote is between the first two, and the third, last in the list, is needed to remove a lone hand when splitting the table. A car crash with an odd number of players can be made deliberately only by the one whose hand is decisive, choosing between two teams. This is done to compare speeches a second time in thirty seconds and finally make up one's mind.

Nevertheless, the author advises not to suffer over splitting the table but to make the choice in advance: each split is a small but still real risk of losing. The most important thing in an obvious critical round: all civilian hands must fall together against a definite candidate, otherwise defeat.

How to use the three tells (the Academy's explanation)

The tells are not a verdict but a reason to stop and count. A working order is this.

Name the sign to yourself. "Claimed about the departed without arguments", "drifts without a position", "changed line without an event". If you cannot name the sign, you are reacting to a mood.
Check the exceptions. For the first tell: the speaker may have counted that among those who voted for the departed there was not a single black. For the second: a player may have no position because he really did not manage to understand anything (a beginner). For the third: an event may have occurred before the change of line (he was named black, the sheriff gave a red as mafia).
Compare with the vote. A sign in the speech is strengthened if the player's hand in past votes also went next to the probable mafia.
Determine the price of a mistake. At seven, a mistake without a balance leads to "three on three" and a lost game, so you have the right to demand a position and an explanation from the player before removing him. At five, a mistake costs the game, and the sign must be confirmed by the count.

Examples (written for the Academy)

For tell 1. Seven players, unchecked No. 4 has left. Player No. 6: "The departed was black, that is obvious, now two are left." There are no arguments, no black checks. You ask: "What is the conclusion based on?" If the answer is "I feel it", the player gets a serious minus: he reduces the chance that the town will keep looking for three blacks.

For tell 2. Five players, your version: No. 2 is red. No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 remain. Player No. 3 says: "I do not know which of you, I have not understood yet, I will listen." At five he has all the data for a conclusion. The absence of a position is a reason to raise him, not to wait.

For tell 3. Player No. 7 supported sheriff No. 1 at nine. At seven, without new checks, he says: "I changed my mind, I believe sheriff No. 2." Ask what changed. If there is no answer, it is a sign of mixed colours: one of the blacks is moving away from "his" sheriff so that later he can say "I did not defend him."

The odd round: order of action (the Academy's explanation)

Determine whether you have a red support (a checked red, a sheriff with a colour). If so, his word determines the choice between the first two candidates.
Agree who makes the "car crash" only if the decision is taken by one player and he needs time for a new comparison.
If not needed, vote by grounds and do not split the table: every split carries a small but real risk of error.

For the black

Do not do the first tell: do not declare the departed black without arguments. Do not drift: give a hard position. Do not change teams without an event. If you need to change your opinion, prepare the grounds in advance.

Questions for self-check

The chapter has two meta-game strategies of the blacks for winning. List them. Their aim is for a civilian himself to conclude that a red player is mafia.
Name at least two situations in which a red check is more profitable for the sheriff.

Practice

Watch three recordings of critical rounds at five and seven. Note who used each of the three tells (or became its victim) and how it ended.

Typical mistakes

Declaring the departed black without arguments.
Drifting in a critical round.
Changing teams without a reason.
Confusing a balance and a counterweight.

Source of the idea. The chapter "Votes and finding blacks at seven and five players" from Dmitry Novik's book "Mafia in the Style of Zen" (2020). The order of using the tells, the examples and the notes on the odd round were written for the Academy.