The round at nine: informative voting and the scatter of hands

If round zero exists to show your redness and gather information, the first round, at nine players, is meant for a clearer building of teams and correct voting. The closer the end of the game, the clearer the colours must sound: this is a sign that the players have understood the game and each other. Now you can and must attack openly the blacks you worked out earlier, bind the red team together and gather votes against the mafia. The warm-up is over, the game has begun.

The main event of the round is the vote. Properly conducted, it sharply raises the civilians' chances, because from the scatter of hands the blacks can be found later. An informative vote is a scatter of hands from which, after the next checks, the colour of the leaving player can be understood.

Four grounds for a hand

Novik asks the reader to rise to a level of awareness: to understand on what ground you vote yourself and on what ground others vote. If a player has no reason to put a hand for removing a candidate but the vote flies anyway, he is mafia (or simply cannot play; then it is worth explaining the logic of voting, which is already metagame). There are four grounds.

Hard ones:

1. The player considers you mafia.
2. You consider the player mafia, or you have settled on the sheriff's line.

Positional ones:

1. The player considers mafia the one you consider a civilian.
2. The player considers a civilian the one you consider mafia.

In all other cases it is better to create a car crash: withhold the vote to one side and split the table to listen to the players once more and see who votes how. If you have not settled on a candidate, make a car crash. Points 1 and 2 are strong play, and the tie split is needed to understand the candidates and make the right choice (or, who knows, to raise three).

The default rule: if you have no grounds to remove a player, you must not attack with your vote. Civilians without a reasoned position put a hand to split, not to finish off. Thanks to this the scatter of hands can be analysed and one can understand who is a civilian.

Why is this so important? Voting is the only way to realise the civilians' numerical advantage, and it is the most precise way to understand the colour of the one voting: where the hand is put and who votes against.

Consequence. A player who at nine created a car crash between players among whom there is a black, instead of finishing off one of them, is a civilian with the highest probability. The same with a 3/4/2 scatter: one who deliberately does not let the car crash happen is mafia. But you cannot consider mafia a civilian who did not know about the scatter of hands: when he is aware, it is another matter.

The civilian's minute in the round at nine

In this round you must not justify yourself and explain your colour: there are still few significant red moves. Your card should be spoken for by your position and actions, as in the late slots of round zero. At the end of the speech you must nominate somebody. You must not allow one obvious suspect at the table while the rest stay unclear. Nominate everyone, including the murky ones, even if the table has decided to remove just one.

The calculation is simple. The sheriffs and their red checks will not be voted on: that is at least two people. Three or four candidates remain for the vote. If out of four nominated two are sheriffs with a red check on one of the lines, the single remaining candidate is automatically condemned. That must not be. Conclusion: nominate, nominate, nominate. It is good when at least five people are nominated from the potential trio of blacks. Many candidates favour the reds.

When the vote is uninformative

If the vote is uninformative, arguments of the kind "someone voted against the mafia" mean nothing. Three situations:

a) Clustered hands (five or more). This is the surest way not to understand the colour of the one who left. From the mafia's point of view, if three or four hands are against a black and the town is not inclined to remove a particular red, it is better to finish off your own mafia than to "pour the vote into milk": this upsets the count, and the town decides that the blacks voted against the player on two versions, which means the one who left is red. Now you know about the decoy for the case where your own mafia cannot be saved.

b) A balance has been launched. A declared balance is a ground to put a hand for anyone, and outside motives are irrelevant.

c) On the instruction of a red check. If the sheriff is killed or there is a civilian whom everyone trusts, you can vote together with him. This also lowers informativeness but is better than voting without grounds.

What the number of hands against a player says

• Two hands. The mafia can calmly vote against its own black together with a civilian if the team is not under threat, or even two mafia vote for their own to separate the teams. Two votes are a bad variant unless the table has gathered to split 2-1-3-3 in any variation. If you see two hands, it is better to add a third: usually it is just an unsuccessful dispersal. For an experienced and cunning mafia, finding a black among these votes is uninformative.
• Three hands. The ideal variant. If there are three hands against a player, among which there is mafia, the player is a civilian with indecently high probability (the author estimates two black votes out of three at 99.8 percent, which is also his estimate). This means votes with many players from different teams. The blacks can sacrifice their own player at nine, but it is an extremely rare and unprofitable technique for them. Three hands is the critical mass, more is not worth it: it is equivalent to leaving on the vote. In any unclear situation, split. If the hands lay 3/3/2/1 in a vote with many candidates and a player breaks the car crash, not putting the third into the tie split, he is mafia: only for it is it profitable that three are not raised, new speeches are not listened to and no extra votes giving information are held.
• Four hands. If one collected four and another withheld a hand, good play is not to vote at all, and the four passes to the last one in the vote. With such a layout, if there are black votes for removal on two lines, the player can with a high degree of probability be considered a civilian. But four hands is an uninformative vote: by the black check of one who voted on the departed one, one cannot confidently give a colour.
• Five or more. Uninformative for the reasons above.

A separate point: a forced vote. Often two of the three blacks spoke badly and the choice is between them. In a vote between two candidates (one against the other), you must not give the pair mixed colours. No conclusions about the pair can be drawn from the result of a forced vote.

For the black

The black needs the votes to be as uninformative as possible. Clustered hands, a balance, votes "on instruction" all upset the town's count.

Example

Nine people are at the table. Player no. 4 at the end of the speech nominates nos. 2, 6 and 8, explaining each with one phrase. Player no. 7 nominates no. 5. As a result there are five candidates in the vote, two of whom are not sheriffs. No. 3 hesitates between nos. 2 and 6 and puts a hand for splitting on no. 8. After the vote the scatter is 3/2/2/2, and each of those standing in the vote understands who is for whom. There is enough information to make the next move.

Self-check questions

1. Name three ways to colour yourself for a black card in the vote at nine.
2. If there are no sheriffs, is the vote informative?
3. Why does the sheriff check from among the removing hands? How many votes must there be for this technique to work?
4. Why are the sheriffs not voted on, nor their red checks?

Practice

Take a recording of a game and make a table: the round at nine, who voted for whom and which of the four grounds stood behind each hand. Mark the hands without grounds.

Typical mistakes

• Voting without grounds.
• Not nominating many at the end of the speech.
• Counting two votes for removal as a red card.
• Justifying yourself in the round at nine.

Source of the idea. The chapter "Informative voting and the scatter of hands in the round at nine" from Dmitry Novik's book "Mafia in the Style of Zen" (2020). The percentages belong to the author.