The round at nine: two sheriffs and balance

At the author's tables, players with active roles usually push too hard: they show their role already in the first round, even if not openly, through non-role speeches of civilians, caught beacons and an unwillingness to stand for the vote. This is ineffective and does not increase the wins of either team. Until the critical round the sheriff does best to sit as quietly as possible. This lesson covers the behaviour, the pros of revealing, and the voting of both the sheriff himself and the town in which he is present.

The basic voting rule for a civilian

You must not vote against sheriffs and red checks, that is, against those who were asked to sit this round out. This is needed to count the mafia in the critical round by the method of the remainder. There is a chance that the sheriff in the town is the only one, and then voting against a civilian and your own leader is doubly contraindicated. You may nominate a player with a statement. Vote only on weighty grounds.

Situation 1. The sheriffs are not removed, and there are no black checks without an active role

If the sheriff removes an unknown player with his own hand in the first round, the position in the round at seven weakens: the opponent has the right to say that by his version the sheriff removed a member of his team and the round is not critical. Everything changes if the town plays along the first sheriff's line: if twice, in two early votes (at nine and at seven), he removed a player with his own hand, he is the real leader of the reds, otherwise the game would have ended with a win on the second line. But removing a player by the leader of the reds is not the best strategy.

If outside the two sheriffs there are no black checks, the strongest line of the real sheriff is to vote against his opponent or to create a car crash. There are two reasons. Withholding a hand shows that you do not need to save your own black, and it also increases the information at the table, which is useful to the town and harmful to the mafia.

A frequent case: the sheriff checked a player, found a mafia and this player took the sheriff's role for himself. Then it is best to vote with one hand against the opponent, and he should do the same. The author explains this by the difference between concentrated hands, 3 against 6 (the sheriffs vote against whom they want), and the situation 2 against 5 (the sheriffs withhold votes into each other). In the latter scheme the blacks' hands fly more tightly (there are only two of them), it is easier for the civilians to choose and look at the grounds of the scatter, and the probability of raising a mafia is higher. It is exactly here that it is worth checking the removing hands: if at a minimal margin on the leaving player there is a black among the removing hands, the round at seven is critical. A check from the removing hands allows you to roughly understand the colour of the one who left: if among three or four removing hands there are blacks, the one who left was a civilian (the author stipulates that you need to compare with the practice of your own table).

Result: of two sheriffs, the more probably real one is the one who withheld a vote into the opponent or made a car crash, that is, made red moves. Civilians must on no account pour votes against sheriffs: that way you remove the red majority of votes.

Why must you not vote even against a black sheriff? You can still lose: the real one will be killed on the current night and will not find the whole mafia. With a black check on the night the leader of the civilians is killed, the mafia will be removed at seven, and at five the town will be completely unchecked; the last sweet black will raise two civilians and win. So it is better to leave the sheriffs alone and let them colour the town fully. Yes, if a black sheriff sits at the table and you know it, it makes sense to gather hands against him in the critical round: there will be more information from that.

An additional plus of the sheriffs voting against each other: the mafia will not check the one who voted against it, that is, it will not pour a check into the sheriff, and the leader of the reds will not waste a check on an opponent.

Situation 2. The balance is possible

If on one of the lines a player who is not a sheriff can be removed, the real sheriff must behave as follows.

The worst thing is to announce a black check at the start of the round: the false sheriff can "reveal" it, sit this round out and even strengthen his line, for example by giving his own mafia to the civilians or a red to the blacks. Giving a resident as a checked mafia is the most common and easiest strategy of the black team. Many fear being outplayed or removed by stray hands, and for weak players it is easier to be killed than outplayed. This fear makes them reveal at nine, but the strategy is weak.

It is better to carefully nominate the black without accenting him and see who plays against him, gathers votes and whom your check wants to remove. A savvy civilian will take this as the strongest line of the real sheriff. From the behaviour of the checked black you will draw many conclusions. Yes, at nine the black may not be removed, but you will outplay the mafia team in the critical round and get a quality deciding check on the night after the vote. If you reveal early, the mafia, realising it has been found, will confuse the town and separate the teams so that the trio is not linked. If the black does not know he has been found, he acts more straightforwardly and gathers hands against a real civilian.

With strong play by the sheriff it is better not to announce the balance: this protects against the exposure of the false sheriff. An announced balance kills the dynamics of the game (the wish to work out for yourselves who is black in this round) and makes the vote uninformative. The author takes as an axiom that the mafia can play too and is capable of an agreement like "the black check is revealed by the sheriff; if there is none, the don is the sheriff".

Situation 3. You are the only sheriff

Often, having found a black or a red, the leader of the reds reveals himself to certain players at once with the check. The practice was introduced to strengthen the line; it obliges the don to act the same way. If the leader dies on the first night and the don reveals to a civilian, the town gets a substantial bonus in the form of a balance, that is, an additional known colour.

But you should not reveal at once: for a black, to work out the sheriff it is enough to concentrate in the first seconds and intercept the beacon. Giving a checked civilian the reveal is a weak line for a false sheriff, and red checks often give up the leader. With a black check we reveal to a civilian so that he covers us, or to our own red, so that he shouts out or shows by gestures that he is not to be voted on and draws attention away. To save a player from removal it is better to get a remark by a shout: more players react to an announced ban on voting than to gestures. It is better to report a red check at the end of the round, right before the vote (including telling the red check itself its colour).

The balance: pros and traps

Strong teams win "dry", a powerful black team wins three against three. The best red victory is one where the town finished the game without losing its civilian, in the fullest possible line-up. The most productive dry victory: the mafia removed at nine, the false sheriff at seven, then the mafia leaves by a self-shot. Play strongly, aiming not at avoiding defeats but at the quality and growth of wins.

The balance is the sacrifice of exactly one red player in order, through more rounds, to gather information and choose a line. The balance is played by those who lack the skills to decide in advance. Without killing the sheriffs it is good because the active roles give checks and colour the town. Ideally five people are left at the table, among them two sheriffs with a found mafia: the town is fully checked, and one player decides between two variants.

But the mafia does not sit with folded hands: the balance gives it a 50 percent chance of winning and an easy effective strategy. If the sheriff has a red check or checked the false sheriff:

1. The false sheriff gives a black check and launches the balance.
2. At night he kills the real sheriff.
3. The remaining sheriff is offered a black check, with which the last black makes mixed colours.
4. At seven the checked black on the side of the killed sheriff is removed.
5. At five the false sheriff is removed.

The result is a guaranteed guessing round in the mafia's favour, much higher than 50 percent: often the black faces a choice between two civilians.

There is one defence: vote consciously. The rule: vote in the balance for the less popular line, taking responsibility for working things out and leading the civilians to victory if the real sheriff dies. If you do not like a line, vote against other black candidates and call on people not to play the balance but to settle the teams in the critical round. Not playing the balance means voting, outside the checks, against the remaining blacks. It depends on you whether the balance is played for or against the town.

Voting against the sheriff

You must not. Against the false sheriff only the real sheriff votes, with one hand. The other votes informatively fly against other mafia, of whom there are two at the table (three with one of the sheriffs). If hands fly against an announced sheriff who is mafia, it means the other blacks are sitting very well, and the town will most likely lose (mixed colours plus the shot at the real leader).

It would seem you can vote against the false sheriff if you have worked out the whole mafia. But there is a contradiction: if you have worked it out, there are two more candidates to remove at the table, and the hands must fly at them. The only exception: in your view the false sheriff gave his own black as red, and two blacks will sit this round out. Then, if you manage to gather four hands, remove the false sheriff's red check. This is an emergency case.

If you remove the false sheriff, the real one will be killed at once, with the trio not found. The surviving mafia player can win even without a leader. By not voting on the sheriffs we increase the chance that the real one lives longer, and an extra check can decide the game by finding a sweet black.

For the black

As mafia, give your blacks as reds and win three against three. Play mixed colours through the shot at the sheriff.

Self-check questions

1. A civilian was removed at nine and at seven, the game continues, there were no misses. Describe a winning strategy for the blacks.
2. What ways of choosing the sheriff do you know besides "spoke well/badly"?
3. What should the sheriff do if the black left by a self-shot?
4. The sheriffs gave a mixed-colour check on one player. How can you tell from the communication of the sheriff and the check which link is red?
5. From the viewpoint of which concept must the false sheriff not be removed in a non-critical round?
6. In which cases can you leave by a self-shot, leaving one mafia against six civilians with a live sheriff?

Practice

Go through three recordings in which there were two sheriffs in the round at nine. For each note who voted against the sheriffs and how it ended for the town.

Typical mistakes

• Voting against sheriffs and red checks.
• Announcing a black check at the start of the round.
• Playing the balance on the line of a weak sheriff.
• Revealing without a plan.

Source of the idea. The chapters "The round at nine. Sheriffs" and "The balance. Voting on the sheriff at nine" from Dmitry Novik's book "Mafia in the Style of Zen" (2020).