Seven dilemmas in judging a player's colour

The author of "50 Shades of Red" opens the chapter with a quote from Thomas Fuller: a contradiction should awaken attention, not feelings. Before this chapter the reader learned the truest and most reliable judgments about colour, and the author declared: this is where confident determination of colours ends. A question arises at once: what about the familiar links "he spoke badly, so he is mafia" and "if in a link one calls the other black, there are not two reds among them"? The author gives a task and shows that these links are unreliable. Every such link runs into a fork that he calls a dilemma. There are seven.

The task the conversation starts with

A critical round at five, with a pair of blacks at the table. The players in the game are nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and you are red no. 5. Player no. 3 considers players nos. 1 and 2 red. Using the count: it turns out we are black in no. 3's version, therefore he himself is mafia, either with no. 4 or with one of nos. 1 and 2? Unfortunately, that is not a fact at all. Here the first dilemma begins.

Dilemma 1. The player is mistaken as a civilian, or he is mafia

This is the first fundamental task of positional play. In the example there are two variants: either no. 3 is mafia, or he is a civilian who took a black for a red. How can we sort it out with a hundred percent? We cannot. By the counting school we are obliged to vote only for removing no. 3: you called a black a red player, so answer for it. But in a clash between the reds no. 5 and no. 3, the civilian town will lose. To keep this from happening, you must work out no. 3's colour not by the count but by emotions or metagame and persuade him of your redness.

The author's sample speech:

"Player no. 3, despite his mistaken position, is red for me. I drew this conclusion on the basis of fact 1, fact 2, fact 3, but he has definitely started playing with one or two black players. There is no sense for me, as mafia, in calling him a civilian. I consider player no. X the most suspicious on the basis of fact 4, fact 5, fact 6. He is the blackest for me. I nominate no. X for the vote. We remove player no. X and go to the guessing round!"

Here you defend yourself and buy the attacker's vote at the same time: you recognise him as red without accepting his mistakes.

Dilemma 2. The player is mistaken in playing against us, or he is mafia removing a civilian

The problem of perception goes deeper, because it concerns not only those around us but ourselves as well. We are not insured against mistakes about ourselves. Because of cognitive distortions it may seem to us that our speech is red and good, while to another the same speech looks like a black one's, and from his position he is as right as we are. Let us take the same situation with players no. 3 and no. 5, but now you are attacked by a civilian.

Sample defence:

"I explain for the table and for player no. 3 in particular: you have been hammering me the whole game for nothing. I am red, because fact 1, fact 2, fact 3, and I must not be voted on, it would be the town's defeat. I consider player no. X the most suspicious on the basis of fact 4, fact 5, fact 6. He is the blackest for me. I nominate no. X for the vote. We remove player no. X and go to the guessing round."

Dilemma 3. The player plays weakly, or he is mafia

The author assigns weak play to the section on metagame. Often, being red in the guessing round, we face a choice: to remove the one who played worse, or the one we consider blacker. A choice between the worse red player and the better black. This dilemma is solved only after a decent number of games played with the one you consider weak. By weakness the author means making moves that favour the black team: attacking civilians, voting together with the mafia and the like. In fun games you may, for educational purposes, put a hand with the one who played better, but in a game for the win we do not choose who played better. We look for and remove black players.

Dilemma 4. Spoke well as a civilian, or as an experienced mafioso

This is the same third dilemma from the other side. It matters to us to find the mafia even if the card was drawn by a strong player who can deliver good emotion and arguments on a black card. So in judging colours you must introduce a correction for the level of play. The higher the level, the more is demanded of the player's minute. A good speech alone does not prove a red colour.

Dilemma 5. Nerves and poor emotion: a consequence of a black card or a red one

What we take as a sign of blackness may be a consequence of a person's character or his life situation. A lack of emotion is caused by tiredness, lack of sleep, a previous defeat. It is unclear whether a player is nervous on a civilian card out of fear of being removed in the vote or whether he is mafia. Do not draw a conclusion from one emotional sign; compare the player with himself in other games (the lesson "How to listen to the first speeches", the section on reading).

Dilemma 6. There is a civilian in the conflict of two players, or a black makes a run-up

In the round at nine you see rather hard play of several players against each other, sending each other for a check. Your card is the sheriff's, nobody plays against you. You check a player from the conflicting link, find a mafia and die. A natural question arises: what colour will the players who attacked the checked black be? Perhaps the mafia used a run-up strategy with a shot at the sheriff. The author leaves the question open: a conflict guarantees neither version. Hence a practical rule for the red (the Academy's): do not automatically count as red those who attacked the found black, and do not count as red everyone in conflict with each other; look for facts that distinguish the versions.

Dilemma 7. Your thoughts coincide with a player: is he red, or a black playing to you

To win, the mafia needs to buy a civilian's vote. The easiest way is when the person himself wants to be deceived. Meeting such a request is easy: people themselves show whom they want to see as mafia. Led by their own vanity and the certainty that they have worked it out, they show the town a player worth checking for black. Your wish will be fulfilled by the mafia team. Hence the contradiction: are the blacks deliberately playing to you, or have you really worked it out correctly?

Of all the dilemmas this is the least significant, but it gives the red room to manoeuvre. For example, if you are red for everyone, you can deliberately play against the one you consider a civilian. A black check will be given to suit you, and you will bury the mafia team. The game turns into a battle of minds.

How to decide in practice (the Academy's recommendations)

1. Name both versions aloud or to yourself: "he is a civilian and mistaken" and "he is mafia".
2. Find a fact that distinguishes the versions. If there is one, the decision is made.
3. If there is no distinguishing fact, choose an action that is safe in both versions: for example, split the table instead of removing.
4. If you have to decide anyway, vote by the count and the course of the game, and explain aloud to the table why.
5. Do not change your position under pressure of emotions: a contradiction should awaken attention, not feelings.

What this gives the black (the Academy's notes)

The dilemmas show where the reds hesitate. If you play mafia, you can consciously leave the reds in a dilemma: speak slightly weaker than the "ideal red", so that you are put among the weak, or speak too well and fall into the dilemma about the experienced player. The choice depends on the plan for the game.

Practice

For each dilemma come up with a situation from your own practice. Describe the fact, the two versions and the fact that distinguishes them. If there is no distinguishing fact, determine a safe action. Then write a 30-second speech for dilemma 1 and dilemma 2 following the author's samples.

Self-check questions

1. Why is the link "called a black red, so mafia" not absolute?
2. How do the sample speeches for dilemmas 1 and 2 differ?
3. What to do if there is no distinguishing fact?
4. How can a red use dilemma 7?

Typical mistakes

• Choosing a version by sympathy.
• Deciding at once without naming the alternative.
• Taking an emotional conclusion for a counted one.
• Confusing weak play with a black card in a tournament game.

Source of the idea. The chapter "The 7 main dilemmas in judging a player's colour" from Dmitry Novik's book "50 Shades of Red" (2021). The recommendations on deciding, the notes for the black, the questions and the practice were written for the Academy.