Mahjong Competition Rules
Tina Christensen
Competition Rules is out.
A concise name, a beautiful cover, an easily available pdf file (7.7
MB).
http://www.chinamajiang.com/adobe%20reader/mje0906.pdf
Thanks to all those who put an effort into the translation!
Tina
d_...@my-deja.com
Per Starbäck
details of the kong rules, and how they interact with the pung rules,
even for the very best results that almost never happen in practice.
Unfortunately I still don't think the formulations are 100% clear.
Here is my interpretation. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
In this article I use the following rather obvious fan abbreviations:
4K Four Kongs (88) 4CP Four Concealed Pungs (64)
3K Three Kongs (32) 3CP Three Concealed Pungs (16)
2CK Two Concealed Kongs (8) 2CP Two Concealed Pungs (2)
2MK Two Melded Kongs (4)
1CK One Concealed Kong (2)
1MK One Melded Kong (1)
One major discussion point earlier has been how to score one melded
and one concealed kong. These rules explicitly say that that is worth
6 points. Since this isn't a fan by itself I can only assume that this
is 2MK + 1CK, that is, that you *can* score for 2MK even though one of
the kongs isn't melded.
Next question: What if you have three or four kongs and one or two of
them are concealed? Can you score 1CK or 2CK then? These rules don't
say anything explicit about that, but the consensus in the West at
least has been that you can't. These rules say something explicit
about combining 4K and 3K with points for concealed *pungs* (see the
next paragraph) and I think they would have mentioned combining with
points for concealed kongs as well there if that was allowed. So I
assume that the earlier interpretation still stands, even though the
rules unfortunately doesn't say so.
Next question: What about combining the various kong fan with fan for
concealed pungs? That should be OK, and it is explicitly mentioned for
4K (p. 34). On 3K (p. 38) the rules state
May combine with Three Concealed Pengs [sic] if the Kongs are all
concealed.
which I think is somewhat misleading. Surely you can score 4CP with
two concealed kongs, one melded kong and one concealed pung as well,
so all the three kongs don't have to be concealed.
So if I'm correct the things to note are:
* 2MK is actually rather 2K since it can be scored with one of each
* Even though 2(M)K can be combined with 1CK, 3K and 4K can't be
combined with 1CK or 2CK even though there is no actual implication.
(* any kong fan can be combined with any concealed pung fan, except of
course that 2CK implies 2CP, and that 2MK is incompatible with 4CP
at least)
(The last point is in parentheses since there isn't anything special
about really.)
To make the details clear I'll list every possible configuration of
the kongs and concealed pungs in a hand. The three digits show the
number of CK, MK, and CP, and then I list which of these fan I think
they should score and the combined score of them.
The somewhat special 6 point combo for one of each, 2MK+1CK, is shown
like that as one group.
CMC
KKP sum
-----------------------------------
400 4K, 4CP 152
310 4K, 3CP 104
301 3K, 4CP 96
300 3K, 3CP 48 [2]
220 4K, 2CP 90
211 3K, 3CP 48 [1]
210 3K, 2CP 34 [2]
202 2CK, 4CP 72
201 2CK, 3CP 24 [2]
200 2CK 8
130 4K 88
121 3K, 2CP 34 [1]
120 3K 32 [2]
112 2MK+1CK, 3CP 22 [1]
111 2MK+1CK, 2CP 8 [2]
110 2MK+1CK 6
103 1CK, 4CP 66
102 1CK, 3CP 18 [2]
101 1CK, 2CP 4
100 1CK 2
040 4K 88
031 3K 32 [1]
030 3K 32 [2]
022 2MK, 2CP 6 [1]
021 2MK 4 [2]
020 2MK 4
013 1MK, 3CP 17 [1]
012 1MK, 2CP 3 [2]
011 1MK 1
010 1MK 1
004 4CP 64
003 3CP 16 [2]
002 2CP 2
001 - 0
000 - 0
[1] These will also get 6 points for All Pungs. (Note that in cases
like 1MK + 3CP you certainly have All Pungs, but since it isn't
implied from any single fan you have scored you can score for it
anyway.)
[2] These will get All Pungs if the fourth group is a melded pung.
There are so many details in this so surely I didn't get everything
right. So where did I go wrong?
--
Per Starback
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
ithinc
Since 1MK+1CK is scored as 6 pts of Two Melded Kongs + Concealed Kongs,
do you think 2MK's value(8pts) is too low? 2MK is a combination of Two
Melded Kongs + Concealed Kongs*2 + Two Concealed Pungs.
BR
Cofa Tsui
news:1158724883.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi BR,
In my opinion you might have misunderstood the rule definition of fan #57
Two Melded Kongs. The regular score (4 points) or specific score (6 points)
must be considered as a whole "package" of the fan. You cannot use the
different scenarios you see in this rule definition to define other
situations which may be in conflict with the five principles of rule
3.9.1.5. I have more explanations in another message under title "WMO/MCR
questions about kong".
--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Per Starbäck
to keep to the original thread):
> I am afraid with the newly released WMO/Mahjong Completion Rules
> ("MCR") (English edition), you might still not be able to find clear
> solutions to problems related to fans (score elements) containing kong
> and pung, because the MCR still contains errors and inconsistencies
> that need to be clarified or fixed.
Yes, I know that, and that's why I took up this thread. So let's
clarify! The rules as written are inconsistent and unclear (even
though not as much as earlier), but the rules are not in a vacuum.
This game is played and refereed and there is presumably/hopefully one
way that is the *intended* meaning. I'm not that interested in
discussing how it ought to be or what the literal meaning of the rules
as written really is, I just want to find out that intended meaning so
I can play the game. (That's why I didn't answer ithink's question
about whether the score for 2CK is too low.) That game rules aren't
written clear and consistent is unfortunately rather common. In most
cases people keep playing the game anyway without much problem since
"everyone" knows the stuff some stuff that's really unclear in the
rules as written.
To keep it down-to-earth I included that table of all combinations of
kongs and closed pungs and would have preferred any disagreements to
actually mention any of these that they think should be given another
score than what I wrote. I'm not sure if you actually disagree with me
in any of those cases.
>> One major discussion point earlier has been how to score one melded
>> and one concealed kong. These rules explicitly say that that is worth
>> 6 points. Since this isn't a fan by itself I can only assume that this
>> is 2MK + 1CK, that is, that you *can* score for 2MK even though one of
>> the kongs isn't melded.
>
> This (the definition of fan #57) is an obvious inconsistency. First of
> all, you said "this isn't a fan". However, in my opinion, it IS. By
> definition, the fan is about two melded kongs, in addition, it also
> covers scenario involving one melded kong and one concealed kong.
> Therefore, and accordingly, this rule applies to the specified
> scenarios - a normal scenario where only two melded kongs are involved
> (awarded 4 points) and a specific scenario where one melded kong and
> one concealed kong are involved (awarded 6 points). We cannot consider
> this as 2MK + 1CK otherwise we might not be able to solve other
> questions or problems without the need of making more specific rules or
> definitions.
This special case is indeed rather special, and that's why I
mentioned it in a special way in my table. But still, it doesn't
matter much. If there is a special implicit fan (#57B, 6 points)
or if you score it 4+2 like I did it still gives the same results.
In practice I suppose it will feel more like one fan since you will
just claim 6 points for the pair.
> For example, if you think the 6 points are awarded because you have 2MK
> (4 points) plus 1CK (2 points) for a total of 6 points; then how about
> adding 1 more point for 1MK? After counting 2MK and you are allowed to
> add 1CK, why the other 1MK is not allowed?
With my approach where I just want to know how we are supposed to
score hands this question isn't interesting. We *know* that 1MK+1CK is
6 points. I think the 6 points are awarded because the rules say they
are! (The other 1MK is obviously not allowed. Nothing strange with
that, since that is the same for 1MK together with 3K and 4K as well.)
> Without accepting the above elements as a "package" of the specific
> fan, if you separate the elements to score extra points you might also
> face restrictions of the Five Principles of rule 3.9.1.5.
I don't think so. Can you find an example where this actually would
matter? I've listed all possibilities, so you can just go through
them.
>> Next question: What if you have three or four kongs and one or two of
>> them are concealed? Can you score 1CK or 2CK then? These rules don't
>> say anything explicit about that, but the consensus in the West at
>> least has been that you can't.
>
> And I believe the "consensus" is in line with certain basic concepts
> about the relation between pung and kong. The following are these basic
> concepts (or rules) that shall apply generally, unless specifically
> modified by a rule:
> [...basic concepts snipped...]
> If you apply these basic concepts, most of the confusions connected to
> rules involving pung and kong may be resolved, unless in situations
> involving errors or mistakes.
But these basic concepts didn't apply to this question. There is
nothing in them that says that you couldn't score 2CK together with 3K
if two of the three kongs are concealed.
But still it seems that everyone agrees that you can't. Then that's
fine with me. I'm not primarily interested in how it *ought* to be.
As I wrote I just want to know how it actually is. So was there any
situation where you (or anyone else) didn't agree with my score?
--
Per Starback <per.st...@gmail.com>
ithinc
In the new WMO/MCR, it's said (by someone near to WMO/MCR maker) that:
#220 will be awarded 4K + 2CK;
#130 will be awarded 4K + 1CK;
#120 will be awarded 3K + 1CK;
#211 will be awarded 3K + 2CK + 3CP;
#121 will be awarded 3K + 1CK + 2CP;
I'm not very sure about #211 and #121. For more clarifications, you'd
better contact WMO directly.
ithinc
Cofa Tsui
news:qzbqoxo...@sonorant.lingfil.uu.se...
> "Cofa Tsui" <co...@cofatsui.com> writes (in a new thread, but I prefer
> to keep to the original thread):
>
>> I am afraid with the newly released WMO/Mahjong Completion Rules
>> ("MCR") (English edition), you might still not be able to find clear
>> solutions to problems related to fans (score elements) containing kong
>> and pung, because the MCR still contains errors and inconsistencies
>> that need to be clarified or fixed.
>
> Yes, I know that, and that's why I took up this thread. So let's
> clarify! The rules as written are inconsistent and unclear (even
> though not as much as earlier), but the rules are not in a vacuum.
> This game is played and refereed and there is presumably/hopefully one
> way that is the *intended* meaning. I'm not that interested in
> discussing how it ought to be or what the literal meaning of the rules
> as written really is, I just want to find out that intended meaning so
> I can play the game.
I am more on the theory side than on the practical side because I have not
yet had played by these rules. There are so many versions of these rules, in
general each of these versions claims itself to be or representing CMCR, the
original set published by the Chinese government agency. Each of these
versions can have its own "intended meaning" by referring to the rules of
its own, regardless of its inconsistency and unclearness. But if they refer
themselves to CMCR, then I guess the "intended meaning" shall be based on
CMCR, although it is available in Chinese only.
With your question, I assume the "new translation" you've mentioned is the
WMO/Mahjong Completion Rules ("MCR") (English edition). The English edition
says if there is any difference between the Chinese and English versions,
the Chinese version shall prevail. Accordingly, the "intended meaning" of
any particular rule, if having dispute, shall be refer to the original
Chinese version. And that's why I am interested in participating in the
discussions.
Without this understanding, I guess there is a very famous principle here in
this newsgroup that you could apply to your questions: Apply whatever rules
you or your group of players like (or meaning similar to this) ^_^
[...]
>
> To keep it down-to-earth I included that table of all combinations of
> kongs and closed pungs and would have preferred any disagreements to
> actually mention any of these that they think should be given another
> score than what I wrote. I'm not sure if you actually disagree with me
> in any of those cases.
To be honest, I have not looked close to the table. However, I have
presented the "intended meanings" of the rules as this part of the topic is
my only preference. Besides, I always think that if the rules are clear, the
results should be uniform (or, the correct result should always be the same
when it has to be presented during play); if the rules are not clear and if
you apply the above "famour principle", why bother other's agreement or
disagreement?
>
>> For example, if you think the 6 points are awarded because you have 2MK
>> (4 points) plus 1CK (2 points) for a total of 6 points; then how about
>> adding 1 more point for 1MK? After counting 2MK and you are allowed to
>> add 1CK, why the other 1MK is not allowed?
>
> With my approach where I just want to know how we are supposed to
> score hands this question isn't interesting. We *know* that 1MK+1CK is
> 6 points. I think the 6 points are awarded because the rules say they
> are! (The other 1MK is obviously not allowed. Nothing strange with
> that, since that is the same for 1MK together with 3K and 4K as well.)
Applying element rule #57 for 2MK while you have 1CK and 1MK, you get 6
points and nothing more - This is because the rule says so, as a package.
The point for 1MK is not allowed, because it is not in the package.
Without the added portion in rule #57, i.e., the wording "One Melded Kong
and One Concealed Kong are 6 points", and you still add points for 2MK (4
points) and 1CK (2 points) and ignoring 1MK (1 point), you will not be able
to answer my question, unless you apply the famous principle of this
newsgroup.
In addition, separating 2MK into 2MK + 1CK (and/or 1MK), you will face the
challenge of the Five Principles of rule 3.9.1.5 (more below).
>
>> Without accepting the above elements as a "package" of the specific
>> fan, if you separate the elements to score extra points you might also
>> face restrictions of the Five Principles of rule 3.9.1.5.
>
> I don't think so. Can you find an example where this actually would
> matter? I've listed all possibilities, so you can just go through
> them.
OK. In your sample combination:
CMC
KKP sum
-----------------------------------
030 3K 32 [2]
[2] These will get All Pungs if the fourth group is a melded pung.
Rule for element #17 Three Kongs says: "A hand containing three Kongs.
(Points for concealment may be added.)"
If you use the formula of calculating 2MK and ignore the fact that that is a
"package deal", and further ignore the Five Principles of rule 3.9.1.5, you
will calculate 3K with incorrect results:
3MK (#17) = 32 points
2MK (#57) x 3 combinations = 4 x 3 = 12 points
1MK (#74) x 3 combinations = 1 x 3 = 3 points
Total = 47 points (plus points for other elements)
If you respect the principles in rule 3.9.1.5, 3MK will give you 32 points
and nothing more.
[...]
> I'm not primarily interested in how it *ought* to be.
> As I wrote I just want to know how it actually is. So was there any
> situation where you (or anyone else) didn't agree with my score?
I am not interested in how it *ought* to be type of questions either -
Because I am also OK with the famous "apply whatever rules you or your group
of players like" principle of this newsgroup ^_^
--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
tsloper
>So was there any
>situation where you (or anyone else) didn't agree with my score?
Your table in your original post was daunting, but today I had time to
examine it in detail.
>>Next question: What about combining the various kong fan with fan for
>>concealed pungs? That should be OK, and it is explicitly mentioned for
>>4K (p. 34). On 3K (p. 38) the rules state
>> May combine with Three Concealed Pengs [sic] if the Kongs are all
>> concealed.
>>which I think is somewhat misleading. Surely you can score 4CP
No, only three pung/kongs are concealed in the example on page 38 - so
you cannot score 4CP.
>> with
>>two concealed kongs, one melded kong and one concealed pung as well,
>>so all the three kongs don't have to be concealed.
No, if one kong is melded, you cannot score 4CP.
>> * Even though 2(M)K can be combined with 1CK, 3K and 4K can't be
>> combined with 1CK or 2CK even though there is no actual implication.
They may be combined.
>>(* any kong fan can be combined with any concealed pung fan,
Only if there is no equivalent CK fan.
>>CMC
>>KKP sum
>>-----------------------------------
>>130 4K 88
This one earns 4K and 1CK.
>>121 3K, 2CP 34 [1]
This one earns 3K and either 2CP or 1CK.
>>120 3K 32 [2]
This one earns 3K and 1CK.
>>111 2MK+1CK, 2CP 8 [2]
This one earns 2MK, 1CK, and either 2CP or 1CK.
>>103 1CK, 4CP 66
This one earns 1CK and 3CP.
>>102 1CK, 3CP 18 [2]
This one earns 1CK and 2CP.
>>101 1CK, 2CP 4
No, this one earns either 1MK and 2CP, or just 1CK.
Cheers,
Tom
Tina Christensen
> Hello Per, you wrote:
>
> >So was there any
> >situation where you (or anyone else) didn't agree with my score?
Per, I haven't had time to go thoroughly through your list, but I will
do, the topic is very interesting!
> >>(* any kong fan can be combined with any concealed pung fan,
>
> Only if there is no equivalent CK fan.
Tom, where do you get this from?
> >>CMC
> >>KKP sum
> >>-----------------------------------
>
> >>121 3K, 2CP 34 [1]
> This one earns 3K and either 2CP or 1CK.
I don't understand the either-or.
> >>111 2MK+1CK, 2CP 8 [2]
>
> This one earns 2MK, 1CK, and either 2CP or 1CK.
I don't understand the either-or.
> >>103 1CK, 4CP 66
>
> This one earns 1CK and 3CP.
What? Of course you can score for 4CP. As per the description of 4CP on
p. 17. And I would also add points for 1CK.
> >>102 1CK, 3CP 18 [2]
>
> This one earns 1CK and 2CP.
No, Per's scoring is correct.
> >>101 1CK, 2CP 4
>
> No, this one earns either 1MK and 2CP, or just 1CK.
Again, I don't see why Per's scoring is not correct.
Tina
Tina Christensen
Per Starbäck wrote:
> Here is my interpretation. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
> So if I'm correct the things to note are:
>
> * 2MK is actually rather 2K since it can be scored with one of each
Seems to me a reasonable interpretation.
> * Even though 2(M)K can be combined with 1CK, 3K and 4K can't be
> combined with 1CK or 2CK even though there is no actual implication.
This is still not entirely clear to me. With the change of 1MK+1CK = 6
points, where I agree it seems that 2MK should be seen as 2 kongs
(melded or not), I would use that same interpretation for 3K and 4K,
that is, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to add points for 1CK or
2CK when you have 3K or 4K. Going through your list below, this is the
only point where I disagree with you, and I have to add, that I am not
certain in my interpretation. It may well be your list that is correct.
> CMC
> KKP sum
> -----------------------------------
> 400 4K, 4CP 152
> 310 4K, 3CP 104
> 301 3K, 4CP 96
> 300 3K, 3CP 48 [2]
> 211 3K, 3CP 48 [1]
For these, I don't see why you can't add points for 2CK.
> 220 4K, 2CP 90
> 210 3K, 2CP 90
For these, I think you can score for 2CK instead of 2CP.
> 130 4K 88
> 121 3K, 2CP 34 [1]
> 120 3K 32 [2]
For these, I don't see why you can't add points for 1CK.
Tina
Tom Sloper
>>> = Words of Per Starbäck 9/19/06
>> = Words of me 10/2/06
> = Words of Tina Christensen 10/3/06
-----
>>>(* any kong fan can be combined with any concealed pung fan,
>> Only if there is no equivalent CK fan.
>Tom, where do you get this from?
I'm just saying, you can't call two concealed kongs BOTH 2CK AND 2CP. You
can only choose one.
Also, there is no 3CK or 4CK in the fan list, so for those two you can apply
3CP and 4CP.
Sorry if my initial statement was unclear.
>>>CMC
>>>KKP sum
>>>-----------------------------------
>>>103 1CK, 4CP 66
>> This one earns 1CK and 3CP.
>What? Of course you can score for 4CP. As per the description of 4CP on
>p. 17.
>And I would also add points for 1CK.
Yes, you're right.
>>>102 1CK, 3CP 18 [2]
>> This one earns 1CK and 2CP.
>No, Per's scoring is correct.
Yes, you're right.
>>>101 1CK, 2CP 4
>> No, this one earns either 1MK and 2CP, or just 1CK.
>Again, I don't see why Per's scoring is not correct.
OK, I yield this point.
>>>121 3K, 2CP 34 [1]
>> This one earns 3K and either 2CP or 1CK.
>I don't understand the either-or.
>>>111 2MK+1CK, 2CP 8 [2]
>> This one earns 2MK, 1CK, and either 2CP or 1CK.
>I don't understand the either-or.
I moved these two to the end so that we could consider them separately from
the others. My previous answers were probably wrong, since you expressed an
opposing view (and since you are usually right). But let's look at it from
another direction. Per's list may have been easier to consider if it had
been ordered this way instead of the way it was presented:
MCC
KKP
------
000 -
001 -
002 -
In other words, putting the melded kong at left and the concealed elements
together, then organizing them from cheapest to highest, rather than highest
to cheapest. This way, maybe, one can get past the complex principles at the
outset rather than having to reset one's thinking later on.
Anyway, let's consider the final two disputed combinations:
MCC
KKP
------
111 - If one scores this as 2K, 1CK, and 2CP, I think either exclusionary
principle 2 or exclusionary principle 5 is being violated. The concealed
kong has been counted as: (1) a kong, (2) a concealed kong, and (3) a
concealed pung. It's been counted as more than two things - and two is the
max. Of course, since Tina thinks otherwise, I'm probably wrong. But I'll
find out for sure in Tianjin.
211 - Four pungs, of course. And three of them are kongs. But out of all
four, only two (one kong and one pung) are concealed. Per said it was 3K and
2CP. I said it's 3K and "either 2CP or 1CK." Given principles 2 and 5, I
think that's reasonable. But I'm probably just being wrong... again.
Tom
ithinc
Per Starbäck wrote:
> Now with the new translation let's see if we can finally ascertain the
> details of the kong rules, and how they interact with the pung rules,
> even for the very best results that almost never happen in practice.
> Unfortunately I still don't think the formulations are 100% clear.
>
>
> * 2MK is actually rather 2K since it can be scored with one of each
>
> combined with 1CK or 2CK even though there is no actual implication.
>
> course that 2CK implies 2CP, and that 2MK is incompatible with 4CP
> at least)
>
> (The last point is in parentheses since there isn't anything special
> about really.)
>
> To make the details clear I'll list every possible configuration of
> the kongs and concealed pungs in a hand. The three digits show the
> number of CK, MK, and CP, and then I list which of these fan I think
> they should score and the combined score of them.
>
> The somewhat special 6 point combo for one of each, 2MK+1CK, is shown
> like that as one group.
>
> KKP sum
> -----------------------------------
> 400 4K, 4CP 152
> 310 4K, 3CP 104
My private view: 4K + 3CP + 2CK + 1CK
> 301 3K, 4CP 96
My private view: 3K + 4CP + 2CK + 1CK
> 300 3K, 3CP 48 [2]
My private view: 3K + 3CP + 2CK + 1CK
> 220 4K, 2CP 90
My private view: 4K + 2CK
> 211 3K, 3CP 48 [1]
My private view: 3K + 3CP + 2CK
> 210 3K, 2CP 34 [2]
My private view: 3K + 2CK
> 202 2CK, 4CP 72
> 201 2CK, 3CP 24 [2]
> 200 2CK 8
My private view: 2MK + 2CP + 1CK*2(totally 10pts)
> 130 4K 88
My private view: 4K + 1CK
> 121 3K, 2CP 34 [1]
My private view: 3K + 2CP + 1CK
> 120 3K 32 [2]
My private view: 3K + 1CK
ithinc
Tom Sloper wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, let's consider the final two disputed combinations:
>
> MCC
> KKP
> ------
> 111 - If one scores this as 2K, 1CK, and 2CP, I think either exclusionary
> principle 2 or exclusionary principle 5 is being violated. The concealed
> kong has been counted as: (1) a kong, (2) a concealed kong, and (3) a
> concealed pung. It's been counted as more than two things - and two is the
> max. Of course, since Tina thinks otherwise, I'm probably wrong. But I'll
> find out for sure in Tianjin.
winning tile)
When you score this hand as 4K plus 4CP plus 4SP, do you think
exclusionary principle 2 or exclusionary principle 5 is also being
violated? Are you planning to give up one of the three? So I think the
five exclusionary principles are not applicable everywhere, which is
not explicitly written in the rules. This is also what I have argued
with Cofa in another topic "WMO/MCR questions about kong".
Tom Sloper
> When you score this hand as 4K plus 4CP plus 4SP, do you think
> exclusionary principle 2 or exclusionary principle 5 is also being
> violated?
Point understood. I'll ask about these things in Tianjin. Hopefully the
answer I get will be clear.
Cheers,
Tom