Official International Mahjong Rules
Gareth J M Saunders
MARTIN AND DICKY REP VISIT
I've just waved Martin and Dicky Rep off -- they stayed with us for a couple
of nights here in Edinburgh -- and we very much enjoyed their company and
the mammoth game of Mah Jong we had that began on 29 June and ended 1 July.
None of this 90 minute limit nonsense!
It was Jane and my first games with the Official International Mahjong
Rules, as used at the World Championships last year (2002). I must say
that -- with the help of a crib-sheet from Martin -- my wife Jane grasped
the patterns quicker than I did and ended up winning with +203 points, to my
pitiful -177. Martin came second with around -50 and Dicky, his wife, came
third.
THE QUESTION
Something came up in the course of play that I would appreciate your advice
on: Dicky went out with amongst other things a pung of Dragons. According
to the Official International Mahjong Rules a 'Dragon Pung' scores 2 points,
but a 'Pung of Terminals or Honors' scores 1 point. There is nothing in the
'Dragon Pung' that says that this implies the 'Pung of Terminals or Honors',
so would a Pung of Dragons score 3 points in total?
The rules state:
5. Pung of Terminals or Honors
Each pung of 1,9, or Honor tile scores 1 point.
14. Dragon Pung
One Pung of Dragon tiles. May be concealed or melded.
And in that case, for "34 Two Dragons: Two Pungs (or Kongs) of Dragon tiles"
which scores 6 points, would you then also get another 2 points for each
"Pung of Terminals or Honors", i.e. 1 point for each Pung of Dragons?
Your advice would be greatly received.
Gareth
Tom Sloper
>
>According
>to the Official International Mahjong Rules a 'Dragon Pung' scores 2
points,
>but a 'Pung of Terminals or Honors' scores 1 point. There is nothing in
the
>'Dragon Pung' that says that this implies the 'Pung of Terminals or
Honors',
>so would a Pung of Dragons score 3 points in total?
No. Dragon Pung earns 2 points only. It's unfortunate that the word "honors"
was used instead of the word "winds." Looks to me like that choice was also
made in the other books as well (the character "feng" is not used).
You get 1 point for a terminal pung or a wind pung (plus extra for round
wind or seat wind). 2 points for a dragon pung. I guess the logic is that
there are only 12 dragon tiles in all, and you ought to get a little
something for having a pung of those.
>The rules state:
>
> 5. Pung of Terminals or Honors
> Each pung of 1,9, or Honor tile scores 1 point.
>
> 14. Dragon Pung
> One Pung of Dragon tiles. May be concealed or melded.
>
>And in that case, for "34 Two Dragons: Two Pungs (or Kongs) of Dragon
tiles"
>which scores 6 points, would you then also get another 2 points for each
>"Pung of Terminals or Honors", i.e. 1 point for each Pung of Dragons?
No. You just get 6 points. Think of it as 2 for one pung, 2 for the other
pung, and an extra 2 for having two of them.
That's cool that you had a great visit with Martin & Dicky. And what a
marathon game too...
Greetz,
Tom
Gareth J M Saunders
"honors"
> was used instead of the word "winds." Looks to me like that choice was
also
> made in the other books as well (the character "feng" is not used).
Ahhh! Now *that* makes sense. Thanks Tom.
> >And in that case, for "34 Two Dragons: Two Pungs (or Kongs) of Dragon
> tiles"
> No. You just get 6 points. Think of it as 2 for one pung, 2 for the other
> pung, and an extra 2 for having two of them.
Brilliant! That's really helpful.
> That's cool that you had a great visit with Martin & Dicky. And what a
> marathon game too...
We finished at around 01:20 this morning! Less dramatic than the night
before when I managed to spill a glass of red wine across the table, missing
Martin's lap and pouring onto our new cream carpet! The white wine on red
wine really does work!
Now we must play 4Winds 2.0 until the European championships in 2004 or
2005. Martin has high hopes for Jane being a fine ambassador for Scotland!
Gareth
Steve Scott
> on: Dicky went out with amongst other things a pung of Dragons. According
> to the Official International Mahjong Rules a 'Dragon Pung' scores 2 points,
> but a 'Pung of Terminals or Honors' scores 1 point. There is nothing in the
> 'Dragon Pung' that says that this implies the 'Pung of Terminals or Honors',
> so would a Pung of Dragons score 3 points in total?
In 'Pung of Terminals or Honors', 'honors' means winds only as I
understand it for this particular hand. This is the kind of
terminology confusion that makes me suspicious of many other details
in the scoring, such as certain hands that seem like they should not
be combined, but the book says nothing about it.
Cofa Tsui
news:vmfMa.1002$1p3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > No. Dragon Pung earns 2 points only. It's unfortunate that the word
> "honors"
> > was used instead of the word "winds." Looks to me like that choice was
> also
> > made in the other books as well (the character "feng" is not used).
>
> Ahhh! Now *that* makes sense. Thanks Tom.
OR does it? ^_^
Hi Gareth, I don't have the booklet "Official International Rulebook"
("OIR") on hand, but would like to share my understanding of those
particular rules you've mentioned based on the original CMCR rules (Chinese
version). [Note the numbering is of the CMCR Chinese version.]
73. "Pung of One's or Nine's" ("Pung of Terminals or Honors") gets 1 point.
The detailed definition of this Score Element is: Three pieces of identical
Number Pai of 1, 9 [or] Word Pai.
59. "Pung of Arrow Pai" ("Pung of Dragons") gets 2 point. Definition: Three
pieces of either the Red, Green or the White ("Dragon").
For the term "Word Pai", Art. 5.15 (page 10) says it includes the Wind Pai
and the Arrow Pai (I try to avoid the term "Character Pai" as some would
confuse it to be the Number Pai's "Character tiles", a widely accepted term
in the English speaking community). So the "Honors" used in the OIR *should
include* the Winds and the Dragons. But why your Pung of Dragon scored 2
points only and not the other 1 point also - Please see later.
>
> > >And in that case, for "34 Two Dragons: Two Pungs (or Kongs) of Dragon
> > tiles"
>
> > No. You just get 6 points. Think of it as 2 for one pung, 2 for the
other
> > pung, and an extra 2 for having two of them.
>
> Brilliant! That's really helpful.
In CMCR:
54. "Two Pungs of Arrow Pai" gets 6 points. Definition: Two Pungs of Arrow
Pai (or Kongs).
In the initiating message you asked: "There is nothing in the
'Dragon Pung' that says that this implies the 'Pung of Terminals or Honors',
so would a Pung of Dragons score 3 points in total?"
You'll get the answer if you refer to the original CMCR rulebook. As I
learned from other postings, the OIR lists only the Score Elements (and in a
numbering order different than the CMCR), it does not mention details of
other rules. There are rules in the CMCR providing principles when you score
a winning hand. Those principles include the following:
Art. 10.1(5)1. Non-repeatitive...(details are omitted)
Art. 10.1(5)2. Non-separation...
Art. 10.1(5)3. Non-identicle...
Art. 10.1(5)4. Take either high or low but not both...
Art. 10.1(5)5. Score once only...
From my understanding, in answering your question, articles 10.1(5)1, 3 and
4 may apply in your case.
Cheers!
Cofa
www.iMahjong.com
P.S. I believe the use of "Official International Mahjong Rules" in the
title of this discussion is a mistake.
Martin Rep
>understand it for this particular hand. This is the kind of
>terminology confusion that makes me suspicious of many other details
>in the scoring, such as certain hands that seem like they should not
>be combined, but the book says nothing about it.
Exactly what hands, Scott? I admit the description is not too clear on
certain hands, yet by now there is so much jurisdiction about every
hand in the book that there are not many - if any - problems left.
The booklet is just a booklet and has its limitations. As is the case
with more first editions, corections and comments are very useful for
the author and may lead to erratums and new editions. I am sure the
author will value all comments.
I think we need to support the Chinese Official Rules, being an
important international standard; perhaps *the* international
standard. They were applied during the World Championship as they will
be on the European Championship. In the beginning, I had some
hesitations as well, but as a matter of fact they are quite thrilling.
Greetz
|
|Martin Rep
|The Independent Internet Mahjong Newspaper
|Mahjong News:
|www.mahjongnews.com
|The Dutch Championship Riichi Mahjong:
|www.riichi.tk
|The Golden Dragon Hong Kong Mahjong Club:
|www.gouden-draak.nl
Julian Bradfield
> I think we need to support the Chinese Official Rules, being an
> important international standard; perhaps *the* international
> standard. They were applied during the World Championship as they will
Pardon? The Chinese Official Rules are the Chinese *National* rules.
I suppose it's international in the sense that China is still occupying
other countries which are forced to follow Chinese national policies,
but I see no substantive reason to call COR an international standard,
any more than any other set of rules.
Dee
> I suppose it's international in the sense that China is still occupying
> other countries which are forced to follow Chinese national policies,
I don't want to get into a political discussion here, but this caught
my attention and interest. I am not aware of China occupying any
other country (in the same sense that the USA is occupying Iraq). Can
you elaborate your statement that China is "still occupying" other
countries?
Tom Sloper
>
>> I think we need to support the Chinese Official Rules, being an
>> important international standard; perhaps *the* international
>> standard. They were applied during the World Championship as they will
From: Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk>
>
>Pardon? The Chinese Official Rules are the Chinese *National* rules.
>
>...I see no substantive reason to call COR an international standard,
>any more than any other set of rules.
Because they were used during the first-ever World Championship, and will be
used in the next one. Martin made that clear.
Tom
Nick Wedd
<d_...@my-deja.com> writes
>I don't want to get into a political discussion here, but this caught
>my attention and interest. I am not aware of China occupying any
>other country (in the same sense that the USA is occupying Iraq). Can
>you elaborate your statement that China is "still occupying" other
>countries?
Tibet.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Steve Scott
I'll compile a detailed list of all questions I have about the rules.
This will take some time.
Steve
Dee
Again, not wanting to make this a political discussion group, I just
want to say that you have been terribly mis-informed about the history
of Tibet and China. This is understandable because both you and
Julian seemed to be from the UK. A quick summary is that Tibet has
been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). It was when
the British invaded China (early 1900 to 1949) and occupied the Tibet
area that the British made Tibet into a separate country (or at least
they tried). When the Chinese drove the British out of China after
WW-II, it reclaimed the rightful rule over Tibet. So the UK version
of the history probably left out its role in causing the turmoils in
that part of the world.
That's all I will say about this. But I am still curious whether
Julian was also thinking of Tibet when he made his original statement.
Nick Wedd
>Again, not wanting to make this a political discussion group, I just
>want to say that you have been terribly mis-informed about the history
>of Tibet and China. This is understandable because both you and
>Julian seemed to be from the UK. A quick summary is that Tibet has
>been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368).
Tibet once paid tribute to China, certainly. So did Japan. Do you
claim that Japan should now be part of China?
> It was when
>the British invaded China (early 1900 to 1949) and occupied the Tibet
>area
I do not believe that the British ever occupied Tibet.
> that the British made Tibet into a separate country (or at least
>they tried). When the Chinese drove the British out of China after
>WW-II,
I don't believe that there were any British active in China after WW-II.
Any who had been there had already been dealt with by the Japanese.
> it reclaimed the rightful rule over Tibet. So the UK version
>of the history probably left out its role in causing the turmoils in
>that part of the world.
"The UK version of history" admits the UK's deplorable role in the opium
wars. But it makes no mention of any British occupation of Tibet.
>That's all I will say about this. But I am still curious whether
>Julian was also thinking of Tibet when he made his original statement.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Cofa Tsui
> In message <bc999a91.03070...@posting.google.com>, Dee
> <d_...@my-deja.com> writes
>
> >Again, not wanting to make this a political discussion group, I just
> >want to say that you have been terribly mis-informed about the history
> >of Tibet and China. This is understandable because both you and
> >Julian seemed to be from the UK. A quick summary is that Tibet has
> >been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368).
>
> Tibet once paid tribute to China, certainly. So did Japan. Do you
> claim that Japan should now be part of China?
Paying tirbute (or taxes?) to a party doesn't imply that the paying party is
an independent country, right? To find a solution to the problem, simply
ask: When did Tibet start to be a country? When did China start to occupy
that "country"? (Same questions apply to the case if Japan is even an
issue.)
Cofa
Steve Scott
Okay, here's a list of questions I have about the 'CO' rule set. For
many of these, the answer is obvious, but the book does not specify. I
think it would be best to either be thorough in defining what can't be
combined, or make certain rules clear from the outset that would
explain most of these questions.
The approach of the CO rules in defining what hands can and can't be
combined is giving sporadic examples of smaller point hands that can
and can't be combined with a given hand. What I think is a more
thorough approach is to define hands as being 'subsets' of or
'superceded by' larger hands, and for each hand, list every other hand
it CAN'T be combined with. In cases where it can be confusing, list
what CAN be combined.
Many of the questions that have obvious answers are hands that are
subsets of other hands. I think it would be best if the rules are laid
out in a hierarchy like the Zung Jung system so there is no question
that a subset hand should not be combined with its 'parent' hand.
Sometimes it's not so clear.
Notes:
Pung of Terminals or Honors should be Pung of Terminals or Winds.
I think Concealed Wait is a better name than Concealed Hand, which is
easily confused with Fully Concealed Hand. I think the writers of the
rule book were actually confused by this.
Tough questions:
-Can All Pungs be combined with Four Kongs?
-Can Short Straight be combined with Nine Gates?
-Can Pure Straight be combined with Nine Gates?
-Can Two Terminal Chows be combined with Nine Gates?
-Can No Honors be combined with All Green?
-Why can All Simples be combined with All Green?
-Why can Full Flush combine with All Green, but not Half Flush?
(I think neither should be combinable)
-Why are Seat Wind and Prevalent Wind combinable with Little Four
Winds or Big Three Winds, but not Big Four Winds?
-Can All Chows be combined with Pure Terminal Chows?
-Can All Pungs be combined with All Terminals?
-Can All Pungs be combined with Four Pure Shifted Pungs?
-Why can All Chows be combined with Quadruple Chow?
-Why can All Chows be combined with Four Shifted Chows?
-Why is Pure Shifted Pungs one-step-up only?
(What's wrong with two-, three-, or four-step-up?)
-Why can't All Types be combined with Seven Pairs?
-Why can One Voided Suit be combined with Big Three Winds while Half
Flush cannot?
-Can Last Tile be combined with Robbing the Kong?
-Can Self-drawn be combined with Out with Replacement Tile?
-Why is Mixed Shifted Pungs one-step-up only?
(What's wrong with two-, three-, or four-step-up?)
-Why is Mixed Shifted Chows one-step-up only?
(What's wrong with two-step-up?)
-Why aren't Single Wait, Closed Wait, and Edge Wait combined into one
hand, such as 'One Option'?
Easy questions:
-Can Outside Hand be combined with Thirteen Orphans?
-Can Fully Concealed Hand be combined with Thirteen Orphans?
(The book never mentions both Fully Concealed Hand and Concealed Hand
as both not being combinable with a particular hand. This occurs for
every hand that by default must be concealed except for the final
tile.)
-Can All Terminals and Honors be combined with Thirteen Orphans?
-Can No Honors be combined with Seven Shifted Pairs?
-Can Concealed Hand be combined with Seven Shifted Pairs?
-Can Seven Pairs be combined with Seven Shifted Pairs?
-Can Melded Kong be combined with Four Kongs?
-Can Two Melded Kongs be combined with Four Kongs?
-Can Three Kongs be combined with Four Kongs
-Can No Honors be combined with Nine Gates?
-Can Pung of Terminals or Honors be combined with Big Four Winds?
-Can Big Three Winds combine with Big Four Winds?
-Can No Honors be combined with Pure Terminal Chows?
-Can Concealed hand be combined with Four Concealed Pungs?
-Can Three Concealed Pungs be combined with Four Concealed Pungs?
-Can Pung of Terminals or Honors be combined with All Honors?
-Can Outside Hand be combined with All Honors?
-Can All Terminals and Honors be combined with All Honors?
-Can Pung of Terminals or Honors be combined with All Terminals?
-Can Outside Hand be combined with All Terminals?
-Can All Terminals and Honors be combined with All Terminals?
-Can Pure Shifted Pungs be combined with Four Pure Shifted Pungs?
-Can Pure Triple Chow be combined with Four Pure Shifted Pungs?
-Can Pure Triple Chow be combined with Quadruple Chow?
-Can Three Kongs be combined with Quadruple Chow?
-Can Outside hand be combined with All Terminals and Honors?
-Can Two Melded Kongs be combined with Three Kongs?
-Can Melded Kong be combined with Three Kongs?
-Can Pure Shifted Chows be combined with Four Shifted Chows?
-Can Lower Four be combined with Lower Tiles?
-Can All Simples be combined with Middle Tiles?
-Can Upper Four be combined with Upper Tiles?
-Can Pure Double Chow be combined with Pure Triple Chow?
-Can No Honors be combined with All Even?
-Can Concealed Hand be combined with Greater Honors and Knitted Tiles?
-Can Lesser Honors and Knitted Tiles be combined with Greater Honors
and Knitted Tiles?
-Can Concealed Hand be combined with Seven Pairs?
-Can Two Concealed Pungs be combined with Three Concealed Pungs?
-Can Double Pung be combined with Triple Pung?
-Can No Honors be combined with All Fives?
-Can All Simples be combined with All Fives?
-Can Pure Straight be combined with Pure Shifted Chows?
-Can Two Terminal Chows be combined with Pure Straight?
-Can Short Straight be combined with Pure Straight?
-Can Concealed Hand be combined with Lesser Honors and Knitted Tiles?
-Can Mixed Double Chow be combined with Mixed Triple Chow?
-Can Dragon Pung be combined with Two Dragons?
-Can Concealed Kong be combined with Two Concealed Kongs?
-Can Closed Wait be combined with Melded Hand?
-Can Edge Wait be combined with Melded Hand?
-Can Melded Kong be combined with Two Melded Kongs?
-Can Self-drawn be combined with Fully Concealed Hand?
-Can Concealed Hand be combined with Fully Concealed Hand?
-Can No Honors be combined with All Simples?
-Can Pung of Terminals or Honors be combined with Seat Wind?
-Can Pung of Terminals of Honors be combined with Prevalent Wind?
That's all I know of, but there are probably more.
Steve
Martin Rep
>Okay, here's a list of questions I have about the 'CO' rule set. For
>many of these, the answer is obvious, but the book does not specify. I
>think it would be best to either be thorough in defining what can't be
>combined, or make certain rules clear from the outset that would
>explain most of these questions.
Steve, this is great. You have really done your best. I will try to
give my opinion on these remarks the coming days and I hope that Ryan
Morris - he translated the rulebook in Japanese and in English - will
be with us as well.
For the discussion: please do not only refer to 'Ryans' booklet, but
also to 'The World of Mahjong' (isbn4-8124-0551-3), which formed the
basics for the rulebook.
I suggest to open a new thread for each question to make discussion
less complex.
Greetings
Ryan C. Morris
My name is Ryan Morris. I wrote the English International rulebook (mostly
translated from Japanese), and have a degree of knowledge (and access
to the knowledgeable here in Tokyo) about the Int'l Rules.
This is my first posting to the list, so please allow me some time
to get used to the community.
I am responding to the questions Scott posed about the Int'l Rules.
For the time being I will answer to the best of my knowledge and
follow-up as time allows with further research.
>
> Okay, here's a list of questions I have about the 'CO' rule set. For
> many of these, the answer is obvious, but the book does not specify. I
> think it would be best to either be thorough in defining what can't be
> combined, or make certain rules clear from the outset that would
> explain most of these questions.
>
As you have demonstrated by your impressive list, it would take up
an awful lot of space to define all the exceptions. Instead, we have
to go by the grand rule of Int'l Mahjong:
****Any hand that is implied is not counted****
This means that if you achieve a hand, and a less-valued hand is
included by definition, then that value of the less-valued hand
has been included in the higher-valued hand and therefore is not
counted.
I think that 95% of your questions can be answered by a reconsideration
with this "implication" rule in mind. Admittedly, there are stickier
cases that are defined more by rulings rather than overarching
logic (Seven Pairs not combining with All Types is an example - will
explain later).
For example, take your question of All Fives combining with All Simples.
By definition, All Fives (16 pts.) includes All Simples. In other words,
there is no possible way of going out on All Fives that does not include
All Simples. Therefore, the 2 pts. from All Simples is NOT included.
Another example: Big Four Winds does not include Seat Wind or Prevalent
Wind. Why? Because Big Four Winds implies them. By definition, it includes
both.
So, what about Big Three Winds? It does not imply either of them, therefore
both are counted. Example:
East Round/East Seat: You go out with Big Three Winds. You hold
SSS WWW NNN. You have neither your Seat Wind or the Prevalent Wind.
This shows that Big Three Winds implies neither.
> Notes:
> Pung of Terminals or Honors should be Pung of Terminals or Winds.
> I think Concealed Wait is a better name than Concealed Hand, which is
> easily confused with Fully Concealed Hand. I think the writers of the
> rule book were actually confused by this.
>
The writer of the book <g> translated this from the original -
however, I now see that a deviation from the original may have been
in order for the sake of clarity.
> Tough questions:
> -Can All Pungs be combined with Four Kongs?
No. Because Four Kongs by definition is an All Pungs hand already.
> -Can Short Straight be combined with Nine Gates?
> -Can Pure Straight be combined with Nine Gates?
> -Can Two Terminal Chows be combined with Nine Gates?
> -Can No Honors be combined with All Green?
> -Why can All Simples be combined with All Green?
> -Why can Full Flush combine with All Green, but not Half Flush?
> (I think neither should be combinable)
There has been a lot of confusion about 88 pt. hand
combinations. I will confirm these in the near future.
> -Why are Seat Wind and Prevalent Wind combinable with Little Four
> Winds or Big Three Winds, but not Big Four Winds?
See above example.
> -Can All Chows be combined with Pure Terminal Chows?
No, because it is implied. There is no possible way to
make Pure Terminal Chows without creating All Chows as well.
Therefore, the points have already been counted.
> -Can All Pungs be combined with All Terminals?
No, because All Terminals implies All Pungs.
> -Can All Pungs be combined with Four Pure Shifted Pungs?
No. Implied.
> -Why can All Chows be combined with Quadruple Chow?
Because it is not implied. If I make Quadruple Chow
with a head of EE, then I have not made All Chows (=All Chows
can not include any Honors)
> -Why can All Chows be combined with Four Shifted Chows?
Same as above.
> -Why is Pure Shifted Pungs one-step-up only?
I did not create the rules so I cannot answer this.
> -Why can't All Types be combined with Seven Pairs?
A more literal translation of the original name is Five Types.
I chose All Types for stylistic reasons. However, I did not
foresee that this would cause this type of confusion. As it turns
out, in China they have ruled that Five Types is defined as 1 each
of the five types, it does not combine with Seven Pairs, which includes
2 extra groupings beyond 5.
> -Why can One Voided Suit be combined with Big Three Winds while Half
> Flush cannot?
The rulebook says One Voided Suit can combine, but this must be
a mistake, since it is implied. Half Flush, as indicated in the
rulebook, CAN be combined.
> -Can Last Tile be combined with Robbing the Kong?
I don't think so. I don't think it's possible to kong without
a replacement tile anyway. I will confirm this.
> -Can Self-drawn be combined with Out with Replacement Tile?
No. It is implied. Fully Concealed can be combined, since it is
not implied.
> -Why is Mixed Shifted Pungs one-step-up only?
> (What's wrong with two-, three-, or four-step-up?)
See above.
> -Why is Mixed Shifted Chows one-step-up only?
> (What's wrong with two-step-up?)
See above.
> -Why aren't Single Wait, Closed Wait, and Edge Wait combined into one
> hand, such as 'One Option'?
>
I recommend this change. I think they should all be called Single Wait.
But every serious Mahjong player is going to have a lot of opinions
about how to change these rules. The question is whether we are
better off, as a community, by requesting changes of these rules,
or standing behind them and presenting them to the world.
> Easy questions:
I think most of the easy questions are in fact easy, so I will
leave them be for now. Please feel free to ask specific questions.
Regards,
Ryan C. Morris
Kindai Mahjong
Japan Mahjong Organizing Committee
(JMOC)
Tokyo
Steve Scott
> As you have demonstrated by your impressive list, it would take up
> an awful lot of space to define all the exceptions. Instead, we have
> to go by the grand rule of Int'l Mahjong:
>
> ****Any hand that is implied is not counted****
If this is all that is said in the book, I find it a bit confusing,
because there are many examples of where a hand is "implied". I might
therefore assume that "implied" only refers to those examples, and not
realize "implied" applies to all hands that are subsets of other
hands.
Another solution would be to group the hands in a hierarchy so it is
clear two hands in the same branch can't both be counted.
> Another example: Big Four Winds does not include Seat Wind or Prevalent
> Wind. Why? Because Big Four Winds implies them. By definition, it includes
> both.
>
> So, what about Big Three Winds? It does not imply either of them, therefore
> both are counted. Example:
>
> East Round/East Seat: You go out with Big Three Winds. You hold
> SSS WWW NNN. You have neither your Seat Wind or the Prevalent Wind.
> This shows that Big Three Winds implies neither.
I see the logic. I guess if you manage to get 'lucky' winds with Big
Three Winds, the value becomes something between Big Four Winds and
Big Three Winds.
> > -Can All Pungs be combined with Four Kongs?
>
> No. Because Four Kongs by definition is an All Pungs hand already.
I listed this as a 'tough' question because for some hands with four
Pungs, All Pungs was specified as not combinable, but for others it
was not specified.
> > -Can All Pungs be combined with All Terminals?
>
> No, because All Terminals implies All Pungs.
I listed this question because All Pungs is listed as implied for All
Honors, but it is not listed for All Terminals. I found this
inconsistent.
> > -Why can All Chows be combined with Quadruple Chow?
>
> Because it is not implied. If I make Quadruple Chow
> with a head of EE, then I have not made All Chows (=All Chows
> can not include any Honors)
>
> > -Why can All Chows be combined with Four Shifted Chows?
>
> Same as above.
I guess my confusion with this is I don't see how All Chows has any
bearing on the pair that completes the hand. I would change my
question to that.
> > -Why can't All Types be combined with Seven Pairs?
>
> A more literal translation of the original name is Five Types.
> I chose All Types for stylistic reasons. However, I did not
> foresee that this would cause this type of confusion. As it turns
> out, in China they have ruled that Five Types is defined as 1 each
> of the five types, it does not combine with Seven Pairs, which includes
> 2 extra groupings beyond 5.
Okay, that's more clear. Maybe the name could be changed to "Five
Types" and/or make it clear only five elements are acceptable.
> > -Why can One Voided Suit be combined with Big Three Winds while Half
> > Flush cannot?
>
> The rulebook says One Voided Suit can combine, but this must be
> a mistake, since it is implied. Half Flush, as indicated in the
> rulebook, CAN be combined.
Okay, I got this backward, but there still is an inconsistency with
this rule. You would get either All Honors, One Voided Suit, or Half
Flush. What is the standard procedure for this kind of situation? One
of the three is implied, so which do you not allow?
> > -Can Last Tile be combined with Robbing the Kong?
>
> I don't think so. I don't think it's possible to kong without
> a replacement tile anyway. I will confirm this.
This is an example of confusion in the name of the hand. I think I
forgot to mention I think a better name for Last Tile would be Last
Instance. In the case of Robbing the Kong, the other three instances
are on the table, and you win on the fourth instance. I would guess
Last Tile could be defined as a subset of Robbing the Kong, but you
would assume Last Tile requires the previous three instances to have
been discarded. I would expect that they should not be combined.
> > -Why aren't Single Wait, Closed Wait, and Edge Wait combined into one
> > hand, such as 'One Option'?
> >
>
> I recommend this change. I think they should all be called Single Wait.
> But every serious Mahjong player is going to have a lot of opinions
> about how to change these rules. The question is whether we are
> better off, as a community, by requesting changes of these rules,
> or standing behind them and presenting them to the world.
Maybe there is some significance to the count of 81 hands that needs
to be retained. I wouldn't mind seeing two new hands added. :o)
I feel much better about the rules now, but there still are some
inconsistencies. Thanks for your time.
Steve
Tom Sloper
>>> -Why can All Chows be combined with Quadruple Chow?
Ryan Morris replied:
>> Because it is not implied. If I make Quadruple Chow
>> with a head of EE, then I have not made All Chows (=All Chows
>> can not include any Honors)
Steve Scott:
>I guess my confusion with this is I don't see how All Chows has any
>bearing on the pair that completes the hand. I would change my
>question to that.
My two cents:
I think the name "All Chows" is a problem - a better name is the Chinese
term "pin woo" (Japanese: pinfu). Because "all chows" sounds
all-explanatory, while the term "pin woo" has to be defined (and the reader
is more likely to actually read the definition, rather than make an
assumption based on the name).
>>> -Why can't All Types be combined with Seven Pairs?
>>
>> A more literal translation of the original name is Five Types.
>
>Okay, that's more clear. Maybe the name could be changed to "Five
>Types" and/or make it clear only five elements are acceptable.
Totally. I played New Style mah-jongg for a while, and our group always
called it "Five Kinds" which was self-explanatory.
>>> -Can Last Tile be combined with Robbing the Kong?
>>
>> I don't think so. I don't think it's possible to kong without
>> a replacement tile anyway. I will confirm this.
Last Tile is a confusing term. It doesn't mean "last tile in the wall," it
means "last one of its kind." Therefore I prefer using the term "last tile"
to mean only "last tile in the wall," and "case tile" (borrowed from playing
cards) to mean "last one of its kind."
>>> -Why aren't Single Wait, Closed Wait, and Edge Wait combined into one
>>> hand, such as 'One Option'?
>>
>> I recommend this change. I think they should all be called Single Wait.
I agree. In New Style, they're all called "one-chance." It harms nothing to
simply mentally lump them all together and call them all one-chance (the
other players will understand and accept it as a point without argument).
>> The question is whether we are
>> better off, as a community, by requesting changes of these rules,
>> or standing behind them and presenting them to the world.
Or to put it another way, "grant me the strength to fight the things I can
change, the serenity to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know
the difference."
In going through Steve's list (hard questions only - I didn't bother with
the easy ones), I found just three answers would apply:
1. As to whether a lesser hand could also be scored together with a higher
hand (for example: "Self-Draw" and "Out With Replacement"): It's reasonable
to assume that the points for the higher-scoring hand were calculated to
allow for and build-in the points for the lower-scoring hand as well.
2. As to whether a lesser hand should have been listed as implied by a
higher hand (for example: "All Chows" and "Pure Terminal Chows"): It's
reasonable to assume that it IS implied, just not listed (perhaps by an
oversight of the original authors, or perhaps they thought it was obvious
that it was implied).
3. All the questions that begin with "Why": What useful purpose can be
served by asking why? To repeat what I said above, "Grant me the strength
to fight the things I can change, the serenity to accept the things I can't,
and the wisdom to know the difference."
Cheers,
Tom
Julian Bradfield
> Again, not wanting to make this a political discussion group, I just
> want to say that you have been terribly mis-informed about the history
> of Tibet and China. This is understandable because both you and
> Julian seemed to be from the UK. A quick summary is that Tibet has
> been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). It was when
> the British invaded China (early 1900 to 1949) and occupied the Tibet
> area that the British made Tibet into a separate country (or at least
> they tried). When the Chinese drove the British out of China after
> WW-II, it reclaimed the rightful rule over Tibet. So the UK version
> of the history probably left out its role in causing the turmoils in
> that part of the world.
I've sent a longer reply to Dee by email, since that's where it
belongs, but this piece of PRC (or RoC; strangely, Tibet is one of the
things PRC and RoC agree on!) propaganda should not pass unchallenged.
Tibet was independent until the mid-13th century. At that point,
the Mongols conquered China, Tibet and much of the rest of the region,
and later the then Mongol Khan (Kublai) also assumed the Emperorship
of China.
Tibet and China regained independence when the Mongol dynasty
collapsed and was overthrown by the first Ming dynasty emperor. Tibet
remained independent until it was annexed (not entirely unwillingly)
by the Kang Xi emperor (the Manchus had conquered China earlier, but
their control was shaky; the Kang Xi emperor consolidated it) in
1720. From around 1780, Tibet was again effectively independent,
though the Manchu dynasty continued to claim suzerainty.
Britain, or more accurately a British colonel who persuaded London to
back him against their better judgment, invaded in 1904,
destroying the Tibetan army and imposing a fairly typical treaty;
however, the British government was sufficiently embarrassed by the
whole affair, especially Younghusband's large-scale (by the standards
of the time) killing of Tibetans, that it quickly repudiated the treaty
Younghusband imposed.
In 1910, China invaded Tibet again, but then the Chinese
revolution intervened. With British support (we supplied arms, but did
not have troops there), Tibet remained basically independent until the
PRC invaded in 1950, at which point we displayed our usual post-WW-II
cowardice and even sabotaged Tibet's appeal to the United Nations.
Thus, in summary, Tibet was independent of China, except at points when
China was conquered by nations strong enough to conquer Tibet as well,
up to the 1950 invasion by the PRC, when Tibet was conquered by the
Chinese themselves.
As for driving the British out of China after WW-II: I wasn't aware
that we had any forces in China. Where were they?
None of which has any relevance to the current occupation, except to
demonstrate that the Tibetans have always had trouble with China.
(Quite a lot of this was their own fault; both the Chinese
and the Mongols were used by Tibetan factions in the frequent internal
disputes.)
Tom Sloper
Please do not continue this political discussion in this newsgroup.
Please take it offline. Or take it to a political forum.
Thanks in advance,
Tom
Steve Scott
> served by asking why? To repeat what I said above, "Grant me the strength
> to fight the things I can change, the serenity to accept the things I can't,
> and the wisdom to know the difference."
Thanks for your input Tom. I ask "why" because I believe there is an
explanation for most of my questions, but the book does not provide an
explanation. For the easy questions and most of the tough questions, a
simple statement that all hands which are by definition a subset of a
higher hand, cannot be counted along with the points of the higher
hand. Certainly, I have used these rules, and there is not much
confusion over most of these questions.
Where the problem arises is the book is inconsistent about explaining
what can't be combined. For example, All Honors explicitly states that
All Pungs cannot be combined, yet All Terminals does not explicitly
state this. So, even though I'm sure you can't combine All Pungs with
All Terminals, this kind of inconsistency makes me skeptical of the
accuracy of how more difficult situations are noted.
My primary wish is that the book be made more thorough so that all
possible questions are answered. Like I suggested, a hierarchical
ordering of the hands would help to make clear which hands are subsets
of which. It's not always obvious.
Julian Bradfield
> Please do not continue this political discussion in this newsgroup.
I don't think there's been a political discussion yet; it only gets
political when one discusses right and wrong, not history. But you're
right that this is not the place for arguing about which view of
history is more accurate, unless it be the history of Mah-Jong.
However, it's not completely off-topic: playing Mah-Jong is one aspect
of the Sinification campaign in Tibet. It's interesting that a game
that was for so long suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party is not
only now recognized as a national sport, but even used as a
representative of Han culture.
This raises the question, did Mah-Jong exist in Tibet before 1950?
If it did, one might imagine that all sorts of interesting variants
might arise in the radically different cultural environment of Tibet.
It could have come in either through contact with China, or through
contact with India, where, if I remember rightly, Mah-Jong was popular
among the Anglo-Indian classes in the 20s and 30s.
So a question to our experts: is there any known history of Mah-Jong
in Tibet before 1950?
Tom Sloper
of the game as played in Tibet? Presumably, they play the official rules if
anyone's watching, but as we all know, the game tends to be played
differently in every locale where it finds its way.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom Sloper
>Thanks for your input Tom. I ask "why" because I believe there is an
>explanation for most of my questions, but the book does not provide an
>explanation.
I have never seen ANY mah-jongg book that not only defined the rules but
also justified and explained the reasoning behind them.
>For the easy questions and most of the tough questions, a
>simple statement that all hands which are by definition a subset of a
>higher hand, cannot be counted along with the points of the higher
>hand. Certainly, I have used these rules, and there is not much
>confusion over most of these questions.
Then what's to be gained by having used them to create such a depressingly
long list?
>Where the problem arises is the book is inconsistent about explaining
>what can't be combined. For example, All Honors explicitly states that
>All Pungs cannot be combined, yet All Terminals does not explicitly
>state this.
Firstly, I doubt that an "explanation" for why a particular combination is
or isn't allowable is going to help. Either the score for a lesser
combination is built into the score for the greater combination or it isn't.
Secondly, have you spent much time working in Asia? I have - over twenty
years of working with Japanese game companies. One thing I've learned is
that detailed explanations are not a part of the culture of either Japan or
China. People don't tend to ask a lot of questions about a short bit of
text that they are handed (even when it has some ambiguities - actually, in
Asia, ambiguities are often seen as desirable or politically correct), so
usually just the barest of facts are all that are written.
The original CO rules are from China, of course (we call that book "CMCR"
for short), and were first translated into Japanese and English in the
trilingual work SEKAI MAJAN 2000 (I shall call it "Sekai" for short). I
can't read Chinese, I can't read Japanese very well, but I can look up hand
descriptions in both books and view them side by side to see how much detail
is given there.
Looking at CMCR and Sekai both, it's clear to me that the translation given
in Sekai is no less detailed than the original. But the translation in Sekai
leaves a lot to be desired (the grammar, the choice of words used). When
the thinner OIRB was made, all that was done is that the translation was
"localized" better, to be more readable for native English speakers (mainly
Americans) -- and the other two languages (and other sections on procedures
and terminology) were omitted from the book, to make a compact listing of
the scoring elements and combinations alone.
The things you don't like about OIRB are not Ryan Morris' fault, and not the
fault of the Japanese publisher, Takeshobo. All they did was take what the
Chinese had written and present it in good English. If you have a problem
with the book's lack of explanations, it's the fault of the Chinese authors
who didn't bother to give any in the first place. Ryan and Takeshobo could
hardly be expected to add stuff into the book that might not have jibed with
the intentions of the original rules committee.
It's possible that players in Asia are, like you, seeking clarity on which
combinations are allowable. But I don't know if those players are
communicating their questions back to the rules committee. (I'll come back
to this soon.)
>So, even though I'm sure you can't combine All Pungs with
>All Terminals, this kind of inconsistency makes me skeptical of the
>accuracy of how more difficult situations are noted.
You keep using the terms "suspicious" and "skeptical." I agree that the CO
rules would benefit by clearer explanations of what combinations are and are
not permissible, but I object to the use of negatively connotative words
like "suspicious" and "skeptical" in regards to the rule set as a whole. In
practice, the games last October went smoothly, and players enjoyed the
games using these rules. The rules are suitable for international
competition, and I don't see a necessity for, or benefit in, chopping at
them with a lot of negative talk.
>My primary wish is that the book be made more thorough so that all
>possible questions are answered.
I suppose in the future we might see an improved book on those rules, if
only all questions about the rules were sent to the rules committee in
China.
Tom
Julian Bradfield
> Along the lines of Julian's post, does anyone know anything about the rules
> of the game as played in Tibet? Presumably, they play the official rules if
> anyone's watching, but as we all know, the game tends to be played
I doubt that people play the official rules particularly.
The official rules are, as far as I understand, simply presented as a
standard set of rules that can be used in national competition, and
there's no particular push to eliminate the numerous local variants.
At least, that's the impression I get from one of our current students,
who is from Peking - he's writing a Mah-Jong program, and is starting
with the official rules, but thinks it's important to make the rules
fully customizable, so that people can play their own city's variants.
(Notably, he does seem to think that individual cities have
recognizably coherent sets of rules.)
Now to answer my own question, it appears that there may well have
been a substantial Mah-Jong playing community in Tibet prior to the
Chinese invasion. If you go to
http://www.ustibet.org/essays/features.html#poem%2013
you'll find a lament for Tibet, written by a Tibetan exile who is the
son of one of the Tibetan representatives in the failed negotiations
between Tibet and China just before the invasion. The poem
paints a ridiculously romantic picture of pre-invasion Tibet, and it
includes the lines
where are the prosperous and boisterous merchants
who played mahjong all crispy evening long?
However, although I can't find a detailed biography of the author
(Tsoltim N. Shakabpa), it looks as if he left Tibet as a child,
when the Dalai Lama fled, so his image may not be reliably based on
personal recollection. But at least he found it plausible to include
such an image.
So we can ask what style they played...
Thierry Depaulis
> This raises the question, did Mah-Jong exist in Tibet before 1950?
> If it did, one might imagine that all sorts of interesting variants
> might arise in the radically different cultural environment of Tibet.
> It could have come in either through contact with China, or through
> contact with India, where, if I remember rightly, Mah-Jong was popular
> among the Anglo-Indian classes in the 20s and 30s.
>
> So a question to our experts: is there any known history of Mah-Jong
> in Tibet before 1950?
Yes. Mahjong was played there in... 1949!
According to S. Hummel and P. G. Brewster, 'Games of the Tibetans',
Helsinki, 1963, p. 7,
"In lHasa this game [mahjong] was played so extensively and for such
high stakes that for some years, even before the Chinese occupation,
it was forbidden by Tibetan law (H. Harrer)."
"H. Harrer" is Heinrich Harrer, 'Sieben Jahre in Tibet' [Wien, 1952],
p. 146.
Hummel and Brewster say the Tibetan term for mahjong was 'sBan-dcen'
(also according to H. Harrer). However, I have also found elsewhere
the word 'pakchen' (another romanisation?). My Tibetan being
*extremely* limited I cannot say.
Cheers,
Thierry
Thierry Depaulis
> Now to answer my own question, it appears that there may well have
> been a substantial Mah-Jong playing community in Tibet prior to the
> Chinese invasion. If you go to
> http://www.ustibet.org/essays/features.html#poem%2013
> you'll find a lament for Tibet, written by a Tibetan exile who is the
> son of one of the Tibetan representatives in the failed negotiations
> between Tibet and China just before the invasion. The poem
> paints a ridiculously romantic picture of pre-invasion Tibet, and it
> includes the lines
>
> where are the prosperous and boisterous merchants
> who played mahjong all crispy evening long?
>
> However, although I can't find a detailed biography of the author
> (Tsoltim N. Shakabpa), it looks as if he left Tibet as a child,
> when the Dalai Lama fled, so his image may not be reliably based on
> personal recollection.
Just quoting from the Web:
"Tsoltim Ngima Shakabpa was born in Lhasa, Tibet on September 7, 1943.
He was educated in Tibet, India [St. Joseph's College at North Point
in Darjeeling, West Bengal, India: 1953-1960] and the United States.
He had served the Tibetan Government in-Exile in India and was a
senior international banker in the United States (...)"
His son Wangchuk D. Shakabpa II was born in Kalimpong, India in 1967.
Tsoltim N. Shakabpa is the son of the Tibetan historian and former
statesman, Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa (1908-?1992) who wrote 'Tibet: a
political history' (New Haven : Yale University Press, 1967, 1988).
It seems T. N. Shakabpa has just published a new book, 'Recollections
of a Tibetan' (PublishAmerica, 2003), where he MAY mention mahjong.
> So we can ask what style they played...
Why not asking him!
T.N. Shakabpa
E-mail: shak...@earthlink.net
Cheers,
Thierry
Dee
> Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<e6cwueo...@toolo.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
>
> > Now to answer my own question, it appears that there may well have
> > been a substantial Mah-Jong playing community in Tibet prior to the
> > Chinese invasion. If you go to
> > http://www.ustibet.org/essays/features.html#poem%2013
> It seems T. N. Shakabpa has just published a new book, 'Recollections
> of a Tibetan' (PublishAmerica, 2003), where he MAY mention mahjong.
>
> > So we can ask what style they played...
>
> Why not asking him!
> T.N. Shakabpa
> E-mail: shak...@earthlink.net
Although we may disagree on history, the knowledge exhibited by this
group is truly unbelievable. It will be interesting if MJ is
mentioned in the books.
Steve Scott
> also justified and explained the reasoning behind them.
> Firstly, I doubt that an "explanation" for why a particular combination is
> or isn't allowable is going to help. Either the score for a lesser
> combination is built into the score for the greater combination or it isn't.
> Secondly, have you spent much time working in Asia? I have - over twenty
> years of working with Japanese game companies. One thing I've learned is
> that detailed explanations are not a part of the culture of either Japan or
> China. People don't tend to ask a lot of questions about a short bit of
> text that they are handed (even when it has some ambiguities - actually, in
> Asia, ambiguities are often seen as desirable or politically correct), so
> usually just the barest of facts are all that are written.
> The things you don't like about OIRB are not Ryan Morris' fault, and not the
> fault of the Japanese publisher, Takeshobo. All they did was take what the
> Chinese had written and present it in good English. If you have a problem
> with the book's lack of explanations, it's the fault of the Chinese authors
> who didn't bother to give any in the first place. Ryan and Takeshobo could
> hardly be expected to add stuff into the book that might not have jibed with
> the intentions of the original rules committee.
> It's possible that players in Asia are, like you, seeking clarity on which
> combinations are allowable. But I don't know if those players are
> communicating their questions back to the rules committee. (I'll come back
> to this soon.)
> You keep using the terms "suspicious" and "skeptical." I agree that the CO
> rules would benefit by clearer explanations of what combinations are and are
> not permissible, but I object to the use of negatively connotative words
> like "suspicious" and "skeptical" in regards to the rule set as a whole. In
> practice, the games last October went smoothly, and players enjoyed the
> games using these rules. The rules are suitable for international
> competition, and I don't see a necessity for, or benefit in, chopping at
> them with a lot of negative talk.
> I suppose in the future we might see an improved book on those rules, if
> only all questions about the rules were sent to the rules committee in
> China.
Tom, I don't understand why my comments about the CO rulebook bother
you so. I have made no personal attack against anyone, particulary
Ryan (who was introduced to me after I posted these questions). I said
I thought the author was confused on the "Pung of Terminals or Honors"
hand as well as Concealed/Fully Concealed Hand. Obviously the former
is wrong, and the latter seems to be yet another case of "implied"
which must be interpreted by the player. When I said "author" I did
not imply the translator. I didn't know how the rulebook was put
together, or who did it.
From this discussion, the great majority of my questions on the rules
have nothing to do with translation, but the actual rules themselves
and lack of clarity in defining what scores can and can't be combined.
Such a complicated set of rules should have a thorough explanation. I
think the rulebook in actuality is at least 95% complete, but only for
an experienced player who immediately recognizes which hands are
subsets of other hands.
You may have the good fortune of playing with geniuses, but in my
group we frequently mis-score our hands because we either combine
things that should not be combined or don't recognize elements we
should have scored. We originally reckoned scores by hand, but quickly
realized we were making too many mistakes. We then started using a
spreadsheet to calculate scores. We have recently moved to a
spreadsheet for which you type in your hand and it calculates all of
the scoring for you. From this process I am well aware of just how
complicated all of the scoring exclusions are for whatever rules you
play with.
You seem to be suggesting that errors and inaccuracies are part of the
"romance" of the game, or a part of culture, but I find these to be
strange excuses. I still insist on a concise set of rules for playing
Mahjong.
If I were to participate in the official tournament using these rules,
I can easily envision a case where I thought I had a certain score,
but my interpretation of the rules was wrong. This is a situation that
simply should not happen. I shouldn't have to interpret the rules.
They should be clear.
Tom Sloper
>Tom, I don't understand why my comments about the CO rulebook bother
>you so.
I am bothered when anyone "knocks" ANY established or widely-used set of
rules. I was bothered by my perception of the overall tone of your posts
(which used negative words like "suspicious" and "skeptical" quite a lot).
Perhaps you did not _mean_ to "knock" the CO rules, but that's the way that
I read your posts. Actually, now that I think about it, I guess I get
"bothered" whenever anybody is suspicious and skeptical in general... So
it's probably all just in my head.
Just curious - have you previously played another form of mah-jongg, and are
now learning CO? Or are you starting out with CO?
>I have made no personal attack against anyone, particulary
>Ryan (who was introduced to me after I posted these questions). I said
>I thought the author was confused on the "Pung of Terminals or Honors"
>hand .... Obviously ... wrong,
Yes, I've given Ryan grief over that one myself. (^_^) If you've seen FAQ
6, you know that the term "honors" isn't used in China. Guess they do have a
word that accomplishes the same thing, and the authors may have used it
inappropriately, and Ryan just did what he was supposed to.
>From this discussion, the great majority of my questions on the rules
>have nothing to do with translation, but the actual rules themselves
>and lack of clarity in defining what scores can and can't be combined.
>Such a complicated set of rules should have a thorough explanation. I
>think the rulebook in actuality is at least 95% complete, but only for
>an experienced player who immediately recognizes which hands are
>subsets of other hands.
I understand that. I myself have written here about this too, trying to see
what others managed to figure out. I got satisfaction on the problem, mostly
just using the notion "if the book doesn't say, use your best judgment."
>You may have the good fortune of playing with geniuses,
Wish I _could_ find folks to play CO with me here. Usually just have to play
it in Four Winds.
>but in my
>group we frequently mis-score our hands because we either combine
>things that should not be combined or don't recognize elements we
>should have scored.
I did too, at first, but I've gotten much better at it through practice.
Can't wait until the NEXT world tournament...!
>We originally reckoned scores by hand, but quickly
>realized we were making too many mistakes. We then started using a
>spreadsheet to calculate scores. We have recently moved to a
>spreadsheet for which you type in your hand and it calculates all of
>the scoring for you. From this process I am well aware of just how
>complicated all of the scoring exclusions are for whatever rules you
>play with.
Wow. You turn around, type some numbers into a computer, and tell everybody
what it comes up with? I imagine that as you practice it, you'll get better
at it and eventually not need the computer anymore.
>You seem to be suggesting that errors and inaccuracies are part of the
>"romance" of the game, or a part of culture,
(^_^) Nope. Haven't been suggesting that at all. And I'm surprised that it
seemed that way.
>If I were to participate in the official tournament using these rules,
>I can easily envision a case where I thought I had a certain score,
>but my interpretation of the rules was wrong.
In my experience at the last world tournament, this would only be a problem
if you were trying to get to 8 points the hard way (a point or two at a
time). And when dealing with those low-scoring combinations, you don't run
into those scoring exclusions. As long as you have your 8 points, the other
players at the table will keep you honest (they won't give you more points
than you actually earned, and they probably also won't hide points from you
that you did earn).
To sum it all up, your questions aren't out of line in and of themselves -
in fact, we've already been over most of them before. I probably
over-reacted to what I perceived as negativity in them. My bad.
Tom
Tom Sloper
1. FAQ 11 - Added more about Conquian and gameplay, thanks to Thierry
Depaulis.
2. FAQ 11 - Added a little about ranking in regards to the pre-1911 set
illustration, thanks to a little prodding from Michael Stanwick.
3. FAQ 12 - Deleted a non-functioning link, did a web search, and found
three to replace it.
4. FAQs 7c, 7c2 - Added the term "Schreger lines" to clarify the whole ivory
thing.
5. FAQs 2b, 3, 4a, 4b - Added link to new Wright-Patterson OWC site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive-name: mjfaq00.txt
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong; fj.rec.games.mahjong
Posting-frequency: weekly
Last-modified: June 7, 2003
Version: 2.22
<><><><><>
I. THE FAQ FILES ON THE INTERNET. WHERE THEY ARE AND WHAT'S IN THEM
The Frequently Asked Question articles are located at:
http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html
FAQ00. Introduction to Mah-Jongg Newsgroup (this article)
FAQ01. Mah-Jongg 101; Getting Started
FAQ02. How to choose a rule set to study, and how to identify which
rule set you (or your friends) are playing
FAQ03. Books on Mah-Jongg
FAQ04a Selected Websites on Mah-Jongg
FAQ04b MORE Websites on Mah-Jongg
FAQ05. Computer Mah-Jongg games
FAQ06. "Rosetta Stone" of Mah-Jongg terminology
FAQ07. ALL About Mah-Jongg Tiles:
FAQ07a Types of Mah-Jongg Sets
FAQ07b What Constitutes A Complete Set of Tiles
FAQ07c How To Identify Tile Material
FAQ07d All the Bits & Pieces
FAQ07e Those Special Tiles
FAQ07f Playing Tables
FAQ07g How Old Is My Set?
FAQ07h How Much Is It Worth?
FAQ07i Mah-Jongg Cards... and Kards
FAQ07j Tips For Buyers
FAQ07k Where To Buy (General)
FAQ07l Where To Buy (U.K.) (Moved to Gareth Saunders' site: http://
www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/mj_faq07uk.htm)
FAQ07m Where To Buy (Tokyo & Hong Kong) (NEW)
FAQ07n Tips For Sellers
FAQ07o Cleaning or Restoring Tiles
FAQ08. Strategy
FAQ09. Etiquette
FAQ10. Simplified rules for mah-jongg.
FAQ11. History of mah-jongg
FAQ12. Tile-matching software download sites
FAQ13. Rules for 1-, 2-, and 3-player games
FAQ14. The Rules On Table Rules
FAQ15. How To Find Players In Your Local Area
FAQ16. Answers to Questions About the Current NMJL Card(NEW)
FAQ17. "3 Fan" Mah-Jongg Explained
All of the FAQ articles are subject to change, and readers' comments
are welcomed.
INDEX FOR THIS FAQ*
I. THE FAQ FILES ON THE INTERNET. WHERE THEY ARE AND WHAT'S IN THEM
II. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION TO THE MAHJONG NEWSGROUPS
III. CHARTER FOR THE REC.GAMES.MAHJONG NEWSGROUP
IV. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE NEWSGROUP
*("FAQ" is short for "Frequently Asked Questions.")
Note: This FAQ is (and will remain) in text format. References to
internet URLs are not clickable. Scroll down to read this FAQ; if
viewed on the internet, use your browser's "Back" button to go back
to the page that referred you here.
<><><><><>
II. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION TO THE MAHJONG NEWSGROUPS
Welcome to the rec.games.mahjong Frequently Asked Questions. The
purpose of this article is to assist readers in finding answers to
their Mah-Jongg questions and to introduce new readers of
rec.games.mahjong to newsgroup and bulletin board etiquette. Ques-
tions and comments about this FAQ should be emailed to Tom Sloper
(tom...@sloperama.com). FAQ 0 (this article) is posted weekly at
the newsgroup. The FAQs are on the web at:
http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html
The newsgroup FAQs are on the Web (instead of being posted regularly
on the newsgroup) because
1. The FAQs are sizeable, and we wanted to be nice to the newsgroup
servers around the world.
2. "Newsfeed" is a funny, mysterious, unpredictable thing -- not
everybody's ISP provides timely access to the current postings at the
newsgroups, so sometimes a user will look at the newsgroup and not
see recent postings which other users can see there. It often
happens that someone will ask a question that's answered by the FAQs -
- we advise the asker to read the FAQs -- but the asker can't see them
even though they had just been posted a few days previously. Thus the
web version of the FAQs. The web version will not expire like
newsgroup postings do.
3. Newsgroups are becoming a lesser-known part of the internet as the
Web grows in usage, and there's a clear need to include graphics in
the FAQs.
NEWSGROUP POSTING ARCHIVES:
There once was a newsgroup archive at
http://mahjong.pathbot.com, but the site is no longer up.
Google's Newsgroups Search page (http://groups.google.com/) is an
excellent place (if not the only place now) to read old newsgroup
postings.
<><><><><>
III. CHARTER FOR THE REC.GAMES.MAHJONG NEWSGROUP
It is probably useful to reprint here the original Rationale and
Charter, written in the spring of 1997 by Zuwei Thomas Feng. These
are the texts which led to the creation of the English-language
newsgroup (news:rec.games.mahjong).
================
RATIONALE: rec.games.mahjong
The rec.games.mahjong newsgroup is for discussions and announcements
related to Mahjong, an multiplayer game that originated in China and
has widely spread to Asia, America, Europe, and other parts of the
world. Note that Mahjong is NOT the solitaire game also known as
Shanghai.
Aside from a large player base in homes, local clubs and tournaments,
there are also many people who play Mahjong with computer software.
In particular, since the Internet Mahjong Server went on-line, it has
attracted more than 1,000 players who came from different Mahjong
communities.
Mahjong is becoming a more visible international phenomenon. The
first international Mahjong tournament to be held this year, will
bring together top-notch Mahjong players from around the world and
hopes to bring to Mahjong participation and prestige of games like
Bridge, Chess, and Go. Such efforts will naturally be welcomed by
Mahjong fans everywhere, and discussion of Mahjong rules, playing
styles and skills will be key to their success.
Mailing lists for various local Mahjong clubs and the Internet server
already exist. Creating a big mailing list would however create too
much traffic and scare off people who just want to participate in
casual discussion.
Popular games such as Bridge, Chess, and Go all have their respective
newsgroups. Mahjong is arguably as popular as these games, and still
gaining momentum. Unfortunately, there is no group within the
rec.games hierarchy in which Mahjong postings are appropriate.
[END RATIONALE.]
CHARTER: rec.games.mahjong
Rec.games.mahjong is an unmoderated group for the discussion and
announcements related to Mahjong and its variations. There is no
"standard Mahjong", so all versions, including Chinese, Japanese,
Jewish, the Taiwan 16-tile variant, and some 3-player variants, etc,
are covered by the group. The group welcomes all postings of the
following kinds:
1. Discussions of Mahjong rules, play, and strategy.
2. Announcements of club meetings and tournaments.
3. Advertisements of Mahjong related products, with a repost frequency
of at most once every month.
4. Private "for sale" or "want to buy" notices, with a repost
frequency of at most once every month.
The group accepts NO binary postings.
END CHARTER.
================
So here we are, some years later, enjoying the existence of the
English-language mah-jongg newsgroup (news:rec.games.mahjong) and its
Japanese-language counterpart (news:fj.rec.games.mahjong) as places
where we can discuss all things mah-jongg.
<><><><><>
IV. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THIS NEWSGROUP
The rec.games.mahjong newsgroup is generally friendly. However, new
readers are well advised to familiarize themselves with the normal
practices on the group before posting. Certain types of postings
frequently pop up -- and some of them sometimes can cause flaring
tempers and flame-o-grams.
o The best type of posting is a question about rules or strategies of
Mah-Jongg. The question "Teach me the rules of Mah-Jongg" is way too
broad -- read the FAQs and find out where you can learn the rules of
whatever type of Mah-Jongg you're interested in learning. Rather, the
best type of posting is a question about a fine point of the rules that
may not be clear in your rule book. For example, "West drew the 4th
tile to make a Kong, took a loose tile from the back of the Wall, and
discarded it. Isn't there supposed to be a bonus of some kind if
another player can win on that tile? We play by the Whitney rules of
Classical Japanese." That last part is important. The rule can be
completely different depending on which game you play! But now I'm
getting into the next point.
o Frequently someone will post a question about a particular rule of
Mah-Jongg, without specifying which version of MJ they play. There
isn't just one rulebook for Mah-Jongg -- it's played in many different
ways all around the world. So the first batch of responses invariably
is like a shotgun blast, with many of the pellets missing the mark.
Before posting a question, it would be best to read the FAQs and
identify your "flavor" of Mah-Jongg, if you are unsure. Then when
writing the question, specify which rulebook or game your question
is about. We have regulars who play all the major varieties of MJ,
and somebody will gladly field your question. We will even discuss
how the same situation is handled differently in other varieties
of MJ -- we enjoy confusing newbies!
o Another typical type of posting is when someone reads an answer to
a MJ question, and posts a reply asking why such an answer was given.
The answer is invariably, "Because those are the rules under that way
of playing." There isn't just one rulebook for Mah-Jongg -- it's
played in many different ways all around the world. Rules don't need
to be explained (there probably /is/ a good reason why a rule was
made, but the rule was probably made a very long time ago, and the
people who made the rule are either dead or don't frequent this
newsgroup).
o Bad tempers can result if you post the suggestion that the rules
of [some flavor or other of] Mah-Jongg are stupid and should be
changed. If you have a regular play group, that is the place to
make the rule changes! People all around the world play Mah-Jongg
in many different ways. You can make your table rules be whatever
your regular group can agree to -- but you're not going to get all
the players all around the world to change to your way of thinking!
Some group regulars might get mad at you -- they're perfectly
happy with their way of playing.
o Many players post messages looking for players in their area.
There's no harm in making such posts, and by all means go ahead, but
in the majority of cases it's not as effective as posting at
http://www.sloperama.com/majexchange/findplayer.htm (after you read
all the posts there yourself to see if someone from your area has
already posted). See FAQ 15.
o A very frequent type of post is along the lines of, "I'm looking
for places to buy tiles, or sell tiles. . ." or "I got an antique set
when my Aunt Fannie died, how much is it worth?" -- Please read
FAQ 7 before you post.
o Please don't post off-topic messages. We at this newsgroup are
interested in discussing the game of Mah-Jongg, or games played with
Mah-Jongg tiles, only. There are other newsgroups for the discussion
of other games and other topics.
o Posts that purport to be about "Mah-Jongg" but are actually about
a computer solitaire tile-matching game (such as "Shanghai," or a
program similar to Shanghai). Before you post, make sure you know
the difference between "solitaire mah-jongg" and "true mah-jongg."
Both are games played with mah-jongg tiles, but they are very
different games. One is mah-jongg, and the other is not (regardless
of what the program may be named). Think of the game of Shanghai
(or games similar to it) as "Solitaire," and the game of Mah-Jongg
as "Gin Rummy." Consider: Poker is not Bridge. If this newsgroup
was all about Bridge and you started posting about Poker, you would
(naturally) not get a friendly response. This newsgroup's Charter
(reprinted at the top of this FAQ) does not expressly forbid the
posting of messages about MJ tile-matching games, but the Rationale
which accompanied the Charter expressly and rightly declares that
those games are "NOT mah-jongg." Therefore be aware that if you
post about such games, it is arguable that you are posting off-topic.
Off-topic posts are unwelcome in all newsgroups. Appropriate
discussions about fun uses of MJ tiles (or a knowledgeable com-
parative study of the various games played with MJ tiles, even
including the tile-matching games) might be accepted as not too off-
topic, but you should be prepared for an overheated response if you
post only to brag of your high score or best time in a tile-matching
program (especially if you call that game by the generic name "mah-
jongg" when the group regulars know it's /not/ mah-jongg). Such
messages might be better posted at news:rec.games.computer.puzzle
instead. (This is no guarantee that the crossword puzzle fans at
that other newsgroup will appreciate your bragging any better than
the mahjong newsgroup regulars do... (^_^) )
o "I have computer MJ game X and I'm having this technical
problem..." -- This type of posting is not interesting for the members
of the group, and will not get you the info you need as quickly as if
you contacted the makers (publisher) of the game directly. If you
have a technical question about a computer game, contact the makers
(publisher) of the game directly. You can find out how to contact
them via the About box in the game, or from the info in the printed
manual. You can find the maker/publisher's website and get the Email
address there. Send detailed info about your computer, the
version you have, and what the problem is. The typical "message from
hell" goes like this: "Hey what gives, MJPro doesn't work on my
computer, HELLPP!!" . . . Come on, what's anybody gonna do with that??
-- User didn't tell what specific MJPro game [full title and version
#] the user has -- user didn't say if s/he has a Macintosh or Windows
3.1 or Windows 98 or what -- and "doesn't work" could mean anything!
"The colors are weird" is totally different from "this game only comes
on CD, and my computer only has a floppy drive." Be specific. The
maker/publisher needs clues in order to help you, and only you can
provide them.
o People occasionally find a reason to post a picture to illustrate a
question. This is a BIG no-no! Do NOT post any pictures here. This
newsgroup's charter expressly forbids the posting of binaries (all
picture files and sound files and movie files are "binaries" in
newsgroup parlance). You could always Email a picture to someone who
can look at it and answer your question. Don't Email raw BMP files,
either -- convert them to JPG or ZIP format before Emailing.
o One of the entertaining pastimes of newsgroups is "flaming", where
posters publicly insult each other in terms that they might not use if
meeting face to face. If you have been flamed, please don't take it
personally, and PLEASE don't start a real flame war over it. Just
remember that people at keyboards are sometimes more feisty than they
might be face to face. We don't have netcops like those found in
other Usenet groups -- don't make us go there!
o What you should do before you post a question:
- If you haven't read the articles that are regularly posted to
the newsgroup news.announce.newusers, please do so. You will
learn about some general rules and principles that apply to
virtually all newsgroups, like a ban on posting most binary
files and MIME attachments, and sending email instead of posting
if your message is intended only for one person.
- Read the newsgroup for at least a week (reading for some time
before posting is proper etiquette for ANY Usenet newsgroup.
If you didn't realize that, all the more reason for you to go
back and read news.announce.newusers).
- Know the difference between mah-jongg and solitaire tile-
matching games. Don't say "mah-jongg" if you actually mean a
tile-matching game.
- Be aware that posting in newsgroups can cause you to start
receiving unwanted junk Email. But if you put a "nospam" filter
in your Email address, others have to be smart in order to Email
you in response. You have to decide what to do.
- Read the other FAQs. See section I...
<><><><><>
(C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Tom Sloper. All rights reserved.
tarot
>>-Can All Pungs be combined with All Terminals?
>
>
> No, because All Terminals implies All Pungs.
Neither All Pungs nor All Terminals imply All Pungs, because
there is the possibility of the Seven Pairs hand. Or are
Seven Pair hands not eligible for these? That would be
hugely inconsistent, when Seven Pair hands are eligible for
Pure One-Suit etc.
>>-Why can All Chows be combined with Quadruple Chow?
>
> Because it is not implied. If I make Quadruple Chow
> with a head of EE, then I have not made All Chows (=All Chows
> can not include any Honors)
One complaint I have always had with CO rules is that, often
a pattern "implies" either of two pattnerns. In this case,
Quadruple Chow implies either All Chow or Mixed One-Suit.
The rules sometimes count both patterns, but sometimes count
one and not the other (All Green -> Mixed/Pure One-Suit, etc.).
There may be cases that neither is counted, too. This is
inconsistent and messy.
>>-Can Self-drawn be combined with Out with Replacement Tile?
>
>
> No. It is implied. Fully Concealed can be combined, since it is
> not implied.
Another complaint I have with the CO rules is the logic behind not
counting "implied" patterns. The stated logic is that, the points
for the implied pattern has already been included in the implying
pattern. (Not that I see good balance among the pattern values
in CO, but that's another topic.) But when two patterns which both
imply the same lesser pattern are both scored in a hand, the implied
pattern is, according to this logic, actually counted twice in the total
score. In this case, if the logic is that Fully Concealed has included
the point for self-draw and Out with Replacement Tile has included
the point for self-draw, then when both patterns are scored,
the "included" point for self-draw has been counted twice.
>>-Why aren't Single Wait, Closed Wait, and Edge Wait combined into one
>>hand, such as 'One Option'?
>
> I recommend this change. I think they should all be called Single Wait.
> But every serious Mahjong player is going to have a lot of opinions
> about how to change these rules. The question is whether we are
> better off, as a community, by requesting changes of these rules,
> or standing behind them and presenting them to the world.
This case should definitely be changed IMO, because the current naming
itself is confusing and logically inconsistent with the actual
definition of the pattern. The point is being awarded for a one-way
wait, not for a eye/middle/edge wait as these can be combined with
other waits and be more than one-way (e.g. 1112, waiting for 2 and 3).
If the point is being awarded for a one-way wait, why not call it a
one-way wait but instead call it by things which do not necessarily
qualify for the pattern?
If you call the pattern by Single Wait, Closed Wait, and Edge Wait,
that means you're contrasting it with Two-End Wait and Two-Pung Wait
(Two-Pair Wait), which would not qualify for the pattern.
But a wait such as 1112 is neither Two-End nor Two-Pung, so
why doesn't it qualify? If you call it by One-Way Wait, that
means you are contrasting it with Multi-Way Wait, and the
meaning is clear: 1112 is obviously a two-way wait.
--
"Live life with Heart."
Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews)
Tarot Games Hong Kong : http://www.tghk.com
Steve Scott
> now learning CO? Or are you starting out with CO?
I started with CC (the general rulebook included in every set I've
bought). We were reaching a point with CC where everyone was going for
a big score and would get upset if anyone went out quick, so I desired
to expand our ruleset. I heard about CO, and we tried it, but the
general consensus was to not use it. I ended up deriving a new ruleset
that builds on the CC structure with patterns and other "new" scoring
methods, and designed it to not over-reward small hands. I'm now
working on a ruleset with no doubles, which ends up being somewhat
similar to CO, but still significantly different.
From the beginning I've been creating my own rule book, first due to
the poor translation of the books included in sets, and then in
attempts to improve the balance and excitement of play. I like the
idea of having one standard set of rules for the game, and I'd like to
see CO become that. That's why I want the book to not be ambiguous.
There are still some questions about the balance of the current CO
system, and this may have to be addressed if it is to become the
"standard".
> Wow. You turn around, type some numbers into a computer, and tell everybody
> what it comes up with? I imagine that as you practice it, you'll get better
> at it and eventually not need the computer anymore.
No, actually the opposite. Just like how in school once I started
using a calculator I forgot how to do math on paper. My brother and I
are programmers, and it's only natural we would develop an automated
way to keep score. The complexities of keeping score are one of the
arguments used against most mahjong rule sets. Using a computer to
calculate your scores allows you to focus on playing the game. You
don't waste as much time calculating your score, and you don't make as
many mistakes.
> To sum it all up, your questions aren't out of line in and of themselves -
> in fact, we've already been over most of them before. I probably
> over-reacted to what I perceived as negativity in them. My bad.
No problem at all Tom. I would definitely categorize my comments as
being critical of the CO rule book, but that's just because I want it
to be thorough. I certainly don't have any agenda against anyone. I'd
like for the CO rules to be adopted by all mahjong players, but they
are lacking a professionalism and thoroughness to serve that purpose
IMO. There is also some question of the balance of scoring in these
rules, but there are others that are more qualified than me to address
this.
tarot
> No problem at all Tom. I would definitely categorize my comments as
> being critical of the CO rule book, but that's just because I want it
> to be thorough. I certainly don't have any agenda against anyone. I'd
> like for the CO rules to be adopted by all mahjong players, but they
> are lacking a professionalism and thoroughness to serve that purpose
> IMO.
No surprise, since it is nothing more than somebody's table rules
being forced upon everyone else.
> There is also some question of the balance of scoring in these
> rules, but there are others that are more qualified than me to address
> this.
If they don't at least fix the major and gross bugs such as the crazy
self-draw bonus, I can't see how it can become acceptable as an
international (or even regional) "standard".
Tom Sloper
>>
>>We were reaching a point with CC where everyone was going for
>>a big score and would get upset if anyone went out quick,
Which is precisely what caused the original mah-jongg wars in the 1920s. CC
split up into "the mixed hand game" (pure "chicken" CC), "the cleared hand
game" (clean/pure only), and "the one double game" (1 fan). And which is
precisely what goes on every day at Yahoo, where 3-fan is now the nearly
universal rule.
>>The complexities of keeping score are one of the
>>arguments used against most mahjong rule sets.
No argument there. The major variants with the simplest scoring systems are
(IMO) New Style, CO, and American.
>>I like the
>>idea of having one standard set of rules for the game,
Well, I'm not so sure that's a desirable thing myself.
>>and ... I'd
>>like for the CO rules to be adopted by all mahjong players, but they
>>are lacking a professionalism and thoroughness to serve that purpose
>>IMO. There is also some question of the balance of scoring in these
>>rules, but there are others that are more qualified than me to address
>>this.
In fact, although I usually come to the defense of any major rule set that
comes under attack, I don't think any of them are perfect. To make one that
was perfectly balanced would require a mathematical mind, such as that of...
Alan "Live life with Heart" Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
>
>it is nothing more than somebody's table rules
>being forced upon everyone else.
>
>If they don't at least fix the major and gross bugs such as the crazy
>self-draw bonus, I can't see how it can become acceptable as an
>international (or even regional) "standard".
Well, the way I see it, mah-jongg players have to be flexible - that's the
nature of the game, no matter which variant you play. You have to adopt a
"bend with the wind" philosophy into your strategy, not as the main tenet of
it, but as an important guideline which can't be routinely ignored without
peril. So too with variants. While I'm coming to see that the CO rules have
some silly "beginners' joy of discovery" patterns (which I thought was a
spot-on observation seen here on the NG recently), and while I too decried
the lack of clarity in which ones could and couldn't be combined (I even
complained about the vagueness of the term "implied"), I enjoy the CO game
for its simple scoring, the inherent fun of even some of the silly patterns
(hey, I mean even other variants have silly patterns), and if those rules
are being used at a tournament, then I want to be there.
I sometimes toy with the idea of working out "the perfect rules" for
mah-jongg. But I'm not a math-oriented designer. I would probably find it
difficult to omit a silly pattern of my own devising, and I'm sure I would
find a lot of strongly opinionated people who would object to other things
in my "perfect" rules too. Maybe someday, but I don't feel the need...
(^_^)
Tom
Martin Rep
Morris) wrote:
>
>****Any hand that is implied is not counted****
>
>This means that if you achieve a hand, and a less-valued hand is
>included by definition, then that value of the less-valued hand
>has been included in the higher-valued hand and therefore is not
>counted.
>
>I think that 95% of your questions can be answered by a reconsideration
>with this "implication" rule in mind. Admittedly, there are stickier
>cases that are defined more by rulings rather than overarching
>logic (Seven Pairs not combining with All Types is an example - will
>explain later).
>
I have not much commented on the rules anymore, since these answers of
Ryans have clarified much of the discussion about the CO rules. IMO
this starting-point should go for any mahjong variant. E.g. the other
day, while playing HKMJ for Windows, one of my opponents scored a
Pearl Dragon (a hand we leave out when playing HKMJ for People), and
was rewarded like this (the hand being Wh-Wh-Wh, B2-B2-B2, B7-B7-B7,
B6-B6-B6, B4-B4):
all pong ... 3 **
semi pure ... 3 **
tsumo ... 1
pearl dragon ... 7
dragon (pong) ... 1 **
flowers ... 1
(the limit in the game is 3 laak = 10 fan)
I would say the game should not have rewarded the combinations that I
have marked with **, since the definition of Pearl Dragon is: Pong of
White Dragons and Three Pongs and a Head of Circles/Balls
The same should go for Chinese Classical games, where often Going our
with the Head is rewarded with 2 pts, plus 2 pts for Only possible
tile.
Some remarks/questions concerning CO:
- Has this discussion helped Ryan Morris in preparing a new edition of
the English (and Japanese) booklet of the CO rules? This might avoid a
lot of discussion on the next WCMJ (and the 2004/2005 ECMJ ;-)
- Alan Kwan objects the high bonus for tsumo (self-drawn). Of course
he has a right to ride his hobby horse - and he does so
well-documentedly -, but I think you need a lot of courage *not* to go
out on a discarded tile but wait instead until you draw it from the
wall yourself. This deserves a real reward.
- I would like to suggest to the readers of this NG to *really* try
out the CO rules. After a while you probably will enjoy them. They
combine the possibility of scoring nice combinations (most players of
CC-games like that) with the simplicity of the counting system of HKMJ
(only the winner is rewarded). You do not have to give up the rules
that you like the most, but CO will guarantee you a thrilling,
'different' night of mahjong every now and them.
Thanks to FourWinds Mahjong 2.0 everyone can practice the rules
easily. If anyone here would like start an online CO-game on a regular
base, please count me in ;-)
tarot
> - Alan Kwan objects the high bonus for tsumo (self-drawn). Of course
> he has a right to ride his hobby horse - and he does so
> well-documentedly -, but I think you need a lot of courage *not* to go
> out on a discarded tile but wait instead until you draw it from the
> wall yourself. This deserves a real reward.
1. This is just a pure gamble. It's okay in a gambling house,
but in a tournament which is supposed to be a contest of skill?
2. As you correctly accessed, passing a winning tile is very
risky and such risk is not often taken; one usually goes out at
the first opportunity. Thus, self-draw is really a matter of pure
luck, with the winner's decision playing no part. Or rather,
it is a result of his opponnents' skillful defensive play: if
the opponents don't discard the winning tile for him, and he
gets lucky, he gets self-draw and the large payoff. This is
obviously undesirable in a tournament which is supposed to be
a contest of skill, and directly contradicts the very intent of
the "discarder-pays-for-all" system (which is to reward good
"defensive" play).
3. Having a random luck factor which hugely affects the
payoff undermines the purpose of a complex system with many
patterns. It feels disappointing (and this is reflected in the
final results too) to complete an elegant pattern hand by
winning on a discard, when a hand with much weaker patterns
can get paid as much or more by winning on a self-draw.
4. It is questionable whether self-draw inflation is really
a /proper/ element in the mahjong tradition, despite that it's
common. I have elaborated this historical argument many times
already.
Tom Sloper
>
>1. [high bonus for tsumo (self-drawn)] is just a pure gamble. It's okay
in a gambling house,
>but in a tournament which is supposed to be a contest of skill?
>
>2. As you correctly accessed, passing a winning tile is very
>risky and such risk is not often taken; one usually goes out at
>the first opportunity. Thus, self-draw is really a matter of pure
>luck, with the winner's decision playing no part. Or rather,
>it is a result of his opponnents' skillful defensive play: if
>the opponents don't discard the winning tile for him, and he
>gets lucky, he gets self-draw and the large payoff. This is
>obviously undesirable in a tournament which is supposed to be
>a contest of skill, and directly contradicts the very intent of
>the "discarder-pays-for-all" system (which is to reward good
>"defensive" play).
>
>3. Having a random luck factor which hugely affects the
>payoff undermines the purpose of a complex system with many
>patterns. It feels disappointing (and this is reflected in the
>final results too) to complete an elegant pattern hand by
>winning on a discard, when a hand with much weaker patterns
>can get paid as much or more by winning on a self-draw.
>
>4. It is questionable whether self-draw inflation is really
>a /proper/ element in the mahjong tradition, despite that it's
>common. I have elaborated this historical argument many times
>already.
As always, I am impressed by the strength and elegance of Alan's logic.
Cheers,
Tom
Ryan C. Morris
> From: tarot <ta...@netvigator.com>
> >
> >1. [high bonus for tsumo (self-drawn)] is just a pure gamble. It's okay
> in a gambling house,
> >but in a tournament which is supposed to be a contest of skill?
> >
I am also a vocal advocator of altering the Int'l Rules
tsumo inflation.
However, it is certainly not a "pure gamble".
Any players out there who can guess what I'm getting at?
> >2. As you correctly accessed, passing a winning tile is very
> >risky and such risk is not often taken; one usually goes out at
> >the first opportunity.
This is true only for the early-mid game. It happens all the
time late game, especially last hand.
> >Thus, self-draw is really a matter of pure
> >luck, with the winner's decision playing no part. Or rather,
> >it is a result of his opponnents' skillful defensive play: if
> >the opponents don't discard the winning tile for him, and he
> >gets lucky, he gets self-draw and the large payoff.
I agree that inflated Tsumo dicourages defensive play to a
frustrating degree.
Cheers,
Ryan C. Morris
hands, and for each hand, list every other hand
> -Why can One Voided Suit be combined with Big Three Winds while Half
> Flush cannot?
I looked into this, and the ruling is:
==When 1 of 2 hands is guaranteed by a pattern, then the achieved
pattern is counted==
Examples:
1. All Types: Pung of Wind or Pung of Dragon will occur by definition
(at minimum). The points for these hands are counted.
2. Little Three Dragons/Big Three Dragons:
One Voided Suit or Half Flush will occur.
Whichever does is counted.
3. Big Three Winds: Ditto.
4. Four Shifted Chows/Quadruple Chow/Four Shifted Pungs: Ditto.
Also, regarding All Green:
It seems that Full Flush and All Simples is combined with this
hand.
Regards,
Ryan C. Morris
> I am also a vocal advocator of altering the Int'l Rules
> tsumo inflation.
>
That's advocate ^^
Ryan
J. R. Fitch
> while playing HKMJ for Windows, one of my opponents scored a
> Pearl Dragon (a hand we leave out when playing HKMJ for People), and
> was rewarded like this (the hand being Wh-Wh-Wh, B2-B2-B2, B7-B7-B7,
> B6-B6-B6, B4-B4):
>
> all pong ... 3 **
> semi pure ... 3 **
> tsumo ... 1
> pearl dragon ... 7
> dragon (pong) ... 1 **
> flowers ... 1
> (the limit in the game is 3 laak = 10 fan)
>
> I would say the game should not have rewarded the combinations that I
> have marked with **, since the definition of Pearl Dragon is: Pong of
> White Dragons and Three Pongs and a Head of Circles/Balls
Since Pearl Dragon (rightly or wrongly) is pre-defined in HKMJ as a Limit Hand, there are
two ways to handle the scoring: either do it as 10 fan and block the other additions, or
do as 7 fan so that the total will always be 10 or more. It seems more consistent to do it
as 7 fan, but I can understand that on the surface it may appear to conflict with the *Any
hand that is implied is not counted* rule.
--
J. R. Fitch
Nine Dragons Software
San Francisco, CA USA
http://www.ninedragons.com
415-664-3474 voice
415-564-3161 fax
Martin Rep
<jrf...@ninedragons.com> wrote:
>Martin Rep wrote:
>
>
>Since Pearl Dragon (rightly or wrongly) is pre-defined in HKMJ as a Limit Hand, there are
>two ways to handle the scoring: either do it as 10 fan and block the other additions, or
>do as 7 fan so that the total will always be 10 or more. It seems more consistent to do it
>as 7 fan, but I can understand that on the surface it may appear to conflict with the *Any
>hand that is implied is not counted* rule.
Come on Julian, make us a HKMJ4W v 2.0 where we can define (or leave
out) some hands. E.g. I would love to make the Hidden Treasure at
least once in my lifetime with your game.
Greetz
J. R. Fitch
> Come on Julian, make us a HKMJ4W v 2.0 where we can define (or leave
> out) some hands. E.g. I would love to make the Hidden Treasure at
> least once in my lifetime with your game.
Any other requests?
Cofa Tsui
news:3F2A8561...@ninedragons.com...
> Martin Rep wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> Since Pearl Dragon (rightly or wrongly) is pre-defined in HKMJ as a Limit
Hand, there are
> two ways to handle the scoring: either do it as 10 fan and block the other
additions, or
> do as 7 fan so that the total will always be 10 or more. It seems more
consistent to do it
> as 7 fan, but I can understand that on the surface it may appear to
conflict with the *Any
> hand that is implied is not counted* rule.
Hi Julian,
My understanding of the HKOS scoring system is that any "Score Elements" can
be added to a winning hand unless it is defined as a Special Winning Hand
("Limit Hand"), or unless it specifically stated that certain named Elements
are excluded.
*Any hand that is implied is not counted* doesn't seem to be part of HKOS?
Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
tarot
> Response to Scott's question:
> hands, and for each hand, list every other hand
>
>
>>-Why can One Voided Suit be combined with Big Three Winds while Half
>>Flush cannot?
>
>
> I looked into this, and the ruling is:
>
> ==When 1 of 2 hands is guaranteed by a pattern, then the achieved
> pattern is counted==
>
If only this "rule" is really universally applied ... (sigh)
The unfortunate fact is, this rule is applied in about *half*
of the cases.