IMJ Archives - 015 <<Return to Archives Index Page

A discussion about World Unified Mahjong
by Cofa Tsui (Aug 2006)


The original page of this topic was created in February 1999 in which the content (collection of messages) was quite "selective". I have now redone the page for this topic by regrouping "ALL" messages that were displayed following a recent search of the mahjong newsgroup at the Google site - see "REMARKS" at the beginning of the reproduced messages below. The original page of this topic is now named "Archives 015a".


========================================
REMARKS: Below is a re-grouping of messages from a search result performed on Aug 14, 2006 (search using Google with the string "World-unified mahjong discussion" within the mahjong newsgroup). For a list of the search result click here.
========================================


[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) -
Initial message: 1999-02-16 / Collection date: 2006-08-14 / Archive file: maiarchives015]



1 From: panda63 - view profile
Date: Tues, Feb 16 1999 12:00 am
Email: pand...@my-dejanews.com
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

COFA TSUI wrote:

<CLIP>
I am just curious how many of you are in favour of
a world-unified form of mahjong play? (Note:
World-unified is in general, not necessarily
referred to any named form or style of play.)

By "world-unified form," are you refering to a
standardized form of mah-jong?

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

2 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Wed, Feb 17 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <7abvla$no...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

pand...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> COFA TSUI wrote:
> <CLIP>
> I am just curious how many of you are in favour of
> a world-unified form of mahjong play? (Note:
> World-unified is in general, not necessarily
> referred to any named form or style of play.)

> By "world-unified form," are you refering to a
> standardized form of mah-jong?

***Yap, kind of. "World-unified form" means one standardized form for the
whole world, not just for any particular region or game play. I know there is
not yet one. I am just curious how many out there are in favour of the
concept.

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply



========================================
Below is the beginning of a separate insertion
========================================


1 From: panda63 - view profile
Date: Wed, Feb 17 1999 12:00 am
Email: pand...@my-dejanews.com
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

My next question then, (in regards to world unified form) is "to what
purpose?" I have read through your web site, Mr Tsui, and I see your
position, but why should we limit ourselves to one version? Isn't "variety
the spice of life?" Mah-Jongg is no longer a single game, but a family of
games, much as rummy is not a game, but several. Everyone has there favorite
versions of rummy; myself I like gin- and 500-rummy. I would hate to be
limited to only one form of Rummy. The same holds true for Mah-Jongg -
everyone has a favorite version. I myself prefer "Chinese" style with a few
"westernized" rules thrown in; others prefer the NMJL rules, "Japanese"
style, "Wright-Patterson" rules, etc. Which is best? Personal choice. IMHO,
standardization is not a reality, at least in the sense of a "world-unified"
form. NMJL is standardized, Wright-Patterson is standardized. Who's
"standard" shall we use? Theirs? Yours? Mine? Now, (again, IMHO) I do think
there should be a form of "basic" Mah-Jongg that beginers can learn before
graduating to the more "advance styles." When I teach novices the game, I
concentrate on the basics of "four sets and a pair," and wait until that is
mastered before introducing other concepts, such as doubles, limit hands,
etc., and this works quite well. But as for one "official" version, I say
lets not limit ourselves.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

2 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Wed, Feb 17 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

***I have made it a very clear point in my initial question - no specific
name or form of mahjong play should be referred to, just to avoid
misunderstanding - you know. My answering any question of this type is also
based on this principle.

In article <7ae74j$mo...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

pand...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> My next question then, (in regards to world unified form) is "to what
> purpose?"

***The way I see the matter is ambitious. The purposes of a world-unified form
of mahjong could be, however, basic:-
- To meet the world;
- To communicate;
- To further develop.

I have read through your web site, Mr Tsui, and I see your

> position, but why should we limit ourselves to one version?

***My position has nothing to do with this type of question and answer (see
statement at the beginning). As to "why should we limit ourselves to one
version?" Well, whether one version would limit us or explore ourselves, is of
different point of views. One can play one version with one's another three
friends. But with a unified version, one can play with people from the whole
city, or the whole nation, or the whole world.

Isn't "variety

> the spice of life?"

***Yes! But a unified version serves different purposes (see above). We may
perhaps view the question from the other end. People may learn and play a
unified version, but when it comes to private and personal, the four players
may add whatever spices to the play!

Mah-Jongg is no longer a single game, but a family of

> games, much as rummy is not a game, but several. Everyone has there favorite
> versions of rummy; myself I like gin- and 500-rummy. I would hate to be
> limited to only one form of Rummy.

***I have very little knowledge about rummy. From the way you describe it, I
would say the development of rummy has the same kind of problems of that of
mahjong. We all know and recognize mahjong is a great game. However, the way
it was initially propagated or spread throughout the world was a misfortune.
Should mahjong be introduced to other parts of the world in one unified form
in the early of the century, its developments today could be much much more
brilliant! Again, a unified form of play won't hinder anyone from developing
one's own form of play.

The same holds true for Mah-Jongg -

> everyone has a favorite version. I myself prefer "Chinese" style with a few
> "westernized" rules thrown in; others prefer the NMJL rules, "Japanese"
> style, "Wright-Patterson" rules, etc. Which is best? Personal choice.
IMHO,
> standardization is not a reality, at least in the sense of a "world-unified"
> form. NMJL is standardized, Wright-Patterson is standardized. Who's
> "standard" shall we use? Theirs? Yours? Mine?

***Whether a world-unified form of mahjong is reality, is again depending on
how you see to it. You already quoted several standardized forms of mahjong.
Do you play NMJLxxx mahjong? Does he play NMJLkkk mahjong? Or, does NMJLooo
even exist? Is NMJL unified?

***Why NMJL is developing well? Because, IMO, it is standardized. People
playing it can communicate well, can further develop it according to the set
standards, and other people have no problem understanding the new
developments! IMO, NMJL is a good example of a form or a stage of the
/development/ of the ideal world-unified form of mahjong. Therefore, IMO, a
world-unified form of mahjong could be reality, its just a matter of time!

Now, (again, IMHO) I do think

> there should be a form of "basic" Mah-Jongg that beginers can learn before
> graduating to the more "advance styles." When I teach novices the game, I
> concentrate on the basics of "four sets and a pair," and wait until that is
> mastered before introducing other concepts, such as doubles, limit hands,
> etc., and this works quite well. But as for one "official" version, I say
> lets not limit ourselves.

***The way you teach the beginners is great - it works well too if a
world-unified form of mahjong does exist. The advantages for the beginners if
they learn a world-unified form could, then, be that the beginners could play,
communicate and further develop the game with people from all over the world.
(Yes, I know, the world-unified form is yet to come!)

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9217a.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply



========================================
Below is the beginning of a separate insertion
========================================


1 From: panda63 - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 19 1999 12:00 am
Email: pand...@my-dejanews.com
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <7af0tl$d7...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
wrote:> ***I have made it a very clear point in my initial question - no
specific> name or form of mahjong play should be referred to, just to avoid>
misunderstanding - you know. My answering any question of this type is also>
based on this principle.Generic Mahjong?<<clip>>> ***I have very little
knowledge about rummy. From the way you describe it, I> would say the
development of rummy has the same kind of problems of that of mahjong. I
mention rummy as mahjong is played fllowng the same principles. Mahjong is a
form of rummy played with tiles.> We all know and recognize mahjong is a
great game. However, the way> it was initially propagated or spread
throughout the world was a misfortune.I agree - it was the multiplicity of
rules that game-historians (if there are such people) credit with the decline
of mahjong's popularity after its introduction in the 20s> Should mahjong be
introduced to other parts of the world in one unified form> in the early of
the century, its developments today could be much much more> brilliant!
Again, a unified form of play won't hinder anyone from developing> one's own
form of play.<<clip>> > ***Why NMJL is developing well? Because, IMO, it is
standardized. People> playing it can communicate well, can further develop it
according to the set> standards, and other people have no problem
understanding the new> developments! IMO, NMJL is a good example of a form or
a stage of the> /development/ of the ideal world-unified form of mahjong.
Therefore, IMO, a> world-unified form of mahjong could be reality, its just a
matter of time!> > ***The way you teach the beginners is great - it works
well too if a> world-unified form of mahjong does exist. The advantages for
the beginners if> they learn a world-unified form could, then, be that the
beginners could play,> communicate and further develop the game with people
from all over the world.> (Yes, I know, the world-unified form is y

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

D'oh!
2 From: panda behr - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 19 1999 12:00 am
Email: pand...@webtv.net (panda behr)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

My appologies to everyone. Somehow, my last post was goofed. Allow me
to try again - this time via webtv.

My point that was so beautifully mangled in the previous posting was
this: Whereas I think a standard form a mahjong would be wonderful, it
brings up two questions (at least in my mind)

1) What rules become the standard? Or do we create a new set of rules
for this purpose?

2) How do we get everyone to adopt the "standard" - and by everyone, I
do mean EVERYONE. Unless ALL mahjong players adopt it, it is not
"universal" and becomes just another style of mah-jong.

I am having problems seeing how World-Unified Rules can become a
reality.

~panda behr
pand...@excite.com

(The opinions expressed herein are my own, not those of pandas
worldwide)

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

3 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 20 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <17179-36CD5D2...@newsd-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
pand...@webtv.net (panda behr) wrote:

> My appologies to everyone. Somehow, my last post was goofed. Allow me
> to try again - this time via webtv.

> My point that was so beautifully mangled in the previous posting was
> this: Whereas I think a standard form a mahjong would be wonderful, it
> brings up two questions (at least in my mind)

> 1) What rules become the standard? Or do we create a new set of rules
> for this purpose?

***I would be interested in seeing answers from anyone.

> 2) How do we get everyone to adopt the "standard" - and by everyone, I
> do mean EVERYONE. Unless ALL mahjong players adopt it, it is not
> "universal" and becomes just another style of mah-jong.

***The most popular, or most frequently mentioned, forms of mahjong play in
this newsgroup are (as far as I can recall): - Chinese Classical (from the
book of Millington); - Hong Kong Old Style/Cantonese Style (from books not so
popular as Millington's); - NMJL; - Taiwanese 16 tile mahjong; - Japanese
mahjong. (If I missed any style, please correct me.)

***How did people get to adopt these standards (too bad these are too many
standards instead of just one unified standard)? Perhaps the way how people
in the past have learned to play mahjong under these standards, may give a
hint how everyone would adopt to a unified form of play in the future.

***The essential elements a standard may be widely accepted, IMO, should
include the following:

- A complete and full set of rules;

- Enough time and money to promote it.

> I am having problems seeing how World-Unified Rules can become a
> reality.

***I think the problems are not in the world-unified rules itself. The
problems are how someone could spend such time and money to promote it.

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9219a.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

4 From: Alan Kwan - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 20 1999 12:00 am
Email: t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:12:49 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote:
>In article <17179-36CD5D2...@newsd-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> pand...@webtv.net (panda behr) wrote:
>> My appologies to everyone. Somehow, my last post was goofed. Allow me
>> to try again - this time via webtv.

>> My point that was so beautifully mangled in the previous posting was
>> this: Whereas I think a standard form a mahjong would be wonderful, it
>> brings up two questions (at least in my mind)

>> 1) What rules become the standard? Or do we create a new set of rules
>> for this purpose?

>***I would be interested in seeing answers from anyone.

See below.

>> 2) How do we get everyone to adopt the "standard" - and by everyone, I
>> do mean EVERYONE. Unless ALL mahjong players adopt it, it is not
>> "universal" and becomes just another style of mah-jong.

>***The most popular, or most frequently mentioned, forms of mahjong play in
>this newsgroup are (as far as I can recall): - Chinese Classical (from the
>book of Millington); - Hong Kong Old Style/Cantonese Style (from books not so
>popular as Millington's); - NMJL; - Taiwanese 16 tile mahjong; - Japanese
>mahjong. (If I missed any style, please correct me.)

We must not forget that each "style" here, NMJL excepted, is just a
"collection" of various rules sets which are no more than /similar/ -
not identical. For example, there are numerous and significant
variations within Modern Japanese mahjong to the extent that "Modern
Japanese" as played by different players have major differences in
even basic game playability: some versions are more a contest of
skill, while some are mostly predominated by random luck. This means
different /goals/ of playing the game. Why would a player who is
playing mahjong for gambling want to accept a skill-oriented game?

Old Style play is also getting infested with house rules lately,
because the over-simplicity of the "standard" game may not be
satisfying or exciting enough for some young people (and they add more
patterns), while the stale nature of the game (too few big hands) is
not exciting enough for some others (and they add all kinds of rules).

To add to this problem, the game is also often propagated in such a
way that the players learning the game do not know what they're
learning are house rules and what are "standard" rules - if such a
thing as a "standard" rule exists.

Most of the mahjong-playing population think that the (only) version
that the individual knows is the one true way of playing mahjong -
even if you're telling them that other styles of play exist, they
won't believe or bother. This is almost the same thing as blind
faith.

>***How did people get to adopt these standards (too bad these are too many
>standards instead of just one unified standard)? Perhaps the way how people
>in the past have learned to play mahjong under these standards, may give a
>hint how everyone would adopt to a unified form of play in the future.

>***The essential elements a standard may be widely accepted, IMO, should
>include the following:

>- A complete and full set of rules;

>- Enough time and money to promote it.

I hope that this "include" is not used as a legal jargon (which means
"includes and is limited to"!) The Chinese government has been
developing a set of official rules. However, my prediction is that
the rules will only become popular with a small number of people, even
if they write out the complete rules properly and spend resources on
promoting it. It's because it's basically a New Style game which is
too complex for most people. (However, the official rules /will/
fulfill the purpose of highlighting the potential of mahjong as a game
of intellectual skill, rather than the dirty gambling image in the
minds of some people.)

>> I am having problems seeing how World-Unified Rules can become a
>> reality.

>***I think the problems are not in the world-unified rules itself. The
>problems are how someone could spend such time and money to promote it.

I strongly disagree. Different (existing) rules play very
differently, and it is hard, if not impossible, to find a set of rules
acceptable to most, not to say all, players.

"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notme.netvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
DS Editor - http://www.dimension-s.com
(please remove anti-spam section "notme." from mailing address)

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

5 From: panda behr - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 21 1999 12:00 am
Email: pand...@webtv.net (panda behr)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Alan Kwan wrote:

=====================END OF MESSAGE

We must not forget that each "style" here, NMJL excepted, is just a
"collection" of various rules sets which are no more than /similar/ -
not identical. For example, there are numerous and significant
variations within Modern Japanese mahjong to the extent that "Modern
Japanese" as played by different players have major differences in even
basic game playability: some versions are more a contest of skill, while
some are mostly predominated by random luck. This means different
/goals/ of playing the game. Why would a player who is playing mahjong
for gambling want to accept a skill-oriented game?

Panda - This can be seen from some of the comments on the Yahoo message
board for Mahjong. A few players have comlained about the "style" of
Mahjong set up by Yahoo - it is a different version than they are
familiar with, and their goals in playing differ.

<clip>

I hope that this "include" is not used as a legal jargon (which means
"includes and is limited to"!) The Chinese government has been
developing a set of official rules. However, my prediction is that the
rules will only become popular with a small number of people, even if
they write out the complete rules properly and spend resources on
promoting it. It's because it's basically a New Style game which is too
complex for most people. (However, the official rules /will/ fulfill the
purpose of highlighting the potential of mahjong as a game of
intellectual skill, rather than the dirty gambling image in the minds of
some people.)

Has any "official" rules, Mahjong or otherwise, ever become worldwide?
Chess, Bridge maybe(?) out of howmany games played by humanity?

<clip>

(Panda) - I am having problems seeing how World-Unified Rules can become
a reality.
(Cofa Tsui) - ***I think the problems are not in the world-unified rules
itself. The problems are how someone could spend such time and money to
promote it.
(Alan Kwan) - I strongly disagree. Different (existing) rules play very
differently, and it is hard, if not impossible, to find a set of rules
acceptable to most, not to say all, players.
Panda - Exactly! It was what I was saying about Rummy ( I mention Rummy
because it is a game structually simular to Mahjong ) - there are
numerous variations of Rummy because there are numerous variations of
people. Their likes and dislikes vary, and this will carry over into
Mahjong, Rummy, or whatever game they choose to play. If an "official"
set of rules was ever devised or adopted, people would still play
"their" Mahjong.
The best we can ever hope to accomplish (IMO) is to form a "generic"
Mahjong, stripped away of all the "extra" rules, leaving a very basic
"four sets and a pair" Mahjong - which nobody will play, because they
have their favorite extra rule.
Historically: Joseph Babcock (and others) devised the "Official Laws
of Mahjong" during the 1920s, in an attempted to standardize the game.
It failed, as people still insisted on adding extra rules.
Granted: The NMJL has a standard, the WrightPatterson Wives have a
standard, the Japanese Mahjong Association has a standard. Not "the"
standard, but a standard for them. I doubt seriously they will adopt
another standard, even one known as "World-Unifying Mahjong"
Games, by their nature, do not allow themselves to become
standardized.

Respectfully submitted
~Panda Behr
Pand...@excite.com

Reply

World-unified mahjong discussion (was Re: D'oh!)
6 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 21 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <20549-36CFDCC...@newsd-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
pand...@webtv.net (panda behr) wrote:

> Alan=A0Kwan wrote:

This is a combined response to the two postings:
From: t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) dated 20 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
and
From: pand...@webtv.net (panda behr) dated 21 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT

Panda Behr wrote:
>> 1) What rules become the standard? Or do we create a new set of rules
>> for this purpose?

Cofa Tsui replied:
>***I would be interested in seeing answers from anyone.
Alan Kwan wrote:

See below.

Panda Behr wrote:
>> 2) How do we get everyone to adopt the "standard" - and by everyone, I
>> do mean EVERYONE. Unless ALL mahjong players adopt it, it is not
>> "universal" and becomes just another style of mah-jong.

Cofa Tsui replied:
>***The most popular, or most frequently mentioned, forms of mahjong play in
>this newsgroup are (as far as I can recall): - Chinese Classical (from the
>book of Millington); - Hong Kong Old Style/Cantonese Style (from books not so
>popular as Millington's); - NMJL; - Taiwanese 16 tile mahjong; - Japanese
>mahjong. (If I missed any style, please correct me.)
Alan Kwan wrote:

We must not forget that each "style" here, NMJL excepted, is just a
"collection" of various rules sets which are no more than /similar/ -
not identical. For example, there are numerous and significant
variations within Modern Japanese mahjong to the extent that "Modern
Japanese" as played by different players have major differences in
even basic game playability: some versions are more a contest of
skill, while some are mostly predominated by random luck. This means
different /goals/ of playing the game. Why would a player who is
playing mahjong for gambling want to accept a skill-oriented game?

***I agreed. The way I mentioned the styles is just a simplified answer,
serving the purpose of answering the question.

Alan Kwan wrote:

Old Style play is also getting infested with house rules lately,
because the over-simplicity of the "standard" game may not be
satisfying or exciting enough for some young people (and they add more
patterns), while the stale nature of the game (too few big hands) is
not exciting enough for some others (and they add all kinds of rules).

To add to this problem, the game is also often propagated in such a
way that the players learning the game do not know what they're
learning are house rules and what are "standard" rules - if such a
thing as a "standard" rule exists.

Most of the mahjong-playing population think that the (only) version
that the individual knows is the one true way of playing mahjong -
even if you're telling them that other styles of play exist, they
won't believe or bother. This is almost the same thing as blind
faith.

***This, then, brings up another question about, or reveals another element
that is implied in the promoting of, a world-unified form of mahjong: Who is
responsible and how the world-unified form is being developed (in the process
of its evolution). I believe, if the /management/ of the promotion and
development of the game is well organized, any new developments will become
and form part of the unified form as well.

In an earlier message Cofa Tsui wrote:

>***How did people get to adopt these standards (too bad these are too many
>standards instead of just one unified standard)? Perhaps the way how people
>in the past have learned to play mahjong under these standards, may give a
>hint how everyone would adopt to a unified form of play in the future.

>***The essential elements a standard may be widely accepted, IMO, should
>include the following:

>- A complete and full set of rules;

>- Enough time and money to promote it.
Alan Kwan wrote:

I hope that this "include" is not used as a legal jargon (which means
"includes and is limited to"!) The Chinese government has been
developing a set of official rules. However, my prediction is that
the rules will only become popular with a small number of people, even
if they write out the complete rules properly and spend resources on
promoting it. It's because it's basically a New Style game which is
too complex for most people. (However, the official rules /will/
fulfill the purpose of highlighting the potential of mahjong as a game
of intellectual skill, rather than the dirty gambling image in the
minds of some people.)

***These (a complete and full set of rules, time and money for promotion) are
the essential elements, not necessarily the only elements. My prediction is
different. IMO, the China's official mahjong style has one similar pattern as
NMJL - one organization to manage all. If the management is well organized -
including accepting comments to change the initial rules accordingly - the
result could be bright.

Panda Behr wrote:
>> I am having problems seeing how World-Unified Rules can become a
>> reality.

Cofa Tsui replied:
>***I think the problems are not in the world-unified rules itself. The
>problems are how someone could spend such time and money to promote it.
Alan Kwan wrote:

I strongly disagree. Different (existing) rules play very
differently, and it is hard, if not impossible, to find a set of rules
acceptable to most, not to say all, players.

***There are also major portions of rules in different forms of play (of
mahjong) that are identical to each other. If players want to communicate
with others (not just a group of four) and meet the world, and if a rule set
that is complete and full does exist, the only things needed are time and
money to promote it.

Panda Behr wrote:

Has any "official" rules, Mahjong or otherwise, ever become worldwide?
Chess, Bridge maybe(?) out of howmany games played by humanity?

***If there is an "official" organization to manage the game, the game will
most likely be accepted and played nationwide or/and worldwide. Many games
played in The Olympics, on the national or international levels, are well
accepted nationwide or worldwide. Some well marketed games (enough time and
money involved), if under trademarks and managed by one organization (or
through licensing arrangements), are also examples how games could be played
in unified form nationwide or worldwide.

***NOTE: Any "spice" added to an official game is not the official game
itself! And whether any new spices will be added to the official game will
determine how well the official game is being managed (selecting feedback,
making changes or improvements, etc.).

Panda Behr wrote:

(Panda) - I am having problems seeing how World-Unified Rules can become
a reality.
(Cofa Tsui) - ***I think the problems are not in the world-unified rules
itself. The problems are how someone could spend such time and money to
promote it.
(Alan Kwan) - I strongly disagree. Different (existing) rules play very
differently, and it is hard, if not impossible, to find a set of rules
acceptable to most, not to say all, players.
Panda - Exactly! It was what I was saying about Rummy ( I mention Rummy
because it is a game structually simular to Mahjong ) - there are
numerous variations of Rummy because there are numerous variations of
people. Their likes and dislikes vary, and this will carry over into
Mahjong, Rummy, or whatever game they choose to play. If an "official"
set of rules was ever devised or adopted, people would still play
"their" Mahjong.

***These might be a question regarding the /development/ of the world-unified
form - please refer to message above, and also see below.

Panda Behr wrote:

The best we can ever hope to accomplish (IMO) is to form a "generic"
Mahjong, stripped away of all the "extra" rules, leaving a very basic
"four sets and a pair" Mahjong - which nobody will play, because they
have their favorite extra rule.
Historically: Joseph Babcock (and others) devised the "Official Laws
of Mahjong" during the 1920s, in an attempted to standardize the game.
It failed, as people still insisted on adding extra rules.
Granted: The NMJL has a standard, the WrightPatterson Wives have a
standard, the Japanese Mahjong Association has a standard. Not "the"
standard, but a standard for them. I doubt seriously they will adopt
another standard, even one known as "World-Unifying Mahjong"

***Re Joseph Badcock's rule set: I recall a little bit that in Millington's
book it did mention why Badcock's laws of mahjong could not develop further.
I guess whether the rule set was full and complete and how it managed the
feedback (regarding changes, or extras, etc.) were some of the reasons.

***The forms of play you have named, if they are standardized by themselves,
will give an example how a world-unified form of mahjong would be developed.
Whether you want the world-unified mahjong to be commercial or non-commercial,
enough time and money must be invested to promote it.

***When the desire of people wanting to play the game with people in other
part of the cities, of the nation, or people all over the world, a
world-unified form will play its part. That's how The Olympics Games was
formed.

Panda Behr wrote:

Games, by their nature, do not allow themselves to become
standardized.

***(?)

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9221a.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

7 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 22 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <7apnhr$cf...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote:

> In article <20549-36CFDCC...@newsd-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> pand...@webtv.net (panda behr) wrote:
> > Alan=A0Kwan wrote:

CORRECTION:

In my last posting, the 2nd last paragraph:

> ***When the desire of people wanting to play the game with people in other
> part of the cities, of the nation, or people all over the world, a
> world-unified form will play its part. That's how The Olympics Games was
> formed.

Please read as:
***When the desire of people wanting to play the game with people in other
part of the cities, of the nation, or people all over the world, matures, a
world-unified form will play its part. That's how The Olympics Games was
formed.

Sorry for the mistake!

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9221a2.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

8 From: Alan Kwan - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 26 1999 1:00 am
Email: t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:41:48 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote:
>Cofa Tsui replied:
>>***I think the problems are not in the world-unified rules itself. The
>>problems are how someone could spend such time and money to promote it.

>Alan Kwan wrote:
>I strongly disagree. Different (existing) rules play very
>differently, and it is hard, if not impossible, to find a set of rules
>acceptable to most, not to say all, players.

>***There are also major portions of rules in different forms of play (of
>mahjong) that are identical to each other. If players want to communicate
>with others (not just a group of four) and meet the world, and if a rule set
>that is complete and full does exist, the only things needed are time and
>money to promote it.

As I tried to point out, that is inadequate. The rule set must be
acceptable to the players. For example, the majority of players won't
accept a very complex game, while some won't play anything but a very
complex game. Some Classical and Japanese players are not going to
accept the luck of the self-draw in post-OS rule sets (OS, NS,
Taiwanese, Chinese Official), while long-time OS and Taiwanese players
won't consider a game without that element "mahjong". And the list
goes on.

Before a rule set can be agreed upon and accepted by all players, a
set of criteria in determining which rules are "desirable" and which
are not, one to evaluate and compare rules in an objective way, has to
be agreed upon and accepted by all. Time and money alone cannot
accomplish this, if this is at all possible.

>Panda Behr wrote:
>Has any "official" rules, Mahjong or otherwise, ever become worldwide?
>Chess, Bridge maybe(?) out of howmany games played by humanity?

>***If there is an "official" organization to manage the game, the game will
>most likely be accepted and played nationwide or/and worldwide.

In Japan, there are official mahjong organizations, but most people
don't play by any of the official versions. They play "luck" rules
such as ura-dora, "red 5", etc. Some very logically inconsistent and
ill-defined rules, such as /nashi-nashi/, are widely played, even
though official rule sets (any of which being /ari-ari/, the opposite
of /nashi-nashi/) are readily available.

The reason is because different players have different goals of
playing the game (such as intellectual playability, gambling
excitement, "color"), and different rule sets pretain to different
tastes.

>Some well marketed games (enough time and
>money involved), if under trademarks and managed by one organization (or
>through licensing arrangements), are also examples how games could be played
>in unified form nationwide or worldwide.

These games are the successful ones. The "time and money" spent on
promoting the game is not the only factor which contributes to a
widely played unified form; it is the /quality/ of the game, its good
design, which draws the enthusiatic support from the players and
allows the game to be propagated. There are also many games produced
which are quickly forgotten. Similarly, if the launch of some
"unified rule set" for mahjong is attempted, there is a good chance
that this "standard" will be ignored or abandoned by most players -
they won't forget the game of mahjong altogether, just the "unified
rule set", and they'll keep on playing their favorite version - unless
something can make the players believe that the rules are more
desirable ("better") than what they've been playing. And, mind you,
that is not easy.

>Panda Behr wrote:
> Granted: The NMJL has a standard, the WrightPatterson Wives have a
>standard, the Japanese Mahjong Association has a standard. Not "the"
>standard, but a standard for them. I doubt seriously they will adopt
>another standard, even one known as "World-Unifying Mahjong"

Please excuse me for repeating this note again: few Japanese people,
other than professional players and tournament contestants, actually
play JMA rules. Most mah-jong parlours in Japan don't play JMA rules.

"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notme.netvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
DS Editor - http://www.dimension-s.com
(please remove anti-spam section "notme." from mailing address)

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

9 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 26 1999 12:00 am
Email: actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

>>Cofa Tsui replied:
>>if a rule set
>>that is complete and full does exist, the only things needed are time and
>>money to promote it.

>From: t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan)
>As I tried to point out, that is inadequate. [snip]
>Before a rule set can be agreed upon and accepted by all players, a
>set of criteria [snip] has to
>be agreed upon and accepted by all. Time and money alone cannot
>accomplish this, if this is at all possible.

I agree with Alan. IMO, /no/ amount of "promotion," in and of itself, will
ever get the players of the 15 or 16 different major varieties of MJ to destroy
the "Tower Of MJ Babel" and join together in one unified way of playing. I
sympathize with Cofa's consternation about all those different ways of playing,
but the game has evolved into separate branches, most likely never to reunite
into one unified "trunk" again. If it is going to happen, it will do so due to
a much wider desire for all players to be able to play one another. Perhaps
after the Internet has succeeded in bringing the players of the world much
closer together than they are at this time. Maybe in another generation or two
the MJ world will be ready. But even then, don't you think people will still
tend to use different table rules? Case in point:

>Panda Behr wrote:
>>The NMJL has a standard, the WrightPatterson Wives have a
>>standard, the Japanese Mahjong Association has a standard. Not "the"
>>standard, but a standard for them.

Alan Kwan replied:

>few Japanese people,
>other than professional players and tournament contestants, actually
>play JMA rules. Most mah-jong parlours in Japan don't play JMA rules.

In the US, the NMJL "standard" is also subject to a wide variety of table
rules. At the NMJL bulletin board, one constantly sees postings along these
lines:

>Hi fellow Maj players,
>Our weekly group plays with "futures," and we've run into a problem.
>[Problem snipped.]
>So what's the official ruling on how we should handle this?
>JoAnne Majplayer

And the FAQs in the yearly League bulletin start off with: "Please do not make
your own rules and then when these rules result in trouble, ask our opinion."
The fact that this is the League's #1 FAQ clearly speaks to the fact of "table
rules" being the norm rather than the exception, even in the presence of a
clear standard.

Point being: human nature abhors a standard. Human nature craves for adding
special MJ rules. Even in the /existence/ of a "standard," humans insist on
making nonstandard table rules. If there was again (if there ever was) one
standard universal rule set, humans would make their own table rules. Those
table rules would propagate locally, and we would find ourselves once again
where we are now -- with 15 or 16 standards, and nobody actually adhering
strictly to any of them out of a desire to have the fun "table rules" that sets
them apart from everybody else.

Cofa (or some other promoter, maybe the "Mothers Against Nonstandard Table
Rules Association" [MANTRA]) would have to constantly keep ads running
everywhere (in print, TV, radio, and Internet), reminding everyone "Only
unpopular losers use nonstandard MJ table rules." Can you see the commercials:
"This is your brain on nonstandard MJ table rules"? (^_^)

I think the Chinese government is probably having the same problem enforcing
the new "official" rules in that country. It should be interesting to watch,
to see if the official rules are actually universally used, and are an accepted
standard in that country 10 years from now.

Cool, hip young people on bungee skateboards holding soft drink bottles: "Obey
your standard MJ rules."

Give me a break.

Tom Sloper
The opinions expressed herein are my own, not those of my employer.

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

10 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Mon, Mar 1 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <19990226173311.15432.00001...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote:

(POST ONE)

Tom,

I am very disappointed with your this posting. Not the contents of the message
that made me feel sorry for you. The manner (and the motion, which is a part
that can only be felt, not be seen) you posted it did.

Are you responding to the group with general discussion in mind? Or with a
purpose of personal attack? If no personal attack intended, then how could you
explain the following?

(A) You wrote: "I sympathize with Cofa's consternation about all those

different ways of playing,..."

What kind of sympathy do you have? What makes you so sure I have the
consternation about all those different ways of playing?

(B) You wrote: "Cofa (or some other promoter, maybe the "Mothers Against

Nonstandard Table Rules Association" [MANTRA]) would have to..."

Why should you put me together with your own creature "MANTRA", when I don't
even know if it exists? In fact, what makes you so sure I am against
nonstandard table rules?

(C) You wrote: "Give me a break."

Whom are you begging for a break? Who has ever tied you up? How?

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

11 From: Perhaps a Princess... - view profile
Date: Wed, Mar 3 1999 1:00 am
Email: "Perhaps a Princess..." <s...@eskimo.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Cofa Tsui wrote:
> In article <19990226173311.15432.00001...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote:
> (POST ONE)
> Tom,
> I am very disappointed with your this posting. Not the contents of the message
> that made me feel sorry for you. The manner (and the motion, which is a part
> that can only be felt, not be seen) you posted it did.

I am sorry you are disappointed. But I think that Tom expressed exactly
my own thoughts on the matter.
You have a vested interest so maybe that is why you seemingly saw his
well-reasoned post as an attack on you.

Sarah heacock

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

12 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Mon, Mar 1 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <19990226173311.15432.00001...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> >>Cofa Tsui replied:
> >>if a rule set
> >>that is complete and full does exist, the only things needed are time and
> >>money to promote it.

> >From: t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan)
> >As I tried to point out, that is inadequate. [snip]
> >Before a rule set can be agreed upon and accepted by all players, a
> >set of criteria [snip] has to
> >be agreed upon and accepted by all. Time and money alone cannot
> >accomplish this, if this is at all possible.

> I agree with Alan. IMO, /no/ amount of "promotion," in and of itself, will
> ever get the players of the 15 or 16 different major varieties of MJ to
destroy
> the "Tower Of MJ Babel" and join together in one unified way of playing.

(POST TWO)

The fact is, if a unified form of mahjong is developed, people can still play
their own 15 or 16 different varieties - they don't need to destroy it! But if
they ever /want/ to play with people of other tables, other houses, or other
countries, the unified form will play its part.

[snipped]

> but the game has evolved into separate branches, most likely never to reunite
> into one unified "trunk" again. If it is going to happen, it will do so due to
> a much wider desire for all players to be able to play one another. Perhaps
> after the Internet has succeeded in bringing the players of the world much
> closer together than they are at this time. Maybe in another generation or
two
> the MJ world will be ready. But even then, don't you think people will still
> tend to use different table rules?

Perhaps /no/ amount of promotion for a unified form of mahjong will be
required when the desire of people wanting to play the game with other around
the world does mature. The on-line mahjong web sites all over the world are
already attracting people to the "pre-unified" forms of play! With the help
of Internet, one unified form should not be that far away (two generations?).

> In the US, the NMJL "standard" is also subject to a wide variety of table
> rules. At the NMJL bulletin board, one constantly sees postings along these
> lines:

> >Hi fellow Maj players,
> >Our weekly group plays with "futures," and we've run into a problem.
> >[Problem snipped.]
> >So what's the official ruling on how we should handle this?
> >JoAnne Majplayer

Do you believe, or suggest that, NMJLxxx table rules are NMJL rules? How about
NMJLkkk table rules? What rules do xxx and kkk play with in the official NMJL
tournaments?

The main difference between mahjong and NMJL mahjong, perhaps, is NMJL
mahjong is under control, under a unified management, while mahjong (the word
"mahjong" alone) is not. That's the reason why mahjong (since day one it was
introduced out of China) is always subject to table rules, house rules.

> And the FAQs in the yearly League bulletin start off with: "Please do not make
> your own rules and then when these rules result in trouble, ask our opinion."
> The fact that this is the League's #1 FAQ clearly speaks to the fact of "table
> rules" being the norm rather than the exception, even in the presence of a
> clear standard.

In my opinion, the Officials of NMJL may not recognize the "table rules" at
all. The above statement may just mean: "Please do not -- ask our opinion if
you make your own rules and when these rules result in trouble." On the other
hand, this FAQ sample does show us the difference between a standard being
managed by one organization and a standard being managed by no one at all.

> Point being: human nature abhors a standard. Human nature craves for adding
> special MJ rules.

(?) How do you prove it? Do you stop on red light and go on green light? Or,
do you like others to do on the same standards? As to mahjong, do the four
players play the /same/ rules on the table? Does each of them play
differently?

Anyway, this human nature (if it is the way you said) does not make the nature
of unified rules change. The unified rules are for people from different parts
of the world, while table rules are the "spices" of individuals. One can have
BOTH.

Even in the /existence/ of a "standard," humans insist on

> making nonstandard table rules. If there was again (if there ever was) one
> standard universal rule set, humans would make their own table rules. Those
> table rules would propagate locally, and we would find ourselves once again
> where we are now -- with 15 or 16 standards, and nobody actually adhering
> strictly to any of them out of a desire to have the fun "table rules" that
sets
> them apart from everybody else.

Again, the existence of table rules does not affect the unified rules at all.
The bottom line is: whenever one wants to play with other, the unified rules
will play the part.

[snipped]
Your commercials are funny. But if you replace the words "nonstandard" with
"standard", and vise versa, it would play the same kind of joke, and it won't
change the position of the unified rules. People can always have both standard
rules and table rules, and the standard rules will always play its role under
certain circumstances.

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9221a8.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

13 From: panda behr - view profile
Date: Mon, Mar 1 1999 12:00 am
Email: pand...@webtv.net (panda behr)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Cofa-If any of us offended you during this discussion, be assured that
it was not personal, nor intended.But what was never satisfactorily
explained by you were two very important points:
1) What rules would be the unifying rules?
2)How would we go about estabishing them as the unifiers?
Without a definite plan, your dream of a unified standard remains only
an idea.

It is unrealistic to beleive that at some point every mah-jong player
will suddenly feel a need for a world-standard, and then adopt a single
set of rules for this purpose. Especially when past evidence shows the
evolotion of the game doing the exactopposite - de-unifying.
Look at any aspect of humanity. Is there a standard for anything?
Language? Religion?

Please - dont get me, or anyone else, wrong. Your idea has merit. But
all ideas need planning. And your idea is ambitious - and thus needs an
ambitious planning.

Respectfully presented,
Panda

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

14 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Mon, Mar 1 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <14592-36DA6AB...@newsd-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
pand...@webtv.net (panda behr) wrote:

> Cofa-If any of us offended you during this discussion, be assured that
> it was not personal, nor intended.But what was never satisfactorily
> explained by you were two very important points:
> 1) What rules would be the unifying rules?
> 2)How would we go about estabishing them as the unifiers?
> Without a definite plan, your dream of a unified standard remains only
> an idea.

Panda,

That's very kind of you. Thank you! As from day one of the "previous"
discussion, we knew that it is for general discussion only. It is not
discussed for the benefits of any specific or named form of play.

The previous discussion is to test if a unified form is possible. It might
not be able to provide answers to more complicated questions. So, for the
"two very important points" raised by you, anyone can give opinions or ideas.
I have no authority to answer these questions, however, the following are my
comments (for general discussion purposes):

1) I think the first question to be resolved is "who shall be responsible for
the job?" Since mahjong is managed, owned by no one, this is going to be a
difficult decision to make.

2) If one is appointed ("how?" is also a question), extensive research may be
organized to collect, arrange, select ideas, opinions etc. from discussions,
questionnaires, etc.

3) Following the way, the draft as well as the final form of unified rules may
then be gradually established.

> It is unrealistic to beleive that at some point every mah-jong player
> will suddenly feel a need for a world-standard, and then adopt a single
> set of rules for this purpose. Especially when past evidence shows the
> evolotion of the game doing the exactopposite - de-unifying.
> Look at any aspect of humanity. Is there a standard for anything?
> Language? Religion?

In previous messages, it is already explained why mahjong tends to have many
table/house rules - It is not owned or managed by anyone, it is not well
managed/organized, etc. Any well managed and marketed games will develop
differently.

Languages? What is the "standard" language in the world? What /was/ the
standard 50 / 100 /500 years ago? What is the standard today? What will be the
standard tomorrow? We may all see how the "standard" is developing.

My mother tongue is Cantonese and my first language is Chinese. I have to
learn Mandarin (now also called "Putonghua") if I ever wanted to communicate
with people from Beijing, Shanghai, Shanxi or Taipei. I have to learn to
write English if I ever wanted to communicate with anyone in this newsgroup.

You see, table/house rules won't affect the role of the unified form of play.
One can have BOTH.

> Please - dont get me, or anyone else, wrong. Your idea has merit. But
> all ideas need planning. And your idea is ambitious - and thus needs an
> ambitious planning.

You are very right. Things can't be easy. I spent more than ten years at
school to study the "house" language Chinese to communicate with people in my
home country, as well as the "world" language English that I need to
communicate with the world.

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9921a10.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

15 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile
Date: Mon, Mar 1 1999 12:00 am
Email: actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In this thread, Cofa Tsui wrote:

>Our question here is: whether a world-unified form of mahjong could be
>possible. My opinion is that it could be possible, if a full rule set is
>there and enough time and money are spent to promote it.

My opinion is that it cannot be made to happen.

>What makes you so sure I have the consternation about all those different ways

of playing?

You seem not only to have the opinion that it can be possible (to make a
unified game) but to have the great desire to make one. IMO, Mahjong Masters
Millions has already been created with the goal of borrowing from this game and
that game (its intent was to be used as a worldwide tournament rule set), and I
don't see what's wrong with those rules.

>[snip] what makes you so sure I am against nonstandard table rules?

I got that impression from the passionate way that you have been promoting the
notion of a unified game. If I misinterpreted you, I assume there is no harm
done?

>Perhaps /no/ amount of promotion for a unified form of mahjong will be
>required when the desire of people wanting to play the game with other around
>the world does mature. The on-line mahjong web sites all over the world are
>already attracting people to the "pre-unified" forms of play! With the help
>of Internet, one unified form should not be that far away (two generations?).

I absolutely agree. The Internet will be the one thing (if anything) that may
well help to unify the game.

>Do you believe, or suggest that, NMJLxxx table rules are NMJL rules? How about
>NMJLkkk table rules? What rules do xxx and kkk play with in the official NMJL
>tournaments?

When players of "xxx" or "kkk" (or "qqq" or "iii" for that matter) play in
tournaments, they use tournament rules. All non-standard NMJL table rules (by
which I mean "table rules often used by NMJL players despite the official NMJL
rules") have to be put aside for a tournament.

>As from day one of the "previous"
>discussion, we knew that it is for general discussion only. It is not
>discussed for the benefits of any specific or named form of play.

Sounds good to me. The discussion may get a little lively at times, but it's
an interesting topic.

Panda Behr wrote:
>Cofa-If any of us offended you during this discussion, be assured that
>it was not personal, nor intended.

Absolutely. Thanks for saying so, Panda. BTW, just curious what your name is?
I assume Behr is your real family name. ..

>It is unrealistic to beleive that at some point every mah-jong player
>will suddenly feel a need for a world-standard, and then adopt a single
>set of rules for this purpose. Especially when past evidence shows the
>evolotion of the game doing the exactopposite - de-unifying.
> Look at any aspect of humanity. Is there a standard for anything?
>Language? Religion?

Interesting parallels.. ..

Cofa replied:

>Languages? What is the "standard" language in the world? What /was/ the
>standard 50 / 100 /500 years ago? What is the standard today? What will be the
>standard tomorrow? We may all see how the "standard" is developing.

Language does seem to be evolving, albeit slowly, in the direction of having a
few worldwide important languages. But those languages can indeed be second
languages (or third languages, as in Cofa's case). People can indeed learn
another language, just as they can learn another set of MJ rules. Panda's
mention of religion may be an interesting parallel to explore for this
discussion, though.

In the case of a religion, people will absolutely not just "learn a second
religion" and use it occasionally (as they might do with a language or a set of
game rules) -- they stay with their one religion faithfully. People may
sometimes drop one religion in favor of another, but still, they do not use
both -- religions are "all or nothing," unlike languages. If we draw a
parallel between MJ and religion for a moment, we see that some people will
adhere faithfully to their "one true rule set" and will never accept any
"blasphemous" rule sets. I have frequently heard from players who believe, in
their heart of hearts, that only /their/ MJ rules are the correct and true
rules.

>In previous messages, it is already explained why mahjong tends to have many
>table/house rules - It is not owned or managed by anyone, it is not well
>managed/organized, etc. Any well managed and marketed games will develop
>differently.

There I go again misinterpreting Cofa's words -- every time I read words like
those I tend to read them as "consternation about different ways of playing."
Perhaps I read too much between the lines? Offense not intended, Cofa.

In regards to the statement, "Any well managed and marketed games will develop
differently," let's take a look at the NMJL for a moment. The League, IMO,
manages and markets their game sufficiently to fit into the category of "well
managed and marketed games." This could be argued, I suppose, but IMO only
those who live among the populace that plays NMJL rules (and who belong to and
correspond with the League) are in a position to argue against it. (I suppose
that could be argued too. Sigh.) So -- I reiterate: even among League
players, there are nonstandard house rules.

-Hot Wall (two different definitions for what constitutes a "hot wall," and two
different standards for what happens when the hot wall is being played).
-Futures.
-Mish.
-Frish.
-Peeking at the blind pass.

And there are probably even more. Even a well managed and marketed game tends
to have many table/house rules. The NMJL gamers do have to drop their table
rules when playing in tournaments, but it would never be possible for NMJL
players to play MJ against players of Chinese, HK, Taiwanese, Western,
Japanese, Filipino.. .. (etc., etc.). I just do not see how it would ever
really be possible to unify ALL forms of MJ. The person who tries is, IMO,
doomed to failure. No offense intended to believers of the opposite view.

Tom Sloper
The opinions expressed herein are my own, not those of my employer.

Reply

World-unified mahjong discussion
16 From: panda behr - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 2 1999 12:00 am
Email: pand...@webtv.net (panda behr)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

A piece of information was brought to my attention recently:
I mentioned this discussion with friends at Starbucks (we are all
addicted cofee-junkies and notorious e-mailers) and one mentioned a bit
of historical card-playing information that seems to suggest Cofa is not
completely wrong.
In 1886, players of a card game called "Skat" met to standardize
their game. Apperently there were numerous "styles and table versions"
which prohibited groups from one area from playing with groups from
another, simular to what is occuring now with our game. They met and
codified what might be considered a "unified" form of play.
I was told that, although "house-rules" abound (everyone still plays
"their" version of the game), and their have been revisions to the code,
there is a standard by which players can meet with other players - and
be able to play the same game.
Perhaps, Cofa, you may not be as far off as we intially thought.

I mentioned language. There is a close analogy of our discussion. A
desire for worlsd communications has force English as the de facto
universal language. The worls still speaks its native languages at home,
bu for world affairs, english is the standard. BUT-what is "standard
English? I drive up toI drive up to canada (Cofa, I beleive globally
speaking you and I are close neighbors) and I can communicate, but their
are noticable variations. And when I was stationed down in the south,
y"all damn sure know they speak something diff'rent!
The same (IMO) will hold true for a standard mah-jong. Even if we
develop and/or adopt such rules, there will be variations and deviations
in that.
The "Queen's Mah-Jong" so to speak, and all the other dialects.

Perhaps the day for unified MJ is not here yet. Perhaps it wont be
- who can tell for sure. From the various comments in this discussion,
we are all not in agreement either how to go about creating a unified
mah-jong, or if it should be created at all.
If anything is learned from this discusssion, it is this: The
"desire" for unification has not settled among us - yet.
But - despite human natures "abhorance" for standards, there are
precedences. The are the exception, not the rule - but the do happen.
And a new element has been introduced to humanity.
The Internet :)

~Panda

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

17 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 2 1999 12:00 am
Email: actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Doug the panda bear wrote:

> I mentioned this discussion with friends at Starbucks (we are all
>addicted cofee-junkies and notorious e-mailers) and one mentioned a bit
>of historical card-playing information that seems to suggest Cofa is not
>completely wrong.

I would just like to point out that although I think Cofa's desire for a
unified MJ is doomed not to come to fruition anytime soon, I never said he was
wrong to want it.

> In 1886, players of a card game called "Skat" met to standardize
>their game. Apperently there were numerous "styles and table versions"
>which prohibited groups from one area from playing with groups from
>another, simular to what is occuring now with our game. They met and
>codified what might be considered a "unified" form of play.

"Official Rules of Card Games" (Morehead, ISBN 0-449-21381-1) describes the
rules for the Skat family of games (which originated in Germany and is
described as "the most scientific of all games"). The nearly identical
description is also found in Scarne's Encyclopedia of Card Games (Scarne, ISBN
0-06-273155-6). Official tournament rules for the North American Skat League
were refined in 1945. The rules of the game are fairly precise -- yes, there
may be variations and different table "customs" but I tend to doubt that the
variations in Skat are or were as pervasive and significant as those in
Mah-Jongg. Just look at the descriptions of the various MJ games in FAQ 9.

NMJL -- does not use chows; requires 8 jokers; hands change every year; no
round wind structure
Taiwanese -- uses 16 tiles in the hand, not 13
Filipino -- treats winds and dragons as "flowers"
Modern Japanese -- "riichi" and "dora;" flowers not used at all
Wright-Patterson -- uses almost 100 special hands

These differences have developed over generations. People who play one style
play that style with their parents and grandparents -- to try to get them to
adapt to a completely "foreign" unified game would require not just a shift in
strategy but a complete overhaul of everything they know about the game.

First step: through the internet, players become aware of certain important
basic differences between their game and the game played in other countries.

Second step: an interest in a unified rule set must develop on its own (it
cannot be forced)

Third step: after steps one and two, the work can begin. Certain features of
various rule sets will need to be retained or discarded. There may be
bloodshed. Just kidding -- but people will not lightly give up their cherished
play features, nor adopt foreign ones.

I'm not saying it's wrong to want a unified rule set. I'm not arguing against
making one. I'm just saying people won't accept it, at least not now.

Tom Sloper
The opinions expressed herein are my own, not those of my employer.

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

18 From: Nick Wedd - view profile
Date: Wed, Mar 3 1999 12:00 am
Email: Nick Wedd <N...@maproom.co.uk>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <16244-36DC0300...@newsd-233.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, panda
behr <pand...@webtv.net> writes

> In 1886, players of a card game called "Skat" met to standardize
>their game. Apperently there were numerous "styles and table versions"
>which prohibited groups from one area from playing with groups from
>another, simular to what is occuring now with our game. They met and
>codified what might be considered a "unified" form of play.
> I was told that, although "house-rules" abound (everyone still plays
>"their" version of the game), and their have been revisions to the code,
>there is a standard by which players can meet with other players - and
>be able to play the same game.
> Perhaps, Cofa, you may not be as far off as we intially thought.

What you say about skat is true - see
http://www.pagat.com/schafk/skat.html. However, the standardisation of
skat rules was effective only within one country, Germany. The skat-
players in north-central USA ignored the standard, and indeed still play
by a significantly different set of rules.

Also, it may be relevant that Germans tend to show more respect for
authority than most nations.

(Personally, I would like to see an international standard for mahjongg
rules, it might even induce me to take up the game again. But I suspect
that there is no chance of it happening.)

Nick
--
Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk

Reply

World-unified mahjong discussion (was Re: D'oh!)
19 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 2 1999 12:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <19990301153337.12867.00000...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote:

> In this thread, Cofa Tsui wrote:

> >Our question here is: whether a world-unified form of mahjong could be
> >possible. My opinion is that it could be possible, if a full rule set is
> >there and enough time and money are spent to promote it.

> My opinion is that it cannot be made to happen.

***Things are always made to happen. I can hardly imagine anything could
happen without being made - by human or natural forces.

> >What makes you so sure I have the consternation about all those different
ways
> of playing?

> You seem not only to have the opinion that it can be possible (to make a
> unified game) but to have the great desire to make one.

***This is very true to tell the fact this way. But you said that "I have the
consternation about all those different ways of playing" - That could be
offensive, unless you could prove your statement. I don't mind being offended
or attacked this way, I would normally just ignore it. But when such thing is
made by a person known to be a personnel from a well know company, things
could be totally different. The truth is, I don't mind whether there are 15
or 150 different ways (or even 1,500 ways, including table/house rules, etc.)
of playing. All can exist together. Why can't they!

> >[snip] what makes you so sure I am against nonstandard table rules?

> I got that impression from the passionate way that you have been promoting the
> notion of a unified game. If I misinterpreted you, I assume there is no harm
> done?

***Again, mind what you say against someone when what you say involves
descriptive hypothesis but not the fact. Even you always sign yourself off as
"Tom Sloper, The opinions expressed herein are my own, not those of my
employer." You are still known as Tom Sloper, the Senior Producer at
Activision. Unless your real intention is to make your employer happy (or
mad) for what you do. Keep in mind: When someone is promoting something (use
your own sample statement), it does not always mean he is against other
things, especially when the thing he is promoting has no conflict at all with
the other things.

> When players of "xxx" or "kkk" (or "qqq" or "iii" for that matter) play in
> tournaments, they use tournament rules. All non-standard NMJL table rules (by
> which I mean "table rules often used by NMJL players despite the official NMJL
> rules") have to be put aside for a tournament.

***That's the example why and how a set of unified rules is /very/ possible.
One simple principle should be easily understood and deemed to be implied in
all rule sets: "Nothing should be treated as part of the rules if it is not
stated in the rule set." Any non-standard table rules played by NMJL players
could mean anything, and is not necessarily connected to the official NMJL
rules. Also, the existence of any table rule does not affect the position of
the unified rules, until such table rules are recognized and absorbed as part
of the unified rules - by then, they are no longer table rules.

[snipped]

> And there are probably even more. Even a well managed and marketed game tends
> to have many table/house rules. The NMJL gamers do have to drop their table
> rules when playing in tournaments, but it would never be possible for NMJL
> players to play MJ against players of Chinese, HK, Taiwanese, Western,
> Japanese, Filipino.. .. (etc., etc.). I just do not see how it would ever
> really be possible to unify ALL forms of MJ. The person who tries is, IMO,
> doomed to failure. No offense intended to believers of the opposite view.

***In addition to my proposed "procedures" (in my previous message) how a
unified form of play could be established (or "made"). The following quote of
a letter sent to the authors of the Mahjong Masters Millions Rules might just
tell the /difference/ you and I have in mind regarding making a unified form
of mahjong:

"In fact, I intended only to make this game an international game, not to make
all games in the world "international"."

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9221a11.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

=====================END OF MESSAGE

20 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 2 1999 12:00 am
Email: actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH)
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Cofa Tsui wrote:
>> >What makes you so sure I have the consternation about all those different
>ways
>> of playing?

>I replied:
>> You seem not only to have the opinion that it can be possible (to make a
>> unified game) but to have the great desire to make one.

>Cofa responded:
>***This is very true to tell the fact this way. But you said that "I have the
>consternation about all those different ways of playing" - That could be
>offensive, unless you could prove your statement. I don't mind being offended
>or attacked this way, I would normally just ignore it. But when such thing is
>made by a person known to be a personnel from a well know company, things
>could be totally different. The truth is, I don't mind whether there are 15
>or 150 different ways (or even 1,500 ways, including table/house rules, etc.)
>of playing. All can exist together. Why can't they!

No offense was intended. I am sorry if offense was taken.

>Even you always sign yourself off as
>"Tom Sloper, The opinions expressed herein are my own, not those of my
>employer." You are still known as Tom Sloper, the Senior Producer at
>Activision. Unless your real intention is to make your employer happy (or
>mad) for what you do.

I think I'm missing the point. I hope that we are disagreeing in an agreeable
manner. Perhaps it would be better if I did not express my personal opinions
here?

Tom Sloper
The opinions expressed herein are my own, not those of my employer.

Reply

21 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Mon, Mar 1 1999 1:00 am
Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <36d6ed00.832...@news.netvigator.com>,
t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote:

> As I tried to point out, that is inadequate. The rule set must be
> acceptable to the players. For example, the majority of players won't
> accept a very complex game, while some won't play anything but a very
> complex game. Some Classical and Japanese players are not going to
> accept the luck of the self-draw in post-OS rule sets (OS, NS,
> Taiwanese, Chinese Official), while long-time OS and Taiwanese players
> won't consider a game without that element "mahjong". And the list
> goes on.

> Before a rule set can be agreed upon and accepted by all players, a
> set of criteria in determining which rules are "desirable" and which
> are not, one to evaluate and compare rules in an objective way, has to
> be agreed upon and accepted by all. Time and money alone cannot
> accomplish this, if this is at all possible.

Our question here is: whether a world-unified form of mahjong could be
possible. My opinion is that it could be possible, if a full rule set is
there and enough time and money are spent to promote it. I admit that the
terms "full rule set" and "promote" used here seem to be too simple -
However, too much explanations added could make the answer too complicated to
the original simple question. One should see that a readily available rule
set should be one that has already passed the stage of "being agreed upon and
accepted by all players".

And Alan's message may now bring up a series of questions: /Before/ a rule set
is ready for the unified form, how such rule set could be accomplished? What
/quality/ should be included in it? Etc., etc. Perhaps someone would be
interested in posting this series of questions for discussion in this group.

> In Japan, there are official mahjong organizations, but most people
> don't play by any of the official versions. They play "luck" rules
> such as ura-dora, "red 5", etc. Some very logically inconsistent and
> ill-defined rules, such as /nashi-nashi/, are widely played, even
> though official rule sets (any of which being /ari-ari/, the opposite
> of /nashi-nashi/) are readily available.

> The reason is because different players have different goals of
> playing the game (such as intellectual playability, gambling
> excitement, "color"), and different rule sets pretain to different
> tastes.

Perhaps this will bring up some new questions again: Are these treated as
/ONE/ game? Or should these be treated as /ONE/ game, or should these be
treated as /MANY/ different games instead? How do we define the term "unified
form"?

Like I mentioned in my previous posting: "Any "spice" added to an official
game is not the official game itself!" If a unified ("official") form is well
managed, (promoted, developed, etc., etc.) that unified form may add or repel
any rules so as to modify itself, and still maintain as a unified form.

If some rules may be clearly distinguished as "table rules" or "house rules",
there must be some rules that are "official/unified" (at least, to certain
extent). These are the (unified) rules that people from different tables or
houses would play together with, no matter how different their own table or
house rules are.

> >Some well marketed games (enough time and
> >money involved), if under trademarks and managed by one organization (or
> >through licensing arrangements), are also examples how games could be played
> >in unified form nationwide or worldwide.

> These games are the successful ones. The "time and money" spent on
> promoting the game is not the only factor which contributes to a
> widely played unified form; it is the /quality/ of the game, its good
> design, which draws the enthusiatic support from the players and
> allows the game to be propagated.

I agree. That's why I also mentioned before: Those are just the essential
elements, not the /only/ element.

There are also many games produced

> which are quickly forgotten. Similarly, if the launch of some
> "unified rule set" for mahjong is attempted, there is a good chance
> that this "standard" will be ignored or abandoned by most players -
> they won't forget the game of mahjong altogether, just the "unified
> rule set", and they'll keep on playing their favorite version - unless
> something can make the players believe that the rules are more
> desirable ("better") than what they've been playing. And, mind you,
> that is not easy.

The way I see the question is on a much wider view (much, much wider): When
people in Canada, in Japan, in the U.S., in Hong Kong, in China, in ..., ever
want to play the game together, they will have to use one unified form - that
should be what referred to as "standard" in this discussion. These people may
still play their own "table rules", "house rules" when they return to their
own tables, their own houses, etc. Of course, to bring all people up to such
desire is not easy. But at least, the possibility is there and some
successful games already showed us the way!

> >Panda Behr wrote:

> > Granted: The NMJL has a standard, the WrightPatterson Wives have a
> >standard, the Japanese Mahjong Association has a standard. Not "the"
> >standard, but a standard for them. I doubt seriously they will adopt
> >another standard, even one known as "World-Unifying Mahjong"

> Please excuse me for repeating this note again: few Japanese people,
> other than professional players and tournament contestants, actually
> play JMA rules. Most mah-jong parlours in Japan don't play JMA rules.

In this case, I suppose the mahjong parlours are playing with the parlours'
"unified rules". Or, at least, one parlour should have its own "unified rules"
for ALL TABLES in the same parlour.

At least, Alan did show us the evidence that when people (the professional
players and tournament contestants, for instant) have the desire to play
together, the unified form will play its part.

COFA TSUI
IMJ Rules, the world's 1st full version mahjong rules
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(9221a7.)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Reply

D'oh!
22 From: Perhaps a Princess... - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 1999 12:00 am
Email: "Perhaps a Princess..." <s...@eskimo.com>
Groups: rec.games.mahjong
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > 2) How do we get everyone to adopt the "standard" - and by everyone, I
> > do mean EVERYONE. Unless ALL mahjong players adopt it, it is not
> > "universal" and becomes just another style of mah-jong.
> ***The most popular, or most frequently mentioned, forms of mahjong play in
> this newsgroup are (as far as I can recall): - Chinese Classical (from the
> book of Millington); - Hong Kong Old Style/Cantonese Style (from books not so
> popular as Millington's); - NMJL; - Taiwanese 16 tile mahjong; - Japanese
> mahjong. (If I missed any style, please correct me.)
> ***How did people get to adopt these standards (too bad these are too many
> standards instead of just one unified standard)? Perhaps the way how people
> in the past have learned to play mahjong under these standards, may give a
> hint how everyone would adopt to a unified form of play in the future.

Because these aren't standards? I can put my style of Mah-jongg game
into one of the above mentioned forms of Mahjongg play (Chinese
Classical if I recall correctly) but that does NOT mean that I play by
the same Chinese Classical rules as another person who also says they
play Chinese Classical. In fact, there can be significant differences
even within the same category.

Sarah heacock

Reply


^ | Home