 |
|
|
|
Kong Question - Automatic win, robbing the kong, and Flower replacement
The messages collected on this page cover several issues as outlined below. I recently researched the Google old postings and found this one to be interesting, worth the collection in this Archives.
[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) - 1 From: Patrick Ho - view profile Date: Sat, Sep 26 1998 12:00 am Email: Patrick Ho <p...@email.sjsu.edu> 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 cofat...@aicom.com wrote: > This question is based on the playing rules of Cantonese MJ (or Hong Kong Old > Style, or IMJ): > 1. As far as I could memorize, a player must declare in order to win. i.e., > say "WIN" verbally, then disclose all of his concealed Pies, then count the > number of total Folds of the hand. Anyone knows of any exception? That is, is > there any "automatic win" in Cantonese MJ/HKOS? (There is one exception in > IMJ, anyway.) Well, the only automatic win I know of is the flower win. That is, winning with either 7 or 8 flowers regardless of what is in your hand. > 3. The Pies, all concealed, of Player A are listed as follows: (The code names > used are: JJ = Joh, or "red dragon"; M1 = 1 Mat; etc.) > JJ M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M5 M5 M5 M7 M7 M7 Oh, I'm sorry, I read player A's hand incorrectly the first time. I thought JJ meant he had two red dragons. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > 4. The sequence of drawing of Player A is listed below: > - He drew M2, he made Kong of M2; > - He then drew M5 from the Tail (end of the wall), he made Kong of M5; > - He then drew M7 from the Tail and made Kong of M7; (What a lucky guy!) > - He finally drew M1 AND made the Kong of M1... > ... at this point, Player C claimed WIN on that M1... > NOW, the question is: Who is entitled to win? > Player A to win on "making four consecutive Kongs"? OR > Player C to win on the "Thirteen Yuls"? I have never heard of winning after four consecutive kongs, so if I was playing with my usual group of people, Player C should get the win. Also, if Player A happens to take a look at the replacement tile and it is the one he needs to complete his hand, he still does not get the win. This is because he gets the replacement tile "after" making the kong while Player C is stealing the kong first. -- Sonya Kintana Ibukki Sakura Lin Xiaoyu Chun Li Lei-fang Sophitia Rose ---------------------------------------------------Devlot Nina --Patrick Ho Kasumi Taki http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/2752 Ellis Anna ---------------------------------------------------Michelle Elena Felicia Orchid Morrigan Mileena Sindel Seung Mina Hsien-ko Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 2 From: cofatsui - view profile Date: Sun, Sep 27 1998 12:00 am Email: cofat...@aicom.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 This question is based on the playing rules of Cantonese MJ (or Hong Kong Old Style, or IMJ): 1. As far as I could memorize, a player must declare in order to win. i.e., say "WIN" verbally, then disclose all of his concealed Pies, then count the number of total Folds of the hand. Anyone knows of any exception? That is, is there any "automatic win" in Cantonese MJ/HKOS? (There is one exception in IMJ, anyway.) 2. In this question, Player C is calling for 1 Mat (means "Charecter One", etc.) in order to win a Special Winning Hand of Thirteen Yuls (means the "Thirteen Orphans", etc.), while Player A is going to draw a Pie from the Head (means the leading head of the wall). 3. The Pies, all concealed, of Player A are listed as follows: (The code names used are: JJ = Joh, or "red dragon"; M1 = 1 Mat; etc.) JJ M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M5 M5 M5 M7 M7 M7 4. The sequence of drawing of Player A is listed below: - He drew M2, he made Kong of M2; - He then drew M5 from the Tail (end of the wall), he made Kong of M5; - He then drew M7 from the Tail and made Kong of M7; (What a lucky guy!) - He finally drew M1 AND made the Kong of M1... ... at this point, Player C claimed WIN on that M1... NOW, the question is: Who is entitled to win? Player A to win on "making four consecutive Kongs"? OR Player C to win on the "Thirteen Yuls"? Have fun! -- COFA TSUI 1998-09-26 "International Mahjong Rules" is now for sale, LEARNING and TEACHING mahjong could be easy and fast! Also, a full list of terminology used in IMJ. Visit http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html Distributors/Retailers wanted: E-mail: i...@cofatsui.com ********************************************* (8926b) -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 3 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Sun, Sep 27 1998 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 Good question Cofatsui. This situation is confusing because it involves two conflicting exception rules with two Irregular hands: the 4 Quartets irregular hand and the 13 Orphans irregular hand with the robbing concealed quartet exception rule. Let me try to answer the question. The 4 Quartets irregular hand goes out when the player completes his 4th quartet. However, a robbed quartet is not completed: something which is "robbed", is lost and absent. Since the 13 Orphans hand is robbing the quartet, the quartet is not completed, and the 13 Orphans hand goes out while the 4 Quartets hand doesn't. Now, a couple of notes on the two exception rules. The 4 Quartets irregular hand is an old Classical hand which I believe has been put out of practice, along with rules such as "4 Quartet abortive draw" and other abortive draw rules, during the development of Old Style. Among many, if not most, Old Style players, 4 Quartets is a Regular (limit) hand, which requires the completion of the pair of eyes. The 13 Orphans hand is, in the opinions of mine and of Mr. Gaan, an unnecessary exception rule which adds needless complication to the game. IMO it is also not very mathematical, since the 13 Orphans special hand is not all that rare (/especially/ in games with stringent minimum Faan requirements). However, it should be noted that for the purpose of this question, the same question would arise even if this exception rule is not in force, if the 4th quartet is an exposed quartet. In a similar vein to my response above, if you are trying to make your 4th quartet with a discarded tile while another player goes out with same, the other player's claim should take priority, since his call is a "win" call while yours is a "kong". "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===== 4 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Sun, Sep 27 1998 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 described a situation in which a player is making an incredibly fortuitous string of 4 kongs in a row, kong upon kong upon kong upon kong, and concluded: > ... at this point, Player C claimed WIN on that M1... > NOW, the question is: Who is entitled to win? > Player A to win on "making four consecutive Kongs"? OR > Player C to win on the "Thirteen Yuls"? Patrick Ho wrote, I have never heard of winning after four consecutive kongs, so if I was playing with my usual group of people, Player C should get the win. *** Quite right. Only if the players all already have a standing "4 kongs is an instant win; you don't need a pair to complete the hand" rule, would this constitute a win. Alan Kwan wrote, Let me try to answer the question. The 4 Quartets irregular hand goes out when the player completes his 4th quartet. However, a robbed quartet is not completed: something which is "robbed", is lost and absent. Since the 13 Orphans hand is robbing the quartet, the quartet is not completed, and the 13 Orphans hand goes out while the 4 Quartets hand doesn't. *** Whoa, sudden turnaround! Guess I'd never considered that. It's not a kong anymore! Player A declared a win, only to see his win evaporate. That's like a "near death experience" or something -- "so what was it like on the other side, Player A? You were there for a moment but now you've come back!" Alan Kwan continued: Among many, if not most, Old Style players, 4 Quartets is a Regular (limit) hand, which requires the completion of the pair of eyes. *** Note that in the modern Japanese game also, you need the pair to complete the 4 Kongs hand. I realize we're not talking about the modern Japanese game in this thread, but it would be theoretically possible for the example playing sequence to occur in that game as well. If it did, the game would end even if the other player didn't suddenly make a 13 Orphans hand, since the game automatically ends after the 4th kong. The dead wall has only 4 loose tiles in it, the 5th tile being the Dora indicator. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 5 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Mon, Sep 28 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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'm not familiar with a special 4 quartet hand in Taiwanese mahjong, but there's definitely a "4 quartet abortive draw", which ends the hand if there's a total of 4 kong on the table, regardless of who has them. I'm interested to hear what other situations result in abortive draws. On a side note, I haven't heard from anyone about the origins of Taiwanses style, but it's interesting that Taiwanese style retains an old classical hand that's phased out in other styles. Cheers, Steve - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Alan Kwan wrote: > Now, a couple of notes on the two exception rules. The 4 Quartets > irregular hand is an old Classical hand which I believe has been put > out of practice, along with rules such as "4 Quartet abortive draw" > and other abortive draw rules, during the development of Old Style. > Among many, if not most, Old Style players, 4 Quartets is a Regular > (limit) hand, which requires the completion of the pair of eyes. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 6 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Sep 29 1998 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 In some versions of Chinese Classical, there was both the "4 Quartets" irregular limit hand and the "4 Quartets abortive draw". If _one_ player makes 4 quartets, he wins immediately upon completion of his 4th quartet. There is no need to complete the pair of eyes. If /two or more/ players make a total of 4 quartets, the hand ends immediately in a draw upon completion of the 4th quartet. In either case, the hand ends immediately when the 4th quartet is completed, before the replacement tile for the 4th quartet is drawn. On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:45:28 -0500, Steve Lin - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote: >I'm not familiar with a special 4 quartet hand in Taiwanese mahjong, but >there's definitely a "4 quartet abortive draw", which ends the hand if there's >a total of 4 kong on the table, regardless of who has them. I'm interested to >hear what other situations result in abortive draws. On a side note, I >haven't heard from anyone about the origins of Taiwanses style, but it's >interesting that Taiwanese style retains an old classical hand that's phased >out in other styles. >Cheers, >Steve >Alan Kwan wrote: >> Now, a couple of notes on the two exception rules. The 4 Quartets >> irregular hand is an old Classical hand which I believe has been put >> out of practice, along with rules such as "4 Quartet abortive draw" >> and other abortive draw rules, during the development of Old Style. >> Among many, if not most, Old Style players, 4 Quartets is a Regular >> (limit) hand, which requires the completion of the pair of eyes. "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===== 7 From: Klaus Ole Kristiansen - view profile Date: Tues, Sep 29 1998 12:00 am Email: k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) 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 Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> writes: >I'm not familiar with a special 4 quartet hand in Taiwanese mahjong, but >there's definitely a "4 quartet abortive draw", which ends the hand if there's >a total of 4 kong on the table, regardless of who has them. I'm interested to >hear what other situations result in abortive draws. One I have heard of: if the first four discards are identical. Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 8 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Tues, Sep 29 1998 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 Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> writes: >I'm not familiar with a special 4 quartet hand in Taiwanese mahjong, but >there's definitely a "4 quartet abortive draw", which ends the hand if there's >a total of 4 kong on the table, regardless of who has them. I'm interested to >hear what other situations result in abortive draws. Klaus O K adds: One I have heard of: if the first four discards are identical. *** The Modern Japanese game has a lot of situations that cause the game to be declared void and to be redealt (in Japanese, this is called "nagare"). The following are excerpts from the manual for Shanghai: Dynasty's Modern Japanese game: Replay ("Nagare") if all players go Reach -- If all players go Reach, it's an automatic replay situation. Play stops, tiles get shuffled. Dealer goes again (add a marker chip per above). Replay ("Nagare") if 3 players claim win on same discard -- If 3 players declare Ron (win by discard) on the same discard, it's an automatic replay. Same as above. Replay ("Nagare") on 9 unique honors and terms -- If the Dealer has exactly 9 unique honors and terminals on the initial deal, that's an automatic replay. Same if any player has exactly 8 unique honors and terminals, plus exactly one duplicate of any. Or if any player has exactly 8 unique honors and terminals and draws another unique honor/term on the first draw. As with the other Nagare situations, dealer goes again (add a marker chip). Replay ("Nagare") for 4 same winds in one turn -- If all 4 players discard the same wind in one turn around the table, that's an automatic replay. Same as above. Replay ("Nagare") on 4th loose tile -- Upon the removal of the 4th loose tile, when the player who makes a Kong has taken the last loose tile and discarded it, if nobody claims it to win, game automatically stops. Assuming, that is, that the 4 Kongs are not all held by one player. If one player has made 4 Kongs and is now waiting for the "head" tile, play can continue, but nobody can make a Kong anymore. Noten Oya Nagare -- If the Dealer does not have Tenpai, the deal normally passes along. This rule refers to how to handle such an occurrence when it happens in the last hand of the round. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== Declared draw situations (was Re: Who has the priority to win! (2nd)) 9 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 1 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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 Here's a comparison between Japanese and Taiwanese style on situations to declare a draw: ACTSEARCH wrote: > *** The Modern Japanese game has a lot of situations that cause the game to be > declared void and to be redealt (in Japanese, this is called "nagare"). The > following are excerpts from the manual for Shanghai: Dynasty's Modern Japanese > game: > Replay ("Nagare") if all players go Reach -- If all players go Reach, it's an > automatic replay situation. Play stops, tiles get shuffled. Dealer goes again > (add a marker chip per above). Since there's no Reach in TW style, this doesn't apply > Replay ("Nagare") if 3 players claim win on same discard -- If 3 players > declare Ron (win by discard) on the same discard, it's an automatic replay. > Same as above. This is perfectly legal in TW style, so 3 players could win on the same discard IF this is agreed upon beforehand. Otherwise only the next player in turn gets the win. > Replay ("Nagare") on 9 unique honors and terms -- If the Dealer has exactly 9 > unique honors and terminals on the initial deal, that's an automatic replay. > Same if any player has exactly 8 unique honors and terminals, plus exactly one > duplicate of any. Or if any player has exactly 8 unique honors and terminals > and draws another unique honor/term on the first draw. As with the other > Nagare situations, dealer goes again (add a marker chip). There is a similar rule in TW style, where a player with no pairs can declare a draw. I'm not sure if one pair is allowed. It is not automatic though, as the player can decide to play the hand. > Replay ("Nagare") for 4 same winds in one turn -- If all 4 players discard the > same wind in one turn around the table, that's an automatic replay. Same as > above. This is allowed in TW style. However, it is forbidden to throw out four consecutive "West", as "western sky" is an euphemism for "heaven", meaning someone died. > Replay ("Nagare") on 4th loose tile -- Upon the removal of the 4th loose tile, > when the player who makes a Kong has taken the last loose tile and discarded > it, if nobody claims it to win, game automatically stops. Assuming, that is, > that the 4 Kongs are not all held by one player. If one player has made 4 > Kongs and is now waiting for the "head" tile, play can continue, but nobody can > make a Kong anymore. This sounds like the same situation as "4 Kongs". Since in TW style the loose tile is also used to replentish flower tiles, this does not apply. > Noten Oya Nagare -- If the Dealer does not have Tenpai, the deal normally > passes along. This rule refers to how to handle such an occurrence when it > happens in the last hand of the round. I don't know what Tenpai is, so I can't comment on this. In all these cases the draw counts as dealer's reign, so there will be extra scores for the dealer on the next hand. Cheers, Steve Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 10 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 1 1998 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 Steve Lin wrote, [snip] it is forbidden to throw out four consecutive "West", as "western sky" is an euphemism for "heaven", meaning someone died. *** Fascinating. So if a 4th player in a row /wanted/ to throw a West, he would have to throw something else. Is there a penalty for throwing the 4th West in a row? > Replay ("Nagare") on 4th loose tile -- Upon the removal of the 4th loose tile, > when the player who makes a Kong has taken the last loose tile and discarded > it, if nobody claims it to win, game automatically stops. [snip] This sounds like the same situation as "4 Kongs". Since in TW style the loose tile is also used to replentish flower tiles, this does not apply. *** As far as I know, this rule /only/ applies to the modern Japanese game. That all other MJ games that use Flowers as bonus tiles work as you describe it for the Taiwanese game. > Noten Oya Nagare -- If the Dealer does not have Tenpai, the deal normally > passes along. I don't know what Tenpai is, so I can't comment on this. *** Tenpai is the state of having a hand that is complete except that it needs a 14th tile to win. Sometimes called a "calling hand" or "fishing hand." If you would like to see the rules for Japanese MJ (or just a glossary of terms), I can post a text file. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 11 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 1 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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 ACTSEARCH wrote: > *** Fascinating. So if a 4th player in a row /wanted/ to throw a West, he > would have to throw something else. Is there a penalty for throwing the 4th > West in a row? There's no penalty for throwing the 4th West. However, since doing so supposely mean someone close to one of the players will die soon, it would be wise not to do so. I'm sure most people can find another tile to throw out and discard West on the next turn. > *** Tenpai is the state of having a hand that is complete except that it needs > a 14th tile to win. Sometimes called a "calling hand" or "fishing hand." If > you would like to see the rules for Japanese MJ (or just a glossary of terms), > I can post a text file. I see, Tenpai is the same as "ting-pai" in Mandarin. How is that different from Reach? Is the difference being that once you declare Reach you cannot change tiles? How is tenpai related to draws? Do you mean that in case of a draw, the dealer must have tenpai in order to continue as dealer? Cheers, Steve Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 12 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 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 Steve Lin wrote, There's no penalty for throwing the 4th West. However, since doing so supposely mean someone close to one of the players will die soon, it would be wise not to do so. *** OK, I see -- it's more of a superstition than a rule. It's "impolite" but not against the rules to throw a 4th West. Wonder how many unwitting foreigners have committed this sin. . . Steve also wrote, I see, Tenpai is the same as "ting-pai" in Mandarin. How is that different from Reach? Is the difference being that once you declare Reach you cannot change tiles? *** Reach is only allowed when your hand is tenpai and totally concealed. Reach is a special bet which is worth a one-fan yaku. If you have declared Reach, your hand is automatically tenpai. But you can be tenpai without declaring Reach. You can have melds on the table and just need one tile to win, and your hand is tenpai. Steve also asked, How is tenpai related to draws? Do you mean that in case of a draw, the dealer must have tenpai in order to continue as dealer? *** Here's what it says in the Shanghai Dynasty manual about that: Deal passes if Dealer has Noten -- In a Wall game, if the Dealer does not have Tenpai, the Dealer loses the deal. But if it's the last hand of the last round (4th dealer, South round), the deal cannot pass to someone else; must remain with that dealer until hand is won. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 13 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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 Tom, Does this mean other players have to inspect the dealer's hand to see if he has tenpai? Doesn't this violate the rule that one cannot look at other players' hidden tile, even after a draw? I thought this rule was fairly strict, just as a poker hand cannot be revealed unless someone calls. Cheers, Steve - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ACTSEARCH wrote: > *** Here's what it says in the Shanghai Dynasty manual about that: > Deal passes if Dealer has Noten -- In a Wall game, if the Dealer does not have > Tenpai, the Dealer loses the deal. But if it's the last hand of the last round > (4th dealer, South round), the deal cannot pass to someone else; must remain > with that dealer until hand is won. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 14 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Sat, Oct 3 1998 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 Steve Lin asked, Does this mean other players have to inspect the dealer's hand to see if he has tenpai? Steve, No, not quite. IF a player has tenpai, AND he does NOT want to pay money to others (OR he wants to keep the deal), THEN he has to PROVE that he has tenpai. Let's assume for a moment that he does not want to reveal his hand after the live wall is exhausted (as you suggest): He doesn't HAVE to show his now-dead hand to the others if he doesn't want to (but why wouldn't he?), but then he will have to lie (when asked the direct question, "are you tenpai?" -- and why would he lie about that?) AND he will have to pay the tenpai player(s) AND he will have to give up the deal. What would YOU do? Steve wrote: Doesn't this violate the rule that one cannot look at other players' hidden tile, even after a draw? I thought this rule was fairly strict, just as a poker hand cannot be revealed unless someone calls. Steve, what game has such a rule? I never heard of it before. If you would like to read the rules for Modern Japanese MJ, I can post a text file here, or you can view the HTML version at Martin Rep's website. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 15 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 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 Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:01:22 -0500, Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote: >ACTSEARCH wrote: >> *** Fascinating. So if a 4th player in a row /wanted/ to throw a West, he >> would have to throw something else. Is there a penalty for throwing the 4th >> West in a row? >There's no penalty for throwing the 4th West. However, since doing so >supposely mean someone close to one of the players will die soon, it would be >wise not to do so. I'm sure most people can find another tile to throw out >and discard West on the next turn. This is a Chinese superstition, and is not limited to Taiwanese Style. Some Chinese Old Style players believe that throwing out 4 West on the first turn would bring death to /all four players at the table/! I've watched a TV horror drama on this theme when I was small. >> *** Tenpai is the state of having a hand that is complete except that it needs >> a 14th tile to win. Sometimes called a "calling hand" or "fishing hand." If >> you would like to see the rules for Japanese MJ (or just a glossary of terms), >> I can post a text file. >I see, Tenpai is the same as "ting-pai" in Mandarin. How is that different >from Reach? Tenpai is but a necessary condition for making the "Reach" declaration. A player with a Tenpai hand ("calling") is not required to declare Reach. The main reason for declaring Reach is to gain an additional 1 Faan (double). "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===== 16 From: Klaus Ole Kristiansen - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 12:00 am Email: k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) 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 actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) writes: >Steve Lin wrote, >> Replay ("Nagare") on 4th loose tile -- Upon the removal of the 4th loose >tile, >> when the player who makes a Kong has taken the last loose tile and discarded >> it, if nobody claims it to win, game automatically stops. [snip] >This sounds like the same situation as "4 Kongs". Since in TW style the loose >tile is also used to replentish flower tiles, this does not apply. >*** As far as I know, this rule /only/ applies to the modern Japanese game. >That all other MJ games that use Flowers as bonus tiles work as you describe it >for the Taiwanese game. In Chinese Classical as described by Millington, replacements for bonuses are taken from the live wall. The dead wall contains 16 tiles, just enough since each of four players can get at most 4 kongs. Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 17 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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 But aren't the dead wall continuously replentished? There should be 16 "dead" tiles at all time, so you would never run out. Is this not true in Chinese Classical? Cheers, Steve - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Klaus Ole Kristiansen wrote: > In Chinese Classical as described by Millington, replacements for bonuses > are taken from the live wall. The dead wall contains 16 tiles, just enough > since each of four players can get at most 4 kongs. > Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 18 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Sat, Oct 3 1998 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 Klaus Ole Kristiansen wrote: > In Chinese Classical as described by Millington, replacements for bonuses > are taken from the live wall. The dead wall contains 16 tiles, just enough > since each of four players can get at most 4 kongs. Steve Lin asked, But aren't the dead wall continuously replentished [sic]? There should be 16 "dead" tiles at all time, so you would never run out. Is this not true in Chinese Classical? Herewith my two cents worth: I don't have my copy of Millington in front of me (it's the weekend, and it's at work). My belief is that the Chinese Classical game's dead wall consists of 14, not 16, tiles. It's a "ghost hand" ("the king's hand"), never played. Yes, in Chinese Classical, the dead wall is continuously replenished as loose tiles are removed for kongs or flowers. In the Modern Japanese game the dead wall also starts as 14 tiles, but it is not replenished as loose tiles are removed for kongs. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 19 From: Klaus Ole Kristiansen - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 5 1998 12:00 am Email: k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) 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 Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> writes: >But aren't the dead wall continuously replentished? There should be 16 "dead" >tiles at all time, so you would never run out. Is this not true in Chinese Classical? >Cheers, No. Millington metions this in his chapter on variants. He sees this as an attempt to add more randomness to the game by making sure that there will always be 16 unavailable tiles. Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 20 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 5 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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 That's interesting. I thought replentishing the "dead" tile is common in all styles. In fact, I was reminded that each kong is suppose to add to the number of "dead" tiles, so that 3 kongs on the table means there should be 19 "dead" tiles. I thought this would in effect reduce the randomness, since you'll always have the same amount of tile that's unavailable to all players. Cheers, Steve - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Klaus Ole Kristiansen wrote: > Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> writes: > >But aren't the dead wall continuously replentished? There should be 16 "dead" > >tiles at all time, so you would never run out. Is this not true in Chinese Classical? > >Cheers, > No. Millington metions this in his chapter on variants. He sees this as > an attempt to add more randomness to the game by making sure that there > will always be 16 unavailable tiles. > Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 21 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 1 1998 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 The question: If Player A makes 4 consecutive Kongs, and while he is making the 4th Kong, Player C claims the Charged Kong with a winning hand of the Thirteen Yuls. Who has the priority to win? (A) Those who have replied to this question all have no doubt about the following rule: "A player who wins on the Thirteen Yuls has the priority over all other forms of winning hand." (B) There are different ruling about the winning on "making 4 consecutive Kongs": (a) The Win is automatic as soon as the 4th Kong is completed; and (b) It is a winning hand only if the player draws, immediately after having exposed the 4th Kong, a Pie to complete the Eyes. (Lucky times lucky!) (C) In scenario (B)(b), Player A DID have completed the 4th Kong (had exposed all 4 identical Pies to form a set of Kong). Before he had chance drawing a Pie from the Tail, Player C claimed the Charged Kong and declared Win on the Thirteen Yuls. Since Player A had not completed his hand yet, Player C won on the Charged Kong. (D) In scenario (B)(a), Player A had successfully completed the 4th Kong. By the predefined rule, he won as soon as he exposed the 4th set of Kong and the Game stopped at the same time. The Win is "automatic" and there is no need for him to declare to win. The action of Player C is, therefore, invalid. In this scenario, Player A won. (There is NOT even the "who has the priority" issue.) (E) There is one concern about the "automatic win" in this question: As in scenario (B)(a), what if Player A holds more than one Pie in hand after he has just made the 4th Kong? In other words, "he has too many Pies in hand". This situation, as well as the "automatic win" on "making 4 consecutive Kongs" itself, are grey areas in the Cantonese Mahjong rules (or Hong Kong Old Style). (F) The following is the corresponding ruling in International Mahjong Rules, for your reference: "Art. 25.6. THE KONG TO FOURTH: If a player makes Kongs up to four consecutive times without a break, he needs not draw a Pie from the Tail any more but is deemed to have won the Game, provided there is one, and only one, Pie left in his concealed hand. The winning hand is considered on the action of making Kongs alone and is called The Kong To Fourth, and is awarded a fixed 13 Folds." -- COFA TSUI 10/01/1998 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8926bx.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 22 From: Klaus Ole Kristiansen - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 12:00 am Email: k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) 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 <c...@cofatsui.com> writes: >(B) There are different ruling about the winning on "making 4 consecutive >Kongs": >(a) The Win is automatic as soon as the 4th Kong is completed; and >(b) It is a winning hand only if the player draws, immediately after having >exposed the 4th Kong, a Pie to complete the Eyes. (Lucky times lucky!) What would prevent you from completing the hand by drawing or claiming a tile later? Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 23 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 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 <6v1v0s$...@ask.diku.dk>, k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) wrote: > Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> writes: > >(B) There are different ruling about the winning on "making 4 consecutive > >Kongs": > >(a) The Win is automatic as soon as the 4th Kong is completed; and > >(b) It is a winning hand only if the player draws, immediately after having > >exposed the 4th Kong, a Pie to complete the Eyes. (Lucky times lucky!) > What would prevent you from completing the hand by drawing or claiming a > tile later? I assume Klaus' question here is about scenario (B)(b): - If another player claims a Charged Kong (That is, to take the Pie from your Kong and win with his hand.). In this scenario, you cannot draw any more. - If you draw a Pie after having made the 4th Kong, the Pie you draw might not form a pair of Eyes with the Pie left in your hand. If this is the case, you do not complete a winning hand and must discard a Pie. - After you have discarded a Pie, you are then free to claim any Pie that would match a pair of Eyes with your hand, and to declare Win. You could also wait until your turn to draw a Pie again. Cheers! -- COFA TSUI 10/02/1998 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 24 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 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 Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:06:56 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: >The question: If Player A makes 4 consecutive Kongs, and while he is making >the 4th Kong, Player C claims the Charged Kong with a winning hand of the >Thirteen Yuls. Who has the priority to win? >(A) Those who have replied to this question all have no doubt about the >following rule: "A player who wins on the Thirteen Yuls has the priority over >all other forms of winning hand." I would like to add the remark that this is but an, albeit very common, house rule. >(B) There are different ruling about the winning on "making 4 consecutive >Kongs": >(a) The Win is automatic as soon as the 4th Kong is completed; and >(b) It is a winning hand only if the player draws, immediately after having >exposed the 4th Kong, a Pie to complete the Eyes. (Lucky times lucky!) "making 4 consecutive kongs" is not a standard hand in Old Style (that I know of), thus it is also a house rule and has no "standard" before "IMJ". >(E) There is one concern about the "automatic win" in this question: As in >scenario (B)(a), what if Player A holds more than one Pie in hand after he >has just made the 4th Kong? In other words, "he has too many Pies in hand". >This situation, as well as the "automatic win" on "making 4 consecutive >Kongs" itself, are grey areas in the Cantonese Mahjong rules (or Hong Kong >Old Style). I think OS rules are quite clear on this issue. Once a player is discovered to have too many or too few tiles, he can no longer go out, claim a discard, or make a kong for the rest of the hand. The _only_ "standard" Irregular hand in OS is "Thirteen Orphans". >(F) The following is the corresponding ruling in International Mahjong Rules, >for your reference: >"Art. 25.6. THE KONG TO FOURTH: If a player makes Kongs up to four >consecutive times without a break, he needs not draw a Pie from the Tail any >more but is deemed to have won the Game, provided there is one, and only one, >Pie left in his concealed hand. The winning hand is considered on the action >of making Kongs alone and is called The Kong To Fourth, and is awarded a >fixed 13 Folds." There are two problems with this rule: 1. Do the kongs have to be "kong on kong", i.e. made with each supplement tile as it is drawn? Or can the player win if he has 3 complete sets of fours in his hand, kongs them in succession, and draws 3 identical supplement tiles matching the 4th in his hand? 2. This is so rare that the rule is practically superfluous. I think the old Classical rule of the Irregular "4 Quartets" hand (which covers any hand with 4 quartets, not necessarily "consecutive" ones) would do a better job of being a rule which, on rare occasions (as opposed to practically /never/), takes effect and serves to add color to the game. It also adds strategy: when a player has made 2 or 3 kongs, it creates a special situation that the players have to deal with while playing on. (As opposed to a mostly superfluous rule which does little more than letting a "4 concealed triplets" hand go out in a way which is far, far less probable than simply matching the eyes.) "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===== 25 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 2 1998 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 <36149250.3981...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:06:56 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: > >(F) The following is the corresponding ruling in International Mahjong Rules, > >for your reference: > >"Art. 25.6. THE KONG TO FOURTH: If a player makes Kongs up to four > >consecutive times without a break, he needs not draw a Pie from the Tail any > >more but is deemed to have won the Game, provided there is one, and only one, > >Pie left in his concealed hand. The winning hand is considered on the action > >of making Kongs alone and is called The Kong To Fourth, and is awarded a > >fixed 13 Folds." > There are two problems with this rule: > 1. Do the kongs have to be "kong on kong", i.e. made with each > supplement tile as it is drawn? Or can the player win if he has 3 > complete sets of fours in his hand, kongs them in succession, and > draws 3 identical supplement tiles matching the 4th in his hand? (A) It has to be "kong on kong" - see the wordings "... makes Kongs up to four consecutive times without a break". (B) The four CONSECUTIVE Kongs can be any form of Kong (i.e., it can be Melded Kongs (open kongs) or Off Kongs (closed kong, etc.), as long as you can kong four times in a row. (C) Yes, according to IMJ Rules, the player can win on Kong To Fourth, if he kongs the 4th Kong as well. (Why not!) Drawing the Pie in hand does not make him win automatically. Making the Kong does. > 2. This is so rare that the rule is practically superfluous. I think > the old Classical rule of the Irregular "4 Quartets" hand (which > covers any hand with 4 quartets, not necessarily "consecutive" ones) > would do a better job of being a rule which, on rare occasions (as > opposed to practically /never/), takes effect and serves to add color > to the game. It also adds strategy: when a player has made 2 or 3 > kongs, it creates a special situation that the players have to deal > with while playing on. (As opposed to a mostly superfluous rule which > does little more than letting a "4 concealed triplets" hand go out in > a way which is far, far less probable than simply matching the eyes.) (D) This is very true that "Kong To Fourth" is nearly impossible. That's why in my introductory pages of the rulebook I wrote: "In the future in an open or public event of IMJ tournament, the one who wins on the Kong To Fourth would certainly write a world record!" (Refer to: http://www.cofatsui.com/yvariation.html Paragraph #6.) (E) Making four consecutive Kongs is already "superfluous", I therefore eliminated the need to complete the pair of Eyes, and made Kong To Fourth "automatic Win". This adds a little interest to the game as the Thirteen Yuls is now no longer the highest or most powerful winning hand - its super power related to Charged Kong (robbing the kong even the kong is a closed kong) won't work here! (F) I did ask people surrounding me about the "Sap Baat Loh Hon" hand (the "eithteen arhats" or, simply, the "18-piece hand" = 4 sets of Kong + 2 Eyes = 18 Pies). The feedbacks I got were not consistent. One of the forms was similar to the "4 Quartets" hand as mentioned by Alan Kwan above. I tended to not to include this type of winning hand as if I did, the "consistency principle" inside me would ask: "What if I have 4 sets of Bangos?" "What if I have 4 sets of Seams?" etc. Besides, if the sets are made gradually throughout the term of the Game, the difference between "All Kongs" and "All Bangos" becomes less. (Note: We do have the winning hand of All Bangos, in which Bangos and Kongs are treated the same.) Thanks to Alan for raising those interesting points! (For a complete set of terminology used in IMJ, please refer to: http://www.cofatsui.com/ymjphrase.html) -- COFA TSUI 10/02/1998 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8926bx12) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 26 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Sun, Oct 4 1998 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 - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 16:33:19 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: >In article <36149250.3981...@news.netvigator.com>, > t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:06:56 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: >> >(F) The following is the corresponding ruling in International Mahjong Rules, >> >for your reference: >> >"Art. 25.6. THE KONG TO FOURTH: If a player makes Kongs up to four >> >consecutive times without a break, he needs not draw a Pie from the Tail any >> >more but is deemed to have won the Game, provided there is one, and only one, >> >Pie left in his concealed hand. The winning hand is considered on the action >> >of making Kongs alone and is called The Kong To Fourth, and is awarded a >> >fixed 13 Folds." >> There are two problems with this rule: >> 1. Do the kongs have to be "kong on kong", i.e. made with each >> supplement tile as it is drawn? Or can the player win if he has 3 >> complete sets of fours in his hand, kongs them in succession, and >> draws 3 identical supplement tiles matching the 4th in his hand? >(A) It has to be "kong on kong" - see the wordings "... makes Kongs up to four >consecutive times without a break". >(C) Yes, according to IMJ Rules, the player can win on Kong To Fourth, if he >kongs the 4th Kong as well. (Why not!) Drawing the Pie in hand does not make >him win automatically. Making the Kong does. According to standard Old Style rules, a "Kong on Kong" must be made /with/ the supplement tile: if you have 2 sets of fours in your hand, kong one, draw a supplement tile, kong the other, and go out on the second supplement tile, this is _not_ considered "Kong on Kong". So your definition of "consecutive" kongs is not exactly the same as "Kong on Kong" as in OS, is it? >(F) I did ask people surrounding me about the "Sap Baat Loh Hon" hand (the >"eithteen arhats" or, simply, the "18-piece hand" = 4 sets of Kong + 2 Eyes >= 18 Pies). The feedbacks I got were not consistent. One of the forms was >similar to the "4 Quartets" hand as mentioned by Alan Kwan above. The "sap baat lo hon" hand is nothing other than the Regular version of the (old) Classical Irregular "4 Quartets" hand. I guess the hand has been changed from irregular to regular in OS for the sake of rules simplicity. > I tended to >not to include this type of winning hand as if I did, the "consistency >principle" inside me would ask: "What if I have 4 sets of Bangos?" "What if I >have 4 sets of Seams?" etc. Huh? What's the problem? I don't see why anyone should have any problem understanding such a simple pattern as "4 Quartets". "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===== 27 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Oct 4 1998 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 <36175a33.1996...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 16:33:19 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: > >> 1. Do the kongs have to be "kong on kong", i.e. made with each > >> supplement tile as it is drawn? Or can the player win if he has 3 > >> complete sets of fours in his hand, kongs them in succession, and > >> draws 3 identical supplement tiles matching the 4th in his hand? > >(A) It has to be "kong on kong" - see the wordings "... makes Kongs up to four > >consecutive times without a break". > According to standard Old Style rules, a "Kong on Kong" must be made > /with/ the supplement tile: if you have 2 sets of fours in your hand, > kong one, draw a supplement tile, kong the other, and go out on the > second supplement tile, this is _not_ considered "Kong on Kong". So > your definition of "consecutive" kongs is not exactly the same as > "Kong on Kong" as in OS, is it? (A) Well, the answer could be "yes" and "no". Obviously, the meaning of "kong on kong" I have and that you have are different in the manners how the Kongs are made. This was the same situation I had with people during my research while writing the rulebook. One thing is always in common, however. If the result of making one or more than one Kongs makes the Selfmaker ("Selfmake" means one who wins on drawing by oneself.) a winner, the extra Folds awarded are always the same. (B) As to the term "supplement tile", I can hardly recall any definition of this term in Cantonese MJ (in practice and in any book I referred to). As in practice in Cantonese MJ, all Pies, other than a Flower, drawn in hand can be mixed with the concealed Pies in the hand. For the consistency purposes, in my opinion, it is unnecessary to specifically define the term "supplement tile". (C) I learned mahjong by practice and the number of books I could refer to was very limited. (That was *available* on the market - almost 10 years ago - was limited too.) In order not to create any confusion, I decided not to use the terms (or similar terms) "Kong on Kong", "Kong on Flower", etc., in the rulebook of International Mahjong Rules. > > I tended to > >not to include this type of winning hand as if I did, the "consistency > >principle" inside me would ask: "What if I have 4 sets of Bangos?" "What if I > >have 4 sets of Seams?" etc. > Huh? What's the problem? I don't see why anyone should have any > problem understanding such a simple pattern as "4 Quartets". (D) To understand the pattern of "4 Quartets" is simple and should not be a problem to anyone. The considerations to make it (or not to make it) a special pattern (i.e., an "Awarded Format" as used in IMJ Rules) could be complicated. Following were my considerations why the "4 Quartets" (or similar Format) was not included in the rulebook: (a) The only pattern similar to the "4 Quartets" I learned of was the "Sap Baat Loh Hon". Although it is theoretically possible, all people (I met) said that its occurence could only be in a dream. (b) I tried very best to make IMJ Rules as identical as possible to Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style - save any grey areas that must be addressed to. I hope the only difference is that IMJ Rules are ALL in writing. The "4 Quartets" pattern may not add any interest to the game (due to its rareness) but could cause challenge to the consistency or fairness to the Rules. [You know, when something is in writing, the consistency or fairness are important.] (c) There are Awarded Formats of "All Bangos", "The Plain", "The Coward". "4 Quartets" is similar to "All Bangos" in many aspects. (d) During the term of the Game, each Kong a player makes is awarded immediately - the bonus of drawing an extra Pie. At the end of the Game, any *additional* award to an individual set of Kong seems to be too much or unfair to other Awarded Formats. (Say, why "All Bangos" has no additional award?) (e) We have the Special Winning Hand of "The Hidden Bangos", which is similar to the "Kong To Fourth" but is much easier to achieve. The common part of these two patterns is: the player must rely on his own drawing(s) to win. Any further questions are always welcome! -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-04 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8926bx13.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 28 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 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 Sun, 04 Oct 1998 19:26:50 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: >(B) As to the term "supplement tile", I can hardly recall any definition of >this term in Cantonese MJ (in practice and in any book I referred to). As in >practice in Cantonese MJ, all Pies, other than a Flower, drawn in hand can be >mixed with the concealed Pies in the hand. For the consistency purposes, in >my opinion, it is unnecessary to specifically define the term "supplement >tile". My definition of "kong on kong" agrees with same in Perlman & Chan, p. 28. It is /the/ definition of "kong on kong" in "Cantonese mahjong". Otherwise, the pattern becomes too easy to be worth the limit. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> > I tended to >> >not to include this type of winning hand as if I did, the "consistency >> >principle" inside me would ask: "What if I have 4 sets of Bangos?" "What if I >> >have 4 sets of Seams?" etc. >> Huh? What's the problem? I don't see why anyone should have any >> problem understanding such a simple pattern as "4 Quartets". >(D) To understand the pattern of "4 Quartets" is simple and should not be a >problem to anyone. The considerations to make it (or not to make it) a special >pattern (i.e., an "Awarded Format" as used in IMJ Rules) could be complicated. >Following were my considerations why the "4 Quartets" (or similar Format) was >not included in the rulebook: >(a) The only pattern similar to the "4 Quartets" I learned of was the "Sap >Baat Loh Hon". Although it is theoretically possible, all people (I met) said >that its occurence could only be in a dream. >(b) I tried very best to make IMJ Rules as identical as possible to Cantonese >Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style - save any grey areas that must be addressed >to. I hope the only difference is that IMJ Rules are ALL in writing. The "4 >Quartets" pattern may not add any interest to the game (due to its rareness) >but could cause challenge to the consistency or fairness to the Rules. [You >know, when something is in writing, the consistency or fairness are >important.] [1] Hah? These reason being given by a person who includes a "4 consecutive kongs" Irregular hand?? >(c) There are Awarded Formats of "All Bangos", "The Plain", "The Coward". "4 >Quartets" is similar to "All Bangos" in many aspects. Isn't that a reason /in support of/ including the pattern? >(d) During the term of the Game, each Kong a player makes is awarded >immediately - the bonus of drawing an extra Pie. At the end of the Game, any >*additional* award to an individual set of Kong seems to be too much or >unfair to other Awarded Formats. (Say, why "All Bangos" has no additional >award?) Please do some research on Chinese Classical mahjong. >(e) We have the Special Winning Hand of "The Hidden Bangos", which is similar >to the "Kong To Fourth" but is much easier to achieve. The common part of >these two patterns is: the player must rely on his own drawing(s) to win. See [1]. "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===== 29 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 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 <36198c4d.1150...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 19:26:50 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: > >(B) As to the term "supplement tile", I can hardly recall any definition of > >this term in Cantonese MJ (in practice and in any book I referred to). As in > >practice in Cantonese MJ, all Pies, other than a Flower, drawn in hand can be > >mixed with the concealed Pies in the hand. For the consistency purposes, in > >my opinion, it is unnecessary to specifically define the term "supplement > >tile". > My definition of "kong on kong" agrees with same in Perlman & Chan, p. > 28. It is /the/ definition of "kong on kong" in "Cantonese mahjong". > Otherwise, the pattern becomes too easy to be worth the limit. Re "Kong on Kong" - Please see my another posting of Oct 6. > [1] Hah? These reason being given by a person who includes a "4 > consecutive kongs" Irregular hand?? [.....] > Isn't that a reason /in support of/ including the pattern? The /exclusion of "4 Quartets"/ was for consistency purposes. The inclusion of "Kong To Fourth" was of different consideration. I consider this a "spiritual nature" to be kept in the game, although it is, I admit, not practical at all. The meaning behind it is: "The Thirteen Yuls is no longer the most powerful winning hand now. The Kong To Fourth deserves the highest power and honour, and yet it is most unlikely to be achieved. The players' effort to achieve the highest honour in mahjong could be endless..." > >(d) During the term of the Game, each Kong a player makes is awarded > >immediately - the bonus of drawing an extra Pie. At the end of the Game, any > >*additional* award to an individual set of Kong seems to be too much or > >unfair to other Awarded Formats. (Say, why "All Bangos" has no additional > >award?) > Please do some research on Chinese Classical mahjong. I did do a lot of research on mahjong. But I don't understand the meaning of your question here. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-06 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8926bx15.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 30 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 13 1998 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 - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Tue, 06 Oct 1998 16:06:28 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: >In article <36198c4d.1150...@news.netvigator.com>, > t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 19:26:50 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: >> >(d) During the term of the Game, each Kong a player makes is awarded >> >immediately - the bonus of drawing an extra Pie. At the end of the Game, any >> >*additional* award to an individual set of Kong seems to be too much or >> >unfair to other Awarded Formats. (Say, why "All Bangos" has no additional >> >award?) >> Please do some research on Chinese Classical mahjong. >I did do a lot of research on mahjong. But I don't understand the meaning of >your question here. In Classical (pre-HKOS) mahjong, a player is awarded points for triplets and kongs he make. A kong is awarded more points than a triplet. Thus "During the term of the Game, each Kong a player makes is awarded immediately" definitely does not hold in Classical mahjong. "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===== 31 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 14 1998 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 <36239265.1881...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > On Tue, 06 Oct 1998 16:06:28 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: > >In article <36198c4d.1150...@news.netvigator.com>, > > t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > >> On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 19:26:50 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: > >> >(d) During the term of the Game, each Kong a player makes is awarded > >> >immediately - the bonus of drawing an extra Pie. At the end of the Game, any > >> >*additional* award to an individual set of Kong seems to be too much or > >> >unfair to other Awarded Formats. (Say, why "All Bangos" has no additional > >> >award?) ***Now I see Alan's point (as stated below). However, the above topic was basically to compare between rules of different types of mahjong and, when IMJ Rules are concerned, how and why IMJ Rules are written that way. In particular, the above statement relates solely to IMJ Rules, not to Classical or HKOS. The principles of IMJ Rules respecting Kong are: - Each Kong a player makes is awarded immediately. The award is the drawing of an extra Pie, and other benefits (by luck) related to making a Kong. I think this award applies to most variations, including Chinese Classical and/or HKOS. (Or, does it not hold in Classical?) - At the end of the Game, a Kong and the Kong alone, like the Bango, should not be further awarded. - The /contents/ of the Kong, as well as of the Bango, will, however, be awarded (or not be awarded) according to other rules. (Perhaps this is what Alan is referring to as the "Classical"? -- See below.) This is of different issue from the above. > >> Please do some research on Chinese Classical mahjong. > >I did do a lot of research on mahjong. But I don't understand the meaning of > >your question here. > In Classical (pre-HKOS) mahjong, a player is awarded points for > triplets and kongs he make. A kong is awarded more points than a > triplet. Thus "During the term of the Game, each Kong a player makes > is awarded immediately" definitely does not hold in Classical mahjong. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-13 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership 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 ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 32 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 5 1998 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 Alan Kwan wrote, According to standard Old Style rules, a "Kong on Kong" must be made /with/ the supplement tile: if you have 2 sets of fours in your hand, kong one, draw a supplement tile, kong the other, and go out on the second supplement tile, this is _not_ considered "Kong on Kong". So your definition of "consecutive" kongs is not exactly the same as "Kong on Kong" as in OS, is it? *** I agree. "Kong on Kong" refers, not to an All-Kong hand going out on a succession of loose tiles, but exactly as the name implies -- a hand going out on 2 successive loose tiles for kong replacements. User makes a kong, takes loose tile, kongs on it, takes another loose tile, and goes Out. This is the way Kong on Kong works for both Classical (per Millington) and HKOS (per Perlmen & Chan). Whitney says it's an American rule (what Whitney calls American I call "vanilla Western"), but I couldn't find it described in Thompson & Maloney or Strauser & Evans. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 33 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 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 <19981005145450.09305.00011...@ng65.aol.com>, actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote: > Alan Kwan wrote, > According to standard Old Style rules, a "Kong on Kong" must be made > /with/ the supplement tile: if you have 2 sets of fours in your hand, > kong one, draw a supplement tile, kong the other, and go out on the > second supplement tile, this is _not_ considered "Kong on Kong". So > your definition of "consecutive" kongs is not exactly the same as > "Kong on Kong" as in OS, is it? Tom Sloper added: > *** I agree. "Kong on Kong" refers, not to an All-Kong hand going out on a > succession of loose tiles, but exactly as the name implies -- a hand going out > on 2 successive loose tiles for kong replacements. User makes a kong, takes > loose tile, kongs on it, takes another loose tile, and goes Out. This is the > way Kong on Kong works for both Classical (per Millington) and HKOS (per > Perlmen & Chan). Whitney says it's an American rule (what Whitney calls > American I call "vanilla Western"), but I couldn't find it described in > Thompson & Maloney or Strauser & Evans. This is truly one way some people described "Kong on Kong". Before I go further, let's look at these two examples: (A) A player has following Pies left in his concealed hand: M1 M1 M1 T3 T3 T3 JJ It was his turn to draw a Pie. He drew M1, and made Kong of M1. His concealed Pies became: T3 T3 T3 JJ It was his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew T3 in hand, and made Kong of T3. His concealed Pies became: JJ It was again his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew JJ in hand. He declared Win. (B) A player has following Pies left in his concealed hand: M1 M1 M1 M1 T3 T3 T3 He drew T3, and made Kong of M1. His concealed Pies became: T3 T3 T3 T3 It was his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew JJ in hand, and made Kong of T3. His concealed Pies became: JJ It was again his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew JJ in hand. He declared Win. In example (A), it is easily understood, that the Win was declared on "Kong on Kong" as described by Alan and Tom above. In example (B), as I had obtained in my research, some people said it was also "Kong on Kong", some people said it was not. For those who said no, no other term was given to describe such situation. The following points were, however, clearly in common in both examples (A) and (B): - The player had made two consecutive Kongs; - The cause of Win was always the newly drawn Pie; - The extra award related to "having won on two consecutive Kongs" was the same. In practice, a player may draw a Pie, mix this newly drawn Pie with other Pies in his concealed hand, then make whatever appropriate move he can (i.e., to declare Win, to declare Kong, or to discard a Pie). Since we do not have rules to specify how a player must handle his newly drawn Pie (other than a Flower), how the four Pies of the Kong were come from becomes irrelevant. (This may be different in variations other than Cantonese Mahjong.) In conclusion, the term "Kong on Kong" can only define situations as in example (A). The term "two consecutive Kongs" applies to both examples (A) and (B). As to what those respectful authors (Millington, Perlmen & Chan, Whitney, Thompson & Maloney or Strauser & Evans, etc.) had or had not described situations similar to example (A), they /might/ just mean to include also situations similar to example (B). I do not have the text of these authors' books about "Kong on Kong". I just wonder IF any of these authors DID write about situations similar to example (B) above. Alternatively, do "Kong on Kong" and "two consecutive Kongs" mean the same? Did any of those respectful authors write about this? By using the terms "two consecutive Kongs" or "four consecutive Kongs" instead of "Kong on Kong" or similar terms, IMJ Rules does not change the play process or the results as applied to situations similar to both examples (A) and (B). -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-06 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8926bx14.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== Flowers Again ... (was: Who has the priority to win!) 34 From: Dan Lau - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 12:00 am Email: d...@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) 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 <6vdd70$s7...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> writes: >In practice, a player may draw a Pie, mix this newly drawn Pie with other Pies >in his concealed hand, then make whatever appropriate move he can (i.e., to >declare Win, to declare Kong, or to discard a Pie). Since we do not have rules >to specify how a player must handle his newly drawn Pie (other than a Flower), ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >how the four Pies of the Kong were come from becomes irrelevant. (This may be >different in variations other than Cantonese Mahjong.) Cofa, I am still not clear why flowers are treated differently from your above example. Supposed I draw a flower, mix the flower with my other tiles in my concealed hand, and discard a tile. In my next turn, I draw a tile, again mix it with my concealed tiles, and reveal the flower to draw a replacement tile. Who is to know that the flower was drawn during the first round and not the second? So again, please explain why flowers MUST be reveal immediately. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 35 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 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 Dan Lau wrote, Cofa, I am still not clear why flowers are treated differently from your above example. Supposed I draw a flower, mix the flower with my other tiles in my concealed hand, and discard a tile. In my next turn, I draw a tile, again mix it with my concealed tiles, and reveal the flower to draw a replacement tile. Who is to know that the flower was drawn during the first round and not the second? So again, please explain why flowers MUST be reveal immediately. *** Because that's the rule, Dan. Some games allow flowers to be held in the hand (NMJL and Singapore rules; possibly others as well). But if the rule says you should display flowers immediately, then you should display flowers immediately. Just because it is /possible/ to conceal what you're doing doesn't mean you /should/! Kongs are different. It is not against the rules to hold 4 of a kind in the hand -- but doing so can mess up the hand (depending on the game -- in the NMJL game this would be a great thing to do, and in Western's "Dirty Pairs" hand and some other pairs-based hands, 4 of a kind counts as 2 identical pairs). So whereas the holder of a kong has greater leeway, the holder of a flower runs the risk of the other players becoming distrustful of the player. What would be the benefit of holding a flower anyway? Hypothetically, one could hold onto it to put off the time when the other players would know he had a fan, I suppose, if it was his Own flower. Otherwise (or even so), why do it if it could alienate you from the other players? People want to know where all the flowers are. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 36 From: Dan Lau - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 12:00 am Email: d...@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) 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 - In article <19981006141444.17712.00012...@ng66.aol.com> actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) writes: >Dan Lau wrote, >Cofa, I am still not clear why flowers are treated differently from your >above example. Supposed I draw a flower, mix the flower with my other >tiles in my concealed hand, and discard a tile. In my next turn, I draw >a tile, again mix it with my concealed tiles, and reveal the flower to >draw a replacement tile. Who is to know that the flower was drawn during >the first round and not the second? So again, please explain why flowers >MUST be reveal immediately. >*** Because that's the rule, Dan. Some games allow flowers to be held in the >hand (NMJL and Singapore rules; possibly others as well). But if the rule says >you should display flowers immediately, then you should display flowers >immediately. Just because it is /possible/ to conceal what you're doing >doesn't mean you /should/! But my point is that a "rule" that is not enforceable is as good as no rule. If my actions are not distinguishable to the observer, then have I really broken any rule? When you say "just because you can doesn't mean you should", you have changed the playing of the game to a moral issue -- the game is no longer based on rules, but based on the goodness of our souls! I don't think MJ is that kind of a game. The thing with flowers is that (except for the Taiwan 7+1 version) they only affect my own hand, no one else should care that I either have or do not have flowers (granted, my point count will be affected and therefore the playing strategy of the other players may have to be adjusted). But in the end, if I choose to delay picking a replacement tile for a flower, I also forfeit the chance of going out as long as I hold the flower in my hand. So eventually for me to win, I'll have to disclose the flower. So is there any harm done to anyone else in delaying the picking of a replacement tile? Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 37 From: Dan Lau - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 12:00 am Email: d...@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) 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 <6vd4ub$ec...@scnews.sc.intel.com> d...@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) writes: >But my point is that a "rule" that is not enforceable is as good as no >rule. If my actions are not distinguishable to the observer, then >have I really broken any rule? When you say "just because you can >doesn't mean you should", you have changed the playing of the game to >a moral issue -- the game is no longer based on rules, but based on >the goodness of our souls! I don't think MJ is that kind of a game. I know it is bad form to follow up on your own article, but I wanted to clarify my thoughts further on this: I believe the only rules that apply to flowers are the following: 1) Certain combination of tiles constitute a winning hand. 2) A player is allowed to draw a replacement tile for a flower (from the tail of the wall). So from the first rule, we can see that anyone holding to a flower cannot win, because flowers are not included in any of the winning combinations. All other so-called "rules" relating to flowers are either common practice, house rules, or derived from the above. I don't think any more needs to be said about flowers in the rules, but a lot can be said to explain the rules and the applications/implications of these rules. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 38 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 12:00 am Email: Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <6vd4ub$ec...@scnews.sc.intel.com>, d...@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > In article <19981006141444.17712.00012...@ng66.aol.com> actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) writes: > >Dan Lau wrote, > >Cofa, I am still not clear why flowers are treated differently from your > >above example. Supposed I draw a flower, mix the flower with my other > >tiles in my concealed hand, and discard a tile. In my next turn, I draw > >a tile, again mix it with my concealed tiles, and reveal the flower to > >draw a replacement tile. Who is to know that the flower was drawn during > >the first round and not the second? So again, please explain why flowers > >MUST be reveal immediately. > >*** Because that's the rule, Dan. [snipped] > But my point is that a "rule" that is not enforceable is as good as no > rule. If my actions are not distinguishable to the observer, then > have I really broken any rule? When you say "just because you can > doesn't mean you should", you have changed the playing of the game to > a moral issue -- the game is no longer based on rules, but based on > the goodness of our souls! I don't think MJ is that kind of a game. Yes, Dan, like Tom said, "Because that's the rule." Also, the rule is enforceable! If you replace a Flower, i.e., if you disclose a Flower and draw a Pie from the Tail, your Flower MUST ALWAYS BE FROM THE WALL, NOT from your concealed hand. Every other player should be watching! -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-06 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership 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 ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 39 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 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 Dan Lau wrote: But my point is that a "rule" that is not enforceable is as good as no rule. If my actions are not distinguishable to the observer, then have I really broken any rule? When you say "just because you can doesn't mean you should", you have changed the playing of the game to a moral issue -- the game is no longer based on rules, but based on the goodness of our souls! I don't think MJ is that kind of a game. [snip] eventually for me to win, I'll have to disclose the flower. So is there any harm done to anyone else in delaying the picking of a replacement tile? *** Well, perhaps it (melding a flower immediately upon receipt of it) could be regarded as "etiquette" rather than a "rule," but it's kind of funny to call something "bad manners" if it can go undetected! In researching the rules regarding timing of claims in another thread, I found that a lot of things that the players do in my regular games are in fact bad manners. But I digress. I guess my point is that the question "what's the harm" still does not answer the question "why do it?" Perhaps it's the very nature of this issue (that it's a non-issue since there's no real reason to hold a flower when there is no "Cat captures Rat" play element involved) explains why none of the rulebooks go into much detail on this. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 40 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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 - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dan Lau wrote: > But my point is that a "rule" that is not enforceable is as good as no > rule. If my actions are not distinguishable to the observer, then > have I really broken any rule? When you say "just because you can > doesn't mean you should", you have changed the playing of the game to > a moral issue -- the game is no longer based on rules, but based on > the goodness of our souls! I don't think MJ is that kind of a game. > The thing with flowers is that (except for the Taiwan 7+1 version) they > only affect my own hand, no one else should care that I either have or > do not have flowers (granted, my point count will be affected and > therefore the playing strategy of the other players may have to be > adjusted). But in the end, if I choose to delay picking a replacement > tile for a flower, I also forfeit the chance of going out as long as I > hold the flower in my hand. So eventually for me to win, I'll have to > disclose the flower. So is there any harm done to anyone else in > delaying the picking of a replacement tile? Dan, While it true that flowers affect only your own hand, including Taiwanese style (except 7+1, which is so unlikely you don't have to consider it), there is absolutely no reason to hold on to a flower. By doing so, you are changing the order in which the replacement tiles are drawn. Since the rule stipulate that flowers must be displayed if drawn, this would be considered cheating. Normally changing the order would have no effect, but one can easily hide useful tiles, roll the right number, and then use a flower to decide exactly which replacement tile to take. This rule is enforceable, since flowers should never become part of your concealed hand. Just as the self-drawn tile must not touch the concealed tile(to prevent cheating also), your flowers should be displayed as soon as it's drawn, not placed in the concealed hand. Many beginners have trouble distinguishing the flower and can make this mistake, but there's no excuse for regular players. If you try to hide a flower in this fashion, expert players will spot you in a hurry, and any third party observer watching the game would easily notice this also. Bottom line: there is a rule, you think you can get away with it, but you can't. Cheers, Steve ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== Reply 41 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 13 1998 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 Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:59:16 GMT, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > [...] is not enitrely correct: [...] Sorry. Typo. Should be "entirely". "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===== 42 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 13 1998 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 There IS a mechanism for determining whether a tile being played is the newly drawn tile. Namely, said tile should not touch other tiles in the player's hand before being played. This mechanism is traditionally required when a player wants to claim the 2 points for "single call" (more precisely, the position of the final tile in its set) for a self-draw out in Classical mahjong. It is also required when playing a flower. If a player puts a flower into his hand, he has made an illegal play, and his hand is dead. (Unless the local rules say otherwise.) I repeat, there IS such a mechanism. The mechanism is employed when the rules specify that the tile being played has to be the newly drawn tile. (Another case besides the above examples is the case of "Kong on Kong".) Cofatsui's statement that the newly drawn tile cannot be identified is not enitrely correct: the tile cannot be identified only when the rules do not require it to be identified (such as when making a normal discard). On 6 Oct 1998 13:11:39 GMT, d...@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >In article <19981006141444.17712.00012...@ng66.aol.com> actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) writes: >>Dan Lau wrote, >>Cofa, I am still not clear why flowers are treated differently from your >>above example. Supposed I draw a flower, mix the flower with my other >>tiles in my concealed hand, and discard a tile. In my next turn, I draw >>a tile, again mix it with my concealed tiles, and reveal the flower to >>draw a replacement tile. Who is to know that the flower was drawn during >>the first round and not the second? So again, please explain why flowers >>MUST be reveal immediately. >>*** Because that's the rule, Dan. Some games allow flowers to be held in the >>hand (NMJL and Singapore rules; possibly others as well). But if the rule says >>you should display flowers immediately, then you should display flowers >>immediately. Just because it is /possible/ to conceal what you're doing >>doesn't mean you /should/! >But my point is that a "rule" that is not enforceable is as good as no >rule. If my actions are not distinguishable to the observer, then >have I really broken any rule? When you say "just because you can >doesn't mean you should", you have changed the playing of the game to >a moral issue -- the game is no longer based on rules, but based on >the goodness of our souls! I don't think MJ is that kind of a game. >The thing with flowers is that (except for the Taiwan 7+1 version) they >only affect my own hand, no one else should care that I either have or >do not have flowers (granted, my point count will be affected and >therefore the playing strategy of the other players may have to be >adjusted). But in the end, if I choose to delay picking a replacement >tile for a flower, I also forfeit the chance of going out as long as I >hold the flower in my hand. So eventually for me to win, I'll have to >disclose the flower. So is there any harm done to anyone else in >delaying the picking of a replacement tile? "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===== 43 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 14 1998 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 <36235a4c.16557...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > There IS a mechanism for determining whether a tile being played > is the newly drawn tile. Namely, said tile should not touch other > tiles in the player's hand before being played. This mechanism is > traditionally required when a player wants to claim the 2 points for > "single call" (more precisely, the position of the final tile in its > set) for a self-draw out in Classical mahjong. It is also required > when playing a flower. If a player puts a flower into his hand, he > has made an illegal play, and his hand is dead. (Unless the local > rules say otherwise.) > I repeat, there IS such a mechanism. The mechanism is employed when > the rules specify that the tile being played has to be the newly drawn > tile. (Another case besides the above examples is the case of "Kong > on Kong".) Cofatsui's statement that the newly drawn tile cannot be > identified is not enitrely [entirely] correct: the tile cannot be identified only > when the rules do not require it to be identified (such as when making > a normal discard). My statement that a newly drawn tile cannot be identified is conditional (you already put one of the conditions there). Therefore I believe my statement is entirely correct. Respecting whether one may hide the Flower in his hand without letting other players know, I have responsed as follows (similar to, as the original text is lost): "The Flowers can always be identified. When a player replaces a Flower the Flower must always be picked from the wall, not from the hand. All other players should be watching." This is a simple sense of play that everyone is easily aware of, and may apply whenever a particular "tile" is required to be identified. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-14 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership 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 ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 44 From: Klaus Ole Kristiansen - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 12:00 am Email: k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) 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 d...@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) writes: >Cofa, I am still not clear why flowers are treated differently from your >above example. Supposed I draw a flower, mix the flower with my other >tiles in my concealed hand, and discard a tile. In my next turn, I draw >a tile, again mix it with my concealed tiles, and reveal the flower to >draw a replacement tile. Who is to know that the flower was drawn during >the first round and not the second? So again, please explain why flowers >MUST be reveal immediately. If this is considered important, prohibit taking a flower into your concealed hand. This would not be discovered when you did it, but you would have no way of declaring it later. There are other cases where you must not take a tile into your hand before revealing it. That is if you want to claim an extra score for winning with a particular tile. Chinese Classical has four such cases: filling the only place, fishing the eyes, catching the moon from the bottom of the sea, and picking plum flowers on the roof. That is winning with the only tile your hand is calling (2 points), using the last tile for the pair (2 point for a minor pair, 4 for a major pair), winning with a 1 circle picked as the very last tile in the live wall (limit) and winning with a 5 circles taken as a replacement for a kong (limit). In all those cases, you must be able to prove which tile you picked, and therefore you must not take the tile into your concealed hand. Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== Who has the priority to win! (2nd) 45 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 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 wrote: > two examples: (A) A player has following Pies left in his concealed hand: M1 M1 M1 T3 T3 T3 JJ It was his turn to draw a Pie. He drew M1, and made Kong of M1. His concealed Pies became: T3 T3 T3 JJ It was his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew T3 in hand, and made Kong of T3. His concealed Pies became: JJ It was again his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew JJ in hand. He declared Win. (B) A player has following Pies left in his concealed hand: M1 M1 M1 M1 T3 T3 T3 He drew T3, and made Kong of M1. His concealed Pies became: T3 T3 T3 T3 It was his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew JJ in hand, and made Kong of T3. His concealed Pies became: JJ It was again his turn to draw a Pie from the Tail. He drew JJ in hand. He declared Win. *** These examples are both kong on kong, IMO. Player can hold fully concealed kong in the hand and meld it anytime to draw a loose tile. From the point of view of the other players, these two circumstances are identical. The players aren't going to question awarding the Kong on Kong to the player by asking, "were you holding a kong before?" Why would they? > Alternatively, do "Kong on Kong" and "two consecutive Kongs" mean the same? *** I never heard the term "two consecutive kongs" before. If you define it for us perhaps we can answer this. For all we know, the term contains ambiguities not apparent to the casual reader. If it was "win on the loose tile after two consecutive kongs" then the answer would probably be "yes." Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 46 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 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 <19981006141357.17712.00012...@ng66.aol.com>, actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote: > > Alternatively, do "Kong on Kong" and "two consecutive Kongs" mean the same? > *** I never heard the term "two consecutive kongs" before. If you define it > for us perhaps we can answer this. For all we know, the term contains > ambiguities not apparent to the casual reader. If it was "win on the loose > tile after two consecutive kongs" then the answer would probably be "yes." For those who have been watching from the beginning, they should understand the discussion is about "winning after have made *certain number of* Kongs". For casual readers, yes, perhaps the term "winning after two consecutive Kongs" would be clear. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-06 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 47 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 6 1998 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 Tue, 06 Oct 1998 15:32:47 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: >- The extra award related to "having won on two consecutive Kongs" was the >same. No. In Old Style, "Kong on Kong" is a limit hand. "Winning on Two Consecutive Kongs" is worth nothing more than "Winning on Supplement Tile" (or "Winning on 1 Kong"). >In practice, a player may draw a Pie, mix this newly drawn Pie with other Pies >in his concealed hand, then make whatever appropriate move he can (i.e., to >declare Win, to declare Kong, or to discard a Pie). Since we do not have rules >to specify how a player must handle his newly drawn Pie (other than a Flower), >how the four Pies of the Kong were come from becomes irrelevant. (This may be >different in variations other than Cantonese Mahjong.) This is different in the _origin_ of Cantonese Mahjong, namely Chinese Classical. A player who wins on a self-draw should not mix the drawn tile with the other tiles in his hand. Otherwise, he forfeits the 2 points he may get for calling shape (single call, or more precisely, the position of the winning tile in its set). "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===== 48 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 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 <361a761a.2364...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > On Tue, 06 Oct 1998 15:32:47 GMT, Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> wrote: > >- The extra award related to "having won on two consecutive Kongs" was the > >same. > No. In Old Style, "Kong on Kong" is a limit hand. "Winning on Two > Consecutive Kongs" is worth nothing more than "Winning on Supplement > Tile" (or "Winning on 1 Kong"). "Winning on two consecutive Kongs" is winning on /two/ Kongs. How could it become "Winning on 1 Kong"? Other than that, I could hardly find any difference between "Kong on Kong" and "Winning on two consecutive Kongs". > This is different in the _origin_ of Cantonese Mahjong, namely Chinese > Classical. A player who wins on a self-draw should not mix the drawn > tile with the other tiles in his hand. Otherwise, he forfeits the 2 > points he may get for calling shape (single call, or more precisely, > the position of the winning tile in its set). If a player wins on self-draw, it is always understood he wins on a newly drawn tile. What is the difference whether he has mixed the tile or not? I am really don't understand. By the way, is there any book(s) out there which describes "Chinese Classical" and/or "Hong Kong Old Style" FULLY. If I need to learn the whole game again I prefer learning it in full. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-06 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 49 From: Klaus Ole Kristiansen - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 12:00 am Email: k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) 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 <c...@cofatsui.com> writes: >In article <361a761a.2364...@news.netvigator.com>, > t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >> No. In Old Style, "Kong on Kong" is a limit hand. "Winning on Two >> Consecutive Kongs" is worth nothing more than "Winning on Supplement >> Tile" (or "Winning on 1 Kong"). >"Winning on two consecutive Kongs" is winning on /two/ Kongs. How could it >become "Winning on 1 Kong"? Other than that, I could hardly find any >difference between "Kong on Kong" and "Winning on two consecutive Kongs". They will be worth the same in points if that is what the rules you use say. >> This is different in the _origin_ of Cantonese Mahjong, namely Chinese >> Classical. A player who wins on a self-draw should not mix the drawn >> tile with the other tiles in his hand. Otherwise, he forfeits the 2 >> points he may get for calling shape (single call, or more precisely, >> the position of the winning tile in its set). >If a player wins on self-draw, it is always understood he wins on a newly >drawn tile. What is the difference whether he has mixed the tile or not? I am >really don't understand. Here is an example. You go out on a self draw, and reveal these hidden tiles: 345 99 bamboo. How many points? If you won on the 3 or the 5: no points. If you won on the 4: 2 points for filling the only place. If you won on a 9: 6 points, 2 for filling the only place plus 4 for fishing the eyes with a major tile. If you mixed the tiles into your concealed hand, you can not claim any points. The other players will insist that it was the 3 or 5. >By the way, is there any book(s) out there which describes "Chinese Classical" >and/or "Hong Kong Old Style" FULLY. If I need to learn the whole game again I >prefer learning it in full. See the books FAQ posted here regularly. The one I know, Millington, does give a full description. Klaus O K PS Actually you could claim filling the only place with the 3 if all four 6's had been discarded or melded, but let's assume that they have not. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 50 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 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 <6vfjjc$...@grimer.diku.dk>, k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) wrote: > Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> writes: > >In article <361a761a.2364...@news.netvigator.com>, > > t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > >> No. In Old Style, "Kong on Kong" is a limit hand. "Winning on Two > >> Consecutive Kongs" is worth nothing more than "Winning on Supplement > >> Tile" (or "Winning on 1 Kong"). > >"Winning on two consecutive Kongs" is winning on /two/ Kongs. How could it > >become "Winning on 1 Kong"? Other than that, I could hardly find any > >difference between "Kong on Kong" and "Winning on two consecutive Kongs". > They will be worth the same in points if that is what the rules you use say. ***Exactly. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> This is different in the _origin_ of Cantonese Mahjong, namely Chinese > >> Classical. A player who wins on a self-draw should not mix the drawn > >> tile with the other tiles in his hand. Otherwise, he forfeits the 2 > >> points he may get for calling shape (single call, or more precisely, > >> the position of the winning tile in its set). > >If a player wins on self-draw, it is always understood he wins on a newly > >drawn tile. What is the difference whether he has mixed the tile or not? I am > >really don't understand. > Here is an example. You go out on a self draw, and reveal these hidden > tiles: > 345 99 bamboo. > How many points? > If you won on the 3 or the 5: no points. > If you won on the 4: 2 points for filling the only place. > If you won on a 9: 6 points, 2 for filling the only place plus 4 for fishing > the eyes with a major tile. > If you mixed the tiles into your concealed hand, you can not claim any points. > The other players will insist that it was the 3 or 5. ***So in this scenario, we are on two different systems. In "Chinese Classical" (as quoted above), the newly drawn tile is critical in counting the points when you win. In Cantonese Mahjong (at least, the way I play with), award is counted for the whole hand, what the newly drawn tile is, is (normally) irrelevant. > >By the way, is there any book(s) out there which describes "Chinese Classical" > >and/or "Hong Kong Old Style" FULLY. If I need to learn the whole game again I > >prefer learning it in full. > See the books FAQ posted here regularly. The one I know, Millington, does > give a full description. ***Thanks for the info. I'll have a look at it. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-07 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8926bx17.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 51 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 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 wrote, >If a player wins on self-draw, it is always understood he wins on a newly drawn tile. What is the difference whether he has mixed the tile or not? I am really don't understand. Klaus OK then showed that in Chinese Classical it is essential to prove which tile is the winning tile, for scoring purposes. Cofa Tsui concluded: >So in this scenario, we are on two different systems. >In "Chinese Classical" (as quoted above), the newly drawn tile is critical in counting the points when you win. >In Cantonese Mahjong (at least, the way I play with), award is counted for the whole hand, what the newly drawn tile is, is (normally) irrelevant. Steve Lin added, I guess Taiwanese rules are much tougher. You are not allowed to touch the self-drawn tile with your concealed hand. Doing so forfeits the win, and you'll have to throw a tile out and continue play. Of course we give beginners a break on this, but regular players would be out of luck. [snip] Again I didn't realize this was not common in other styles. I, Tom Sloper, now pipe in with my two cents: I am not aware of a NMJL rule in regards to this. However, the most experienced player in my regular group, when self-picking the winning tile, always holds it up in the air and announces "I picked it!" I think this is a sound practice. As for the Japanese game, I have not observed closely what the other players do (I will, next time) but it just makes sense, since the winning tile is vital to the score (in some circumstances anyway), that the player display the winning tile before displaying the hand. Myself, I am always careful not to mix the winning tile with my hand because I want it to be clear what I picked, no matter which game I am playing. Cofa Tsui asked: By the way, is there any book(s) out there which describes "Chinese Classical" and/or "Hong Kong Old Style" FULLY. If I need to learn the whole game again I prefer learning it in full. Klaus OK wrote, See the books FAQ posted here regularly. The one I know, Millington, does give a full description. Tom Sloper's two cents: Millington is THE best authority on the Chinese Classical game in the English language. For HKOS the best book in English is Perlmen & Chan (which also describes New Style). I can not state categorically, though, that /either/ of these fit Cofa's rigorous standard of "fullness." Cofa, you might want to try the Chinese-language book that Alan Kwan often quotes. I forget the author's name (I think it's Kan?) and I don't know the title -- I have a copy of the book but I can't read it! (I mainly like it for the pictures. (^_^)) The ISBN number is 962-17-0088-4. Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 52 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 8 1998 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 <19981007151621.24492.00003...@ng90.aol.com>, actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui asked: > By the way, is there any book(s) out there which describes "Chinese Classical" > and/or "Hong Kong Old Style" FULLY. If I need to learn the whole game again I > prefer learning it in full. > Klaus OK wrote, > See the books FAQ posted here regularly. The one I know, Millington, does > give a full description. > Tom Sloper's two cents: > Millington is THE best authority on the Chinese Classical game in the English > language. For HKOS the best book in English is Perlmen & Chan (which also > describes New Style). I can not state categorically, though, that /either/ of > these fit Cofa's rigorous standard of "fullness." Cofa, you might want to try > the Chinese-language book that Alan Kwan often quotes. I forget the author's > name (I think it's Kan?) and I don't know the title -- I have a copy of the > book but I can't read it! (I mainly like it for the pictures. (^_^)) The ISBN > number is 962-17-0088-4. Thanks Tom for your "two cents" info. You did see my point. Your two cents could now cost me thousands of times of amount for acquiring these books for my /study/. (I should not have had used the word "learn". Sorry for having used the wrong word.) I will now look into it to find out if these books do describe the game in its fullness. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-07 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership 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 ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 53 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 27 1998 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 7 Oct 1998 19:16:21 GMT, actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote: > Cofa, you might want to try >the Chinese-language book that Alan Kwan often quotes. I forget the author's >name (I think it's Kan?) and I don't know the title -- I have a copy of the >book but I can't read it! (I mainly like it for the pictures. (^_^)) The ISBN >number is 962-17-0088-4. Though, Mr. Gaan's book does not describe the game in its fullness: it assumes that the reader is familiar with the game to start with! The book talks about some often argued rules areas and such. "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===== 54 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 28 1998 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 <3635ffba.7033...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notme.netvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > On 7 Oct 1998 19:16:21 GMT, actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote: > > Cofa, you might want to try > >the Chinese-language book that Alan Kwan often quotes. I forget the author's > >name (I think it's Kan?) and I don't know the title -- I have a copy of the > >book but I can't read it! (I mainly like it for the pictures. (^_^)) The ISBN > >number is 962-17-0088-4. > Though, Mr. Gaan's book does not describe the game in its fullness: it > assumes that the reader is familiar with the game to start with! The > book talks about some often argued rules areas and such. "It assumes that the reader is familiar with the game to start with!" -- So beginners should be cautious when reading books of this type - the book does not give you the fullness of a particular type of mahjong game. When you merge information you learn from somebody else with those you learn from the book, you might have just mixed rules of different types of mahjong game - that may not be a complete rules of one type! -- COFA TSUI Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership 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 ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 55 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 28 1998 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 I had suggested that Cofa Tsui might want to obtain a certain book: > > ISBN number is 962-17-0088-4. Alan Kwan offered some information about that book: > Though, Mr. Gaan's book does not describe the game in its fullness: it > assumes that the reader is familiar with the game to start with! The > book talks about some often argued rules areas and such. Cofa Tsui then wrote: "It assumes that the reader is familiar with the game to start with!" -- So beginners should be cautious when reading books of this type - the book does not give you the fullness of a particular type of mahjong game. When you merge information you learn from somebody else with those you learn from the book, you might have just mixed rules of different types of mahjong game - that may not be a complete rules of one type! *** I herewith withdraw my suggestion that Cofa Tsui might want to obtain that book. I apologize for having so suggested in the first place, and promise not to make such suggestions again. (^_^) Tom Sloper Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 56 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 29 1998 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 <19981028140756.09796.00001...@ng89.aol.com>, actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote: > I had suggested that Cofa Tsui might want to obtain a certain book: > > > ISBN number is 962-17-0088-4. [snipped] > *** I herewith withdraw my suggestion that Cofa Tsui might want to obtain that > book. I apologize for having so suggested in the first place, and promise not > to make such suggestions again. (^_^) Tom, you don't need to apologize as your suggestion was made for someone's good! At the same time, anyone receiving suggestion/recommendation should also take care in making a decision whether or not he should make use of those suggestion or recommendation. You know what? I did now have read the book "The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg", and am doing some work on it. Although you have mentioned this book in your FAQ many times, only your 'suggestion message' pushed me up to act to get the book. In fact, I should thank you for that effective 'push'. Here I do! -- COFA TSUI Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8a28b1.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 57 From: ACTSEARCH - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 29 1998 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 wrote, You know what? I did now have read the book "The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg", and am doing some work on it. Although you have mentioned this book in your FAQ many times, only your 'suggestion message' pushed me up to act to get the book. In fact, I should thank you for that effective 'push'. Here I do! Cofa, You are quite welcome. Where did you get Millington's book? It is very hard to obtain in the US (or it was, the last time I looked). Is it readily available in Canada? Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com (weekdays) Actsea...@aol.com (weekends) Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free demo: http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 58 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 30 1998 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 <19981029170057.29450.00001...@ng86.aol.com>, actsea...@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) wrote: > Cofa Tsui wrote, > You know what? I did now have read the book "The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg", > and am doing some work on it. Although you have mentioned this book in your > FAQ many times, only your 'suggestion message' pushed me up to act to get the > book. > In fact, I should thank you for that effective 'push'. Here I do! > Cofa, > You are quite welcome. > Where did you get Millington's book? It is very hard to obtain in the US (or > it was, the last time I looked). Is it readily available in Canada? ***I borrowed it from the library (Vancouver Central). I borrowed several other books too but, as you suggested, this is the most complete one available. P.S. I couldn't find one to buy. -- COFA TSUI Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership 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 ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 59 From: Steve Lin - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 12:00 am Email: Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.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 Klaus Ole Kristiansen had replied: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >Cofa Tsui had asked > >If a player wins on self-draw, it is always understood he wins on a newly > >drawn tile. What is the difference whether he has mixed the tile or not? I am > >really don't understand. > Here is an example. You go out on a self draw, and reveal these hidden > tiles: > 345 99 bamboo. > How many points? > If you won on the 3 or the 5: no points. > If you won on the 4: 2 points for filling the only place. > If you won on a 9: 6 points, 2 for filling the only place plus 4 for fishing > the eyes with a major tile. > If you mixed the tiles into your concealed hand, you can not claim any points. > The other players will insist that it was the 3 or 5. I guess Taiwanese rules are much tougher. You are not allowed to touch the self-drawn tile with your concealed hand. Doing so forfeits the win, and you'll have to throw a tile out and continue play. Of course we give beginners a break on this, but regular players would be out of luck. Dropping the self-drawn tile also forfeits the win. All this is to prevent cheating. I guess there was so much cheating going on that this rule was introduced. Again I didn't realize this was not common in other styles. Cheers, Steve Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 60 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 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 <361B8AD3.32BBB...@email.sps.mot.com>, Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote: > I guess Taiwanese rules are much tougher. You are not allowed to touch the > self-drawn tile with your concealed hand. Doing so forfeits the win, and > you'll have to throw a tile out and continue play. Of course we give > beginners a break on this, but regular players would be out of luck. Dropping > the self-drawn tile also forfeits the win. All this is to prevent cheating. > I guess there was so much cheating going on that this rule was introduced. > Again I didn't realize this was not common in other styles. > Cheers, > Steve Yes, somehow I heard of this (or similar) rule long time ago. In Cantonese rules (rather than the Classical or "original" Old style), scores are given according to the combination of Pies, not when you draw it (few exception do exist), or not that complicated as explained above. I think this simple rule could eliminate some chances for cheating. -- COFA TSUI 1998/10/07 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership 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 ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 61 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 27 1998 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 Wed, 07 Oct 1998 10:37:57 -0500, Steve Lin <r14...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote: >I guess Taiwanese rules are much tougher. You are not allowed to touch the >self-drawn tile with your concealed hand. Doing so forfeits the win, and >you'll have to throw a tile out and continue play. Of course we give >beginners a break on this, but regular players would be out of luck. Dropping >the self-drawn tile also forfeits the win. All this is to prevent cheating. >I guess there was so much cheating going on that this rule was introduced. >Again I didn't realize this was not common in other styles. This rule is because there are strict "prohibition of going out" rules in Taiwanese. In Taiwanese (that I know of), if you are calling and forgo a (discarded) tile you can go out on, you cannot go out on any (?) tile until the end of your next turn, and this includes the tile you draw on your next turn. This "prohibition" rule is, in turn, to prevent cheating, because one gets paid much more for going out on self-draw than on a discard. "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===== 62 From: Klaus Ole Kristiansen - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 12:00 am Email: k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) 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 <c...@cofatsui.com> writes: >In practice, a player may draw a Pie, mix this newly drawn Pie with other Pies >in his concealed hand, then make whatever appropriate move he can (i.e., to >declare Win, to declare Kong, or to discard a Pie). Since we do not have rules >to specify how a player must handle his newly drawn Pie (other than a Flower), >how the four Pies of the Kong were come from becomes irrelevant. You don't givepoints for filling the only place or fishing the eyes? >As to what those respectful authors (Millington, Perlmen & Chan, Whitney, >Thompson & Maloney or Strauser & Evans, etc.) had or had not described >situations similar to example (A), they /might/ just mean to include also >situations similar to example (B). I do not have the text of these authors' >books about "Kong on Kong". I just wonder IF any of these authors DID write >about situations similar to example (B) above. Millington says (from memory) all that is required is that the player make two kongs and win in the same turn. Any number of intervening bonus tiles are permitted. This doesn't really address this issue. Klaus O K Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 63 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 7 1998 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 <6vfipm$...@grimer.diku.dk>, k...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) wrote: > Cofa Tsui <c...@cofatsui.com> writes: > >In practice, a player may draw a Pie, mix this newly drawn Pie with other Pies > >in his concealed hand, then make whatever appropriate move he can (i.e., to > >declare Win, to declare Kong, or to discard a Pie). Since we do not have rules > >to specify how a player must handle his newly drawn Pie (other than a Flower), > >how the four Pies of the Kong were come from becomes irrelevant. > You don't givepoints for filling the only place or fishing the eyes? ***No. In Cantonese Mahjong I used to play, we don't count this. > >As to what those respectful authors (Millington, Perlmen & Chan, Whitney, > >Thompson & Maloney or Strauser & Evans, etc.) had or had not described > >situations similar to example (A), they /might/ just mean to include also > >situations similar to example (B). I do not have the text of these authors' > >books about "Kong on Kong". I just wonder IF any of these authors DID write > >about situations similar to example (B) above. > Millington says (from memory) all that is required is that the player make > two kongs and win in the same turn. Any number of intervening bonus tiles > are permitted. This doesn't really address this issue. ***So other authors did address the same idea: "Kong on Kong" and "Win on two consecutive Kongs" are the same. Thanks Klaus O K, for the info. -- COFA TSUI 1998-10-07 Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html (8926bx16.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 64 From: cofatsui - view profile Date: Sun, Sep 27 1998 12:00 am Email: cofat...@aicom.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 <360DC84D.8C011...@email.sjsu.edu>, Patrick Ho <p...@email.sjsu.edu> wrote: > cofat...@aicom.com wrote: > Well, the only automatic win I know of is the flower win. That is, winning > with either 7 or 8 flowers regardless of what is in your hand. ***As far as I know, "flower win" is not automatic in Cantonese MJ/HKOS or IMJ. A player having drawn the 7th or 8th Flowers of his hand, has a choice whether to win OR not to win. If he chooses to win, he must declare WIN in order to win. If he chooses not to win (he is expecting a winning hand of higher rank, for example), he simply draws a Pie from the Tail and continues the play. By "automatic win", I mean the winning is final, a player has no other choice but to win (therefore, "automatic"). > > 3. The Pies, all concealed, of Player A are listed as follows: (The code names > > used are: JJ = Joh, or "red dragon"; M1 = 1 Mat; etc.) > > JJ M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M5 M5 M5 M7 M7 M7 > Oh, I'm sorry, I read player A's hand incorrectly the first time. I thought JJ > meant he had two red dragons. ***Yes, in IMJ Rules, we standardized the code name of a Pie to consist of two letters. The code name of each Pie is able to be uniquely identified. > I have never heard of winning after four consecutive kongs, so if I was playing > with my usual group of people, Player C should get the win. Also, if Player A > happens to take a look at the replacement tile and it is the one he needs to > complete his hand, he still does not get the win. This is because he gets the > replacement tile "after" making the kong while Player C is stealing the kong > first. ***I will response to this in my "conclusion" posting at a later time. COFA TSUI 1998-09-27 "International Mahjong Rules" is now for sale, LEARNING and TEACHING mahjong could be easy and fast! Also, a full list of terminology used in IMJ. Visit http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html Distributors/Retailers wanted: E-mail: i...@cofatsui.com ********************************************* (8926b12.) -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== |
|
|
||
|
^ | Home | |