IMJ Archives - 024 <<Return to Archives Index Page

Bao Question - Should indirect pai be responsible for a win?
by Cofa Tsui (Aug 2006)


Under the "chucker pays for all" payment system, should an "indirect pai" be responsible for a win?

This page records some discussions about this issue in year 2003 in the mahjong newsgroup. Below is a brief story how this question was raised:
- Player A discarded a pai;
- Player C konged it;
- Player C drew a replacement pai from the tail;
- Player C won on the replacement pai drawn from the tail;
- QUESTION: Should player A be responsible for paying for all?
[Note: The play is by the "chucker pays for all" rule (whoever discards a pai for other player to win a game is responsible for paying all scores to the winning player, thus other players need not pay).]


[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) -
Initial message: 2003-12-28 / Collection date: 2006-08-19 / Archive file: maiarchives024]


1    From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Sun, Dec 28 2003 1:45 pm

Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.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

Season's Greetings to all!

On Boxing Day I attended a friend's mahjong event and encountered a hand
that's puzzling me. I hope to hear ideas from all of you.

We played the HKOS style, with the "chucker pays for all" settlement scheme.
Player A discard a 3 Mat. Player C konged it. Player C then drew a new pai
(a South) from the tail, AND declared win. I (in turn as Player B) was about
to count the chips to pay him while Player C started teasing that A was too
bad to have to pay for all!

What was making me confused (in theory) was that Player C actually won on
selfmake, not on the discarded 3 Mat. Why Player A has to pay for all when
he seems to have made no *direct* cause for the win? (Note, there was no any
"BAO" alert in effect at that time.)

If according to IMJ Rules, the following seems to be my theory:
- Player A discarded 3 Mat;
- Player C konged it.
At this point, Player A's consequences (responsibilities) for the discarded
3 Mat shall end. Then...

-Player C declared win on the new pai (South) drawn from the tail.
As from this record, Player C is clearly winning on a pai drawn from the
tail, and shall receive scores from all three other players - IMJ Rules,
art. 30.3(1).

Did I miss something? Do you have any ideas to support that (evening's)
ruling?

Wishing you all a remarkably excellent New Year ahead!

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

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


2    From: Tom Sloper - view profile
Date: Sun, Dec 28 2003 2:44 pm

Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperamaNOSPAM.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

From: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com>

>We played the HKOS style, with the "chucker pays for all" settlement
scheme.
>Player A discard a 3 Mat. Player C konged it. Player C then drew a new pai
>(a South) from the tail, AND declared win.
>...Why Player A has to pay for all when
>he seems to have made no *direct* cause for the win? (Note, there was no
any
>"BAO" alert in effect at that time.)

Per Perlmen & Chan, "bao" (pao) doesn't apply if not previously declared by
the winning player - and only applies to certain hands anyway (we were not
told what the completed hand was). So the only question then is whether
"chucker pays for all" should apply.

Arguments for chucker paying in this case: see Amy Lo, rule 2.13 (page 44).
Chucker should pay because the replacement tile was indirectly given by the
chucker. Discarding a kongable tile constitutes responsibility for the kong
replacement tile.

Arguments against chucker paying in this case: Konging is an optional, not
mandatory, move. Just because someone has a concealed pung doesn't mean that
that player is obligated to kong it when the opportunity arises. But then,
on the other hand, if you were one away from mah-jongg, and got an
opportunity to kong (and knew that the winning tile might possibly get taken
as a replacement), you would probably go for the kong.

Lo says the chucker should pay, and that's good enough for me. - Tom

--

Tom Sloper - Game Designer, Producer, Consultant, Author, Speaker.
- Sloperama Productions. Services for game developers and publishers;
"Making Games Fun, And Getting Them Done."
http://www.sloperama.com/business.html.
- 20+ web pages of helpful information and bulletin boards for game industry
aspirants; a new article every month. http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html.
- The Mah-Jongg FAQs. 100+ web pages of information and bulletin boards
about the game of mah-jongg. http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html

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


3    From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Sun, Dec 28 2003 10:32 pm

Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.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 Sloper" <toms...@sloperamaNOSPAM.com> wrote in message

news:09IHb.681461$Tr4.1703778@attbi_s03...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
==============================END OF MESSAGE=====


From: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com>

> >We played the HKOS style, with the "chucker pays for all" settlement
> scheme.
> >Player A discard a 3 Mat. Player C konged it. Player C then drew a new
pai
> >(a South) from the tail, AND declared win.
> >...Why Player A has to pay for all when
> >he seems to have made no *direct* cause for the win? (Note, there was no
> any
> >"BAO" alert in effect at that time.)

> Per Perlmen & Chan, "bao" (pao) doesn't apply if not previously declared
by
> the winning player - and only applies to certain hands anyway (we were not
> told what the completed hand was). So the only question then is whether
> "chucker pays for all" should apply.

I agreed. To make thinks more clear to everyone, the play was already
conducted in the "chucker pays for all" scheme - That is, whoever chucks
shall pay for all, other players don't need to pay. There is nothing to do
with any "bao" scenarios. Furthermore, the question here is whether Player A
should pay for all because his discard has caused a kong, which subsequently
caused Player C to win on a replacement tile.

[I have rearranged the original paragraphs below...]

> Arguments against chucker paying in this case: Konging is an optional, not
> mandatory, move. Just because someone has a concealed pung doesn't mean
that
> that player is obligated to kong it when the opportunity arises. But
then,
> on the other hand, if you were one away from mah-jongg, and got an
> opportunity to kong (and knew that the winning tile might possibly get
taken
> as a replacement), you would probably go for the kong.

This sounds very reasonable and logical, and in fact consistent with rulings
dealing with other similar scenarios (see below).

> Lo says the chucker should pay, and that's good enough for me. - Tom

That's good enough for me for that game, too (so I don't need to pay the
"selfmake scores") ^_~
But then it brings up some other "problems" need to be resolved or
redefined:

> Arguments for chucker paying in this case: see Amy Lo, rule 2.13 (page
44).
> Chucker should pay because the replacement tile was indirectly given by
the
> chucker. Discarding a kongable tile constitutes responsibility for the
kong
> replacement tile.

Whether a player should be responsible for any *indirect cause* is
debatable...

(a) What if Player C draws the replacement tile and discards it, and Player
D wins on that discarded *replacement* tile? (For discussion: Will this
"discarded replacement tile" still considered "indirect responsibility" of
Player A? How is the responsibility of A and C separated/defined?)

(b) What if Player C draws the replacement tile and discards it, and Player
A wins on that discarded (replacement) tile? (This is similar to (a), only
that A is the player who had discarded a tile for C to kong, and now he
himself wins on his *indirect responsibility*.)

(b) What if Player C draws the replacement tile, and with it (the
replacement tile) he makes a kong of his own, and Player D robs it? (This
time C provides a tile, said to be the *indirect responsibility* of A, for D
to win.)

(I do see the differences between the terms "replacement tile" and
"supplementary tile" after a kong is formed. This shall belong to other
topic.)

Cofa
www.iMahjong.com

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


4    From: tarot - view profile
Date: Sun, Dec 28 2003 7:55 pm

Email: tarot <t...@netvigator.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

IMO, holding a player who discarded a tile for a kong-out responsible
is as reasonable as the following analogus situation:

East discards "Green". Then South self-draw and wins. East and
North look at West's hand and find a pair of Green. They claim that
West is responsible for South's win, and should pay-for-all, because
he should have pong'ed the Green and skipped South's turn, so that
South could not have won by self-draw.

The original Bao rules were intended to punish a player who
discarded an obviously dangerous tile to help an opponent
complete a valuable pattern. "Kong-win" is clearly not
valuable nor obvious enough to warrant Bao. Modern extended
Bao rules are intended to punish a player who discards the
last tile to help an opponent complete his hand. The Kong'ed
tile itself is not the last tile which completes the hand.

--
"Live life with Heart."
Alan Kwan / t...@netvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews)
Tarot Games Hong Kong : http://www.tghk.com

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


5    From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Sun, Dec 28 2003 10:50 pm

Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.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

"tarot" <t...@netvigator.com> wrote in message

news:3FEF9794.6050607@netvigator.com...

> IMO, holding a player who discarded a tile for a kong-out responsible
> is as reasonable as the following analogus situation:

> East discards "Green". Then South self-draw and wins. East and
> North look at West's hand and find a pair of Green. They claim that
> West is responsible for South's win, and should pay-for-all, because
> he should have pong'ed the Green and skipped South's turn, so that
> South could not have won by self-draw.

That is another *indirect cause* issue that we need to resolve or redefine
(although unnecessary). Say, if South could not win, and iff West then did
self-draw and win, could all 3 players claim that West was cheating? (He
didn't pong because he knew he was going to self-draw and win in two tiles!)

If West is to be responsible for not claiming pong in this case, then many,
many other scenarios may have the similar problems that need to be resolved
or redefined (although totally unnecessary).

> The original Bao rules were intended to punish a player who
> discarded an obviously dangerous tile to help an opponent
> complete a valuable pattern. "Kong-win" is clearly not
> valuable nor obvious enough to warrant Bao. Modern extended
> Bao rules are intended to punish a player who discards the
> last tile to help an opponent complete his hand. The Kong'ed
> tile itself is not the last tile which completes the hand.

Although the original question has nothing to do with any bao scenarios, the
statement "The Kong'ed

> tile itself is not the last tile which completes the hand" might perhaps

give us an indication where the logic of an answer should be?

Cofa
www.iMahjong.com

P.S. Hey Alan, congratulations on the new domain for your website!

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


6    From: Dee - view profile
Date: Mon, Dec 29 2003 11:31 am

Email: d...@my-deja.com (Dee)
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" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:ihHHb.860596$9l5.205167@pd7tw2no>...
> Season's Greetings to all!

> We played the HKOS style, with the "chucker pays for all" settlement scheme.
> Player A discard a 3 Mat. Player C konged it. Player C then drew a new pai
> (a South) from the tail, AND declared win. I (in turn as Player B) was about
> to count the chips to pay him while Player C started teasing that A was too
> bad to have to pay for all!

Merry Christmas (and Happy New Year) to all as well.

I think the question to be decided is whether player A is the
"chucker" or whether player C won on a self-draw. In my books, as
long as a player did not declare win immediately on the discard, then
the player who discarded it was not the chucker. Therefore player A
is not directly responsible for player C's win.

As for the "bao" rules and indirect causes with HKOS, I think we
discussed at one time the whole issue of "advancing the hand" -- i.e.,
should it be a bao situation if the discard did not help the winning
player to advance his/her hand. See the threads:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=advancing+bao+group:rec.games.mahjo...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=advancing+bao+group:rec.games.mahjo...

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


7    From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Tues, Dec 30 2003 1:12 am

Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.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

"Dee" <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message

news:bc999a91.0312291031.742cc0d5@posting.google.com...

> "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

<news:ihHHb.860596$9l5.205167@pd7tw2no>...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > Season's Greetings to all!

> > We played the HKOS style, with the "chucker pays for all" settlement
scheme.
> > Player A discard a 3 Mat. Player C konged it. Player C then drew a new
pai
> > (a South) from the tail, AND declared win. I (in turn as Player B) was
about
> > to count the chips to pay him while Player C started teasing that A was
too
> > bad to have to pay for all!

> Merry Christmas (and Happy New Year) to all as well.

> I think the question to be decided is whether player A is the
> "chucker" or whether player C won on a self-draw. In my books, as
> long as a player did not declare win immediately on the discard, then
> the player who discarded it was not the chucker. Therefore player A
> is not directly responsible for player C's win.

This is in line with the IMJ position. I also believe this is one of several
fundamental rules of HKOS and will fit in most, if not all, HKOS scenarios
*without the need to redefine other rules for each and every scenario*.

"Chucker pays for all" is a new concept to HKOS (if I remember correctly, it
was starting to be commonly adopted in Hong Kong in the late 1980s). It's
intent is to hold the chucker accountable for his own act.

"The chucker discards, the winning player claims the discard and wins" is a
common, simple and foreseeable scenario and anyone can apply the new rule to
it without doubt.

However, "a player discards, another player claims the discard to kong, and
subsequently wins on the supplementary tile", was something probably no one
had thought of when the new rule (the "chucker pays for all" rule) was
invented. To handle unexpected situations like this, I believe the use of
the fundamental rules should be the way to go.

There is another question to ask: If what Amy Lo, Tom and Alan said shall
apply, then, and since Player A has *discarded* a tile but Player C has
actually won on *self-draw*, should A pay scores of a discard, or scores of
a selfmake (score amount is much more)?

Cofa
www.iMahjong.com

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


8    From: Dee - view profile
Date: Tues, Dec 30 2003 1:04 pm

Email: d...@my-deja.com (Dee)
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" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:5saIb.863152$pl3.84964@pd7tw3no>...
> There is another question to ask: If what Amy Lo, Tom and Alan said shall
> apply, then, and since Player A has *discarded* a tile but Player C has
> actually won on *self-draw*, should A pay scores of a discard, or scores of
> a selfmake (score amount is much more)?

I think Amy is the only one saying that player A should pay for all.
Tom was merely quoting Amy (I don't have Amy's book, so I cannot vouch
for it). And if I interpret Alan's post correctly, when he said "The
Kong'ed tile itself is not the last tile which completes the hand", I
think he meant that player A was not responsible (which is my position
also).

So both Alan and I are saying that it was a self-draw win and not a
win from a discard.

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


9    From: Cofa Tsui - view profile
Date: Wed, Dec 31 2003 12:43 am

Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.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

"Dee" <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message

news:bc999a91.0312301204.733d4028@posting.google.com...

> "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

<news:5saIb.863152$pl3.84964@pd7tw3no>...

> > There is another question to ask: If what Amy Lo, Tom and Alan said
shall
> > apply, then, and since Player A has *discarded* a tile but Player C has
> > actually won on *self-draw*, should A pay scores of a discard, or scores
of
> > a selfmake (score amount is much more)?

> I think Amy is the only one saying that player A should pay for all.
> Tom was merely quoting Amy (I don't have Amy's book, so I cannot vouch
> for it). And if I interpret Alan's post correctly, when he said "The
> Kong'ed tile itself is not the last tile which completes the hand", I
> think he meant that player A was not responsible (which is my position
> also).

Dee, you are right in part. Tom didn't say that for himself but only agreed
with Lo. For Alan's say, I meant the first two paragraphs of his message.

> So both Alan and I are saying that it was a self-draw win and not a
> win from a discard.

This won't match his first 2 paragraphs. He might just refer to a bao
scenario. Of course, Alan can always reply and clarify all these.

Cofa
www.iMahjong.com

Reply
==============================END OF MESSAGE=====
^ | Home