 |
|
|
|
Bao Question - Two are subject to the penalties, who shall actually bao?
[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) - 1 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Jul 30 2006 10:28 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 | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author 1. Question about "bao": Player A has displayed two pungs of Red and White Dragons (hence the Big Three Dragons Alert is in effect). No other pai is on display (Flowers except). Player C discarded a Green Dragon. Player A punged and discarded a pai. Now Player C is bound to lose with respect to the Big Three Dragons Alert. At this point, since Player A has displayed three sets of Honours, another alert (Pure Honours Alert) is now also in effect. Player B discarded a South. Player A said "PUNG", then discarded a pai. Player A is now calling for only one pai, and Player B is bound to lose with respect to the Pure Honours Alert. QUESTION: If Player A draws a North and wins (he has been calling for North), he now has a winning hand containing both Pure Honours and Big Three Dragons. Who shall be bound to pay (i.e., "bao")? Player B or Player C, or should it be both? Why? (Answers to "why" may have very little to do with any rule set. Just want to learn more opinions of others.) [Answer can be found in the International Mahjong Rules.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. What's new at IMJ: Recent major updates to the IMJ Infoweb are now completed. The IMJ Learning Centre is now enhanced with the following information: - International Mahjong Rules - a comprehensive rule set in both English and Chinese. - IMJ EasyPlay - a detailed learning guide with illustrations and essential information. - Grade Elements Table - a complete table of all valid grade elements with lots of sample hands and explanatory comments. - Link to the World Unified Mahjong Terminology Table. IMJ Learning Centre is located at http://www.imahjong.com/mruonline11.html -------------- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 2 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Mon, Jul 31 2006 8:15 am Email: d...@my-deja.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > QUESTION: If Player A draws a North and wins (he has been calling for > North), he now has a winning hand containing both Pure Honours and Big > Three Dragons. Who shall be bound to pay (i.e., "bao")? Player B or > Player C, or should it be both? Why? (Answers to "why" may have very > little to do with any rule set. Just want to learn more opinions of > others.) Well, I didn't have the time to visit the IMJ site to look for the answer. But I would think that no one has to "bao". When Player C discarded the Green Dragon and Player A did not win from it immediately, my understanding is that Player C is not under obligation to "bao" -- the "bao" is applied ONLY if Player A won from the third dragon immediately, if he merely pung the third dragon, the discarder is off the hook. In the same manner, when Player B discarded the tile and Player A did not win from it immediately, he too is off the hook. In this case, it is a self-drawn limit hand and everyone pays Player A. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 3 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Jul 31 2006 9:58 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1154358919.071959.260440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> QUESTION: If Player A draws a North and wins (he has been calling for >> North), he now has a winning hand containing both Pure Honours and Big >> Three Dragons. Who shall be bound to pay (i.e., "bao")? Player B or >> Player C, or should it be both? Why? (Answers to "why" may have very >> little to do with any rule set. Just want to learn more opinions of >> others.) > Well, I didn't have the time to visit the IMJ site to look for the > answer. But I would think that no one has to "bao". When Player C > discarded the Green Dragon and Player A did not win from it > immediately, my understanding is that Player C is not under obligation > to "bao" -- the "bao" is applied ONLY if Player A won from the third > dragon immediately, if he merely pung the third dragon, the discarder > is off the hook. In the same manner, when Player B discarded the tile > and Player A did not win from it immediately, he too is off the hook. > In this case, it is a self-drawn limit hand and everyone pays Player A. Well, it depends on what "prerequisites" have been agreed upon (I guess this is a must step if no written rules preside) in the event of games. There are two types of "bao" that I know of: (1) Bao immediately when a cause takes place - That is, if win is claimed upon a discard, the discarder shall bao. Examples are "Bao new pais while last 7 pais are left on the wall", and "Bao Honours while last 5 pais are left on the wall" (I might have mixed up the 7 and 5 pais as these rules have not been used for a long time). If you discard a new pai (or an Honour) during the prescribed period and no body claims to win upon the discard, you are off the hook, and the discarded pai becomes "dead". (2) Bao through to the end of the game - If a cause of the bao happens, the player who committed the case is liable to bao through to the end of the game, as the discarded pai *has been claimed to promote the future winning hand*. This is the situation where the topic question is related. The alerts in question are to warn other players not to provide the third Dragon or the fourth Honour to the player posing the alert(s). When a player does help him to achieve the 3rd set (of Dragon) or the fourth set (of Honour), he (the helping player) is required to take the consequence, which is that he is required to bao when the player posing the alert(s) is to win by selfdraw, and the winning hand is the same as related in the alert(s). The penalty of the bao is to pay three times the selfmake amount. This arrangement is fair to other players as the winning hand, if in line with the alert and if done by selfdraw, normally carries a very heavy amount of value. Both arrangements of (1) and (2) are the tradition of the HKOS, in case you are not aware of ^_^ OK, now if (2) is a valid rule in your games, who shall bao? -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 4 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Aug 2 2006 9:34 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.com> wrote in message news:kFqzg.280685$iF6.241998@pd7tw2no... > <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:1154358919.071959.260440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> Cofa Tsui wrote: >>> QUESTION: If Player A draws a North and wins (he has been calling for >>> North), he now has a winning hand containing both Pure Honours and Big >>> Three Dragons. Who shall be bound to pay (i.e., "bao")? Player B or >>> Player C, or should it be both? Why? (Answers to "why" may have very >>> little to do with any rule set. Just want to learn more opinions of >>> others.) ANSWER: Short form: Only Player B shall bao (he who has discarded a pai to help Player A to set up the fourth set of Honours, shall pay for all other players when Player A wins by selfdraw and the winning hand comprises of the element Pure Honours). Detailed form: Prior to Player A winning the hand, both Player C (who has discarded to help A to set up the third set of Dragons) and Player B (who has discarded to help A to set up the fourth set of Honours) are liable to the penalties associated to the alerts that are in effect. If Player A wins by drawing a Serial, the hand is an All Pungs hand with the element of Big Three Dragons. The Pure Honours element is not formed, therefore the Pure Honours alert is collapsed and only Player C shall pay the penalty - pays the full selfmake value to A for himself and for other two players. However, this is not the scenario of the question topic. If Player A wins by drawing an Honour (as in this question topic), the hand is an All Pungs hand with the element of Pure Honours. Hence Player B shall pay the penalty according to the rule of that specific alert (Pure Honours Alert). You may ask: "Player C has helped A to set up the third set of Dragons, which can also be referred to as the third set of Honours, why C is free from the penalty?" The reasoning behind this is that C's help to A in making the third set of Dragons, is also considered to be helping A to make the third set of Honours, and there is never any penalty to pay if a player merely helps others to set up the third set of Honours, other than the third set of Dragons. There are also other reasons to support the above ruling: (a) The winning player is claiming values of both Pure Honours and Big Three Dragons, it is unfair for the player who is bound under the Big Three Dragons alert to pay the much higher penalty of the Pure Honours alert. (b) The fourth set of Honours is caught later than the third set of Dragons, it is fair for the player who is the last to risk the "alert" to take the "final" consequence. The above ruling is found in rule article 33 of the International Mahjong Rules (http://www.imahjong.com/mruonline1101imjrulesc_simplified.html). -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 5 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Aug 3 2006 8:34 am Email: d...@my-deja.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 - Cofa Tsui wrote: > "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.com> wrote in message > news:kFqzg.280685$iF6.241998@pd7tw2no... > >> Cofa Tsui wrote: > >>> QUESTION: If Player A draws a North and wins (he has been calling for > >>> North), he now has a winning hand containing both Pure Honours and Big > >>> Three Dragons. Who shall be bound to pay (i.e., "bao")? Player B or > >>> Player C, or should it be both? Why? (Answers to "why" may have very > >>> little to do with any rule set. Just want to learn more opinions of > >>> others.) > ANSWER: > Short form: Only Player B shall bao (he who has discarded a pai to help > Player A to set up the fourth set of Honours, shall pay for all other > players when Player A wins by selfdraw and the winning hand comprises of the > element Pure Honours). I disagree with the ruling on Player C, I'll have to think about your ruling on Player B. Here is an alternative situation if we put aside the situation with Player B; what if Player A won from a discard (let's say from Player D) after he formed the Big Three Scholars from Player C? Is Player C still responsible for the "bao"? Or is Player D responsible for a "bao"? Or is Player D merely responsible for being the discarder of the winning tile and everyone pay their share? I don't know if your ruling is that the player who helped the winner to form the Big Three Scholars is responsible for "bao self-draw" or if that player is responsible for "bao" regardless of how the winner won. I think we both agree that if Player A had won from the Green Dragon immediately when it was discarded by Player C they Player C is responsible for the "bao", We have different interpretations on "bao" when the win is not immediate. As for Player B, your ruling is similar to the "12 tile showing bao self-draw" rule. I have not encountered this yet, so I don't know how to interpret it. But again, my general thinking is that if the win is not immediate, there is no "bao" in effect. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 6 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Aug 3 2006 10:27 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1154619298.460721.47730@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.com> wrote in message >> news:kFqzg.280685$iF6.241998@pd7tw2no... >> >> Cofa Tsui wrote: >> >>> QUESTION: If Player A draws a North and wins (he has been calling for >> >>> North), he now has a winning hand containing both Pure Honours and >> >>> Big >> >>> Three Dragons. Who shall be bound to pay (i.e., "bao")? Player B or >> >>> Player C, or should it be both? Why? (Answers to "why" may have very >> >>> little to do with any rule set. Just want to learn more opinions of >> >>> others.) >> ANSWER: >> Short form: Only Player B shall bao (he who has discarded a pai to help >> Player A to set up the fourth set of Honours, shall pay for all other >> players when Player A wins by selfdraw and the winning hand comprises of >> the >> element Pure Honours). > I disagree with the ruling on Player C, I'll have to think about your > ruling on Player B. OK, I'll display various situations in details (a long post)... > Here is an alternative situation if we put aside the situation with > Player B; what if Player A won from a discard (let's say from Player D) > after he formed the Big Three Scholars from Player C? Is Player C > still responsible for the "bao"? Before C discards, A already has two sets of Dragons displayed. At this point, the "Big Three Dragons Alert" is in effect. The alert carries the penalty like this: (a) If anyone discards the third Dragon and player A wins on that discard, AND if his winning hand contains the element of Big Three Dragons, the discarder shall bao (he'll pay cheaper in this scenario as he pays his own share (two times) plus shares of the other two players two x one times). This is where "immediate bao" takes place. Note: Bao penalty will not apply if the hand contains Little Three Dragons only. (b) If anyone discards the thrid Dragon and player A pungs/kongs it (not an immediate win), the discarder will pay the penalty if at a later time player A wins on drawing by himself, AND if his winning hand contains the element of Big Three Dragons. This is where "bao through to the end" takes place. In this "bao" situation, the one who has discarded the third Dragon pays the selfmake scores (three X two times per player). (c) Note the emphasis "AND ...contains ... Big Three Dragons". The penalty applies only if the element (in this case, the Big Three Dragons) related to the alert is realized. AFTER the three sets of Dragons are displayed (in which, C helps A to set up the third set) and A does not win immediately, the following could happen: (d) C is responsible for the penalty through to the end of the game - as per (b) above. Also see (f) below. (e) If player D discards, and player A wins on the discard - This is where D_Lau's question is. Then, (1) Before we go further, we must first understand that at this point, another alert has just begun to be in effect - the "Pure Honours Alert" (also known as the "Nine-Piece Bao Alert"). This is under the "immediate bao" category. Also in this bao alert, the target winning hand is to contain the element of Pure Honours. With this bao rule, anyone who discards a pai to allow the player giving the alert to win, PROVIDED the winning hand contains the element related to the alert (in this case, the Pure Honours), shall bao. (2) With the understanding of (1) above, if player D discards an Honour, player A wins AND if the hand contains the element of Pure Honours, player D shall bao (paying 1 X two times plus 2 X one times). (3) If player A's winning hand contains anything but the Pure Honours, the bao penalty will not apply. (4) The penalty for Big Three Dragons will not apply either, because the win is not by selfdraw. Also see (b) above. Or is Player D responsible for a > "bao"? Or is Player D merely responsible for being the discarder of > the winning tile and everyone pay their share? (f) For the first question, see (e) above. (g) For the second question, it depends on whether the play is based on the the traditional "everyone pays" rule, or the "chucker pays for all" rule. I don't know if your > ruling is that the player who helped the winner to form the Big Three > Scholars is responsible for "bao self-draw" or if that player is > responsible for "bao" regardless of how the winner won. (h) The short answer to your question is: The player is "bao selfdraw"; the bao is effective through to the end of the game; and, the bao penalty applies only if the winning hand contains Big Three Dragons. However, exception may happen - This is why mahjong could be so complicated, or should I say WONDERFUL? One exception is where two players are responsible for two different penalties, to one winning player at the very same time - see (j) below. (i) The traditional HKOS rule is that if the hand containing Big Three Dragons is not won immediately, the penalty is "bao selfdraw" and is valid through to the end of the game (very few authors have the details in their books, though). In IMJ Rules, art. 33.2 has the detailed rule in writing. Note that IMJ applies the "chucker pays for all" system, anyone discarding a winning pai will pay, regardless any situation. (j) There is a situation where BOTH the "Big Three Dragons" bao AND the "Pure Honours" bao ARE in place at the same time, as raised in the original question of this topic. In my original question, player C is responsible for the Big Three Dragons penalty (bao selfdraw through to the end); player B is responsible for the Pure Honours penalty (bao selfdraw through to the end); and player A eventually wins on selfdraw, AND the winning hand contains both Big Three Dragons and Pure Honours. To avoid the dispute as to who (B or C) is responsible for paying A on his selfdraw win, there must be some rules to govern this situation. I have not read of any reference to this effect in any books or rule sets, except the IMJ Rules. Art. 33 of the IMJ Rules states that in this type of situations, only the Pure Honours bao penalty will apply. I think we > both agree that if Player A had won from the Green Dragon immediately > when it was discarded by Player C they Player C is responsible for the > "bao", I agree this. We have different interpretations on "bao" when the win is not > immediate. It is obvious. However, I think the difference is not different at all. What you know is quite the same as what I told; the difference, if any, seems to be in the part that you have not said. What I have provided is the *whole picture* about all "bao situations". And as I mentioned in my previous message, these are all traditional in HKOS (Some rules in IMJ Rules are modern, which I have also mentioned.). I believe other HKOS experts would agree to what I've provided. > As for Player B, your ruling is similar to the "12 tile showing bao > self-draw" rule. I have not encountered this yet, so I don't know how > to interpret it. You are right about this. The "Twelve-Piece Bao Selfdraw" rules apply to hands containing "Pure Same" (hand containing one Serial suit only) and "Pure Honours" (hand containing Honours only), and the bao penalty is valid through to the end of the game, but the penalty applies only when certain conditions are met. But again, my general thinking is that if the win is > not immediate, there is no "bao" in effect. So how about now, after seeing the "whole picture" above? -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 7 From: John (Zi Rong) Low - view profile Date: Thurs, Aug 3 2006 11:06 pm Email: "John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.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 Sorry for repeating this (too lazy to read all of it), but it is "Bao 1" for Mandarin. In Japanese it is "Pao" and applies to Daisangen (Big Three Elements) Dai Suu Shi (Big Four Joys) and sometimes Suu Kantsu (Four Quads) If Player 1 made the most recent meld (Pon/Kan) off Player 2, and does "Tsumo", then Player two has to pay the entire Yakuman payment. If Player 1 made the most recent meld off Player 2, but "Ron"s off Player 3 or 4, then Player 2 pays 50% and the other player pays 50%. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 8 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Aug 5 2006 10:03 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 "John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154671581.828930.46710@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Sorry for repeating this (too lazy to read all of it), but it is "Bao > 1" for Mandarin. In Japanese it is "Pao" and applies to > Daisangen (Big Three Elements) > Dai Suu Shi (Big Four Joys) and sometimes > Suu Kantsu (Four Quads) > If Player 1 made the most recent meld (Pon/Kan) off Player 2, and does > "Tsumo", then Player two has to pay the entire Yakuman payment. > If Player 1 made the most recent meld off Player 2, but "Ron"s off > Player 3 or 4, then Player 2 pays 50% and the other player pays 50%. Hi John, I read of the 50/50 sharing arrangement in some literature but am sure it is not in the HKOS. By the way, what is "Suu Kantsu (Four Quads)"? Does it mean "Four Kongs"? What or how is the "bao" related to it? I mean, how the bao works in this situation? -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 9 From: John (Zi Rong) Low - view profile Date: Sat, Aug 5 2006 11:56 pm Email: "John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.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 read of the 50/50 sharing arrangement in some literature but am sure it is >not in the HKOS. >By the way, what is "Suu Kantsu (Four Quads)"? Does it mean "Four Kongs"? >What or how is the "bao" related to it? I mean, how the bao works in this >situation? I was talking in referral to Modern Japanese mahjong. The "Bao/Pao" penalty in Japanese mahjong is in relation to the most recent open meld of the Yakuman winner's hand. E.g. Player A makes a "Pon" off Player B's Red Player A later "Pon"s off Player C's Green Player A finally does "Tsumo" (self pick) with Dai Sangen (Big Three Elements). Player C's Green was his most recent meld, so Player C pays for all. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 10 From: J. R. Fitch - view profile Date: Sun, Aug 6 2006 5:32 am Email: "J. R. Fitch" <jrfi...@ninedragons.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 John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.com> wrote in message" > ..and sometimes Suu Kantsu (Four Quads) I am curious how a penalty could be applied to All Kong. Sure, we can see that a player is showing 3 Kongs already, but how are we to know which tile is dangerous/foolish to discard? By their absence among the melds and discards? Must the winner go out on his replacement tile, or can he win later? -- J. R. Fitch Nine Dragons Software San Francisco, CA USA http://www.ninedragons.com Reply » Rate this post: ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 11 From: John (Zi Rong) Low - view profile Date: Sun, Aug 6 2006 6:31 am Email: "John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.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 - J. R. Fitch wrote: > John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.com> wrote in message" > > ..and sometimes Suu Kantsu (Four Quads) > I am curious how a penalty could be applied to All Kong. > Sure, we can see that a player is showing 3 Kongs already, but how are > we to know which tile is dangerous/foolish to discard? By their absence > among the melds and discards? > Must the winner go out on his replacement tile, or can he win later? > -- > J. R. Fitch > Nine Dragons Software > San Francisco, CA USA > http://www.ninedragons.com Oops, sorry I made a mistake. When Player A makes the most recent meld which definitely confirms a Yakuman hand, and wins later, then a "Bao/Pao" penalty will occur. For Suu Kantsu (4 Quads), there has to be 3 quads visible, and then the 4th Quad be melded via somebody's discard (Player B). Then if Player A self picks, then Player B pays the entire penalty. If Player A "Ron"s player C (for a Pair), then B and C pay 50% each. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 12 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Aug 6 2006 10:06 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 "John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154871096.432644.318900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > J. R. Fitch wrote: >> John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.com> wrote in message" >> > ..and sometimes Suu Kantsu (Four Quads) >> I am curious how a penalty could be applied to All Kong. >> Sure, we can see that a player is showing 3 Kongs already, but how are >> we to know which tile is dangerous/foolish to discard? By their absence >> among the melds and discards? >> Must the winner go out on his replacement tile, or can he win later? >> -- >> J. R. Fitch >> Nine Dragons Software >> San Francisco, CA USA >> http://www.ninedragons.com That's what I have asked about in my previous post. > Oops, sorry I made a mistake. > When Player A makes the most recent meld which definitely confirms a > Yakuman hand, and wins later, then a "Bao/Pao" penalty will occur. > For Suu Kantsu (4 Quads), there has to be 3 quads visible, and then the > 4th Quad be melded via somebody's discard (Player B). Then if Player A > self picks, then Player B pays the entire penalty. If Player A "Ron"s > player C (for a Pair), then B and C pay 50% each. Does this bao rule cover kongs of all pais (Dragons, Winds, Serials and the mix of these)? (Sorry I am not sure if this is part of the definition of "Yakuman hand" that I am not aware of - re: "which definitely confirms a Yakuman hand".) If the answer is "yes", it seems the penalty comes purely by luck (or "bad luck"), right? Wait! Or else one must ensure the pai he is going to discard is among the disclosed pais (on the floor and on the display lines of all players). So, is the purpose of this bao rule to discourage players from discarding any "raw or fresh" pais? -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 13 From: J. R. Fitch - view profile Date: Sun, Aug 6 2006 9:28 pm Email: "J. R. Fitch" <jrfi...@ninedragons.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > .. is the purpose of this bao rule to discourage players from > discarding any "raw or fresh" pais? The answer could only be Yes. How else could one determine the risk? But it is not fair, considering that tiles might still be in the Wall. So, to me this bao is not logical. In HKOS, there is a bao for throwing a "fresh" tile when there are 5 or fewer tiles remaining in the Wall. This bao makes much more sense. -- J. R. Fitch Nine Dragons Software San Francisco, CA USA http://www.ninedragons.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 14 From: John (Zi Rong) Low - view profile Date: Sun, Aug 6 2006 11:34 pm Email: "John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.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 According to the Japan Pro Mahjong League rules at http://www.ma-jan.or.jp/rule.htm , that is their definition of "Bao/Pao" penalty. I assume that if Player A already has 2 revealed "Pon"s of Red and Green, everybody else would've suspected that he's aiming for Dai Sangen (Big Three Elements) and avoid discarding the White, if they pick it up later. Similarly, if Player A already has 3 declared "Kan"s (Quads), you should suspect that he might be aiming for Suu Kantsu (4 Quads), and avoid feeding the 4th Quad by discarding tiles which have already been discarded. That way, the absolute most Player A can do is "Pon" of it, but not "Kan" because the 4th of that tile has already been discarded. The "Bao/Pao" rule for Suu Kantsu (Four Quads) applies to any type of "Kan"s, Honours and Suit tiles. Everyone must try not to let their tile be used to make Player A's 4th Quad, otherwise they will suffer this penalty if he wins. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 15 From: John (Zi Rong) Low - view profile Date: Sun, Aug 6 2006 11:41 pm Email: "John (Zi Rong) Low" <entiqm...@gmail.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 > .. is the purpose of this bao rule to discourage players from > discarding any "raw or fresh" pais? >The answer could only be Yes. How else could one determine the risk? But >it is not fair, considering that tiles might still be in the Wall. >So, to me this bao is not logical. >In HKOS, there is a bao for throwing a "fresh" tile when there are 5 or >fewer tiles remaining in the Wall. This bao makes much more sense. It says "大三元 三種類目の三元牌をポンさせた時。 大四喜 四種類目の風牌をポンさせた時。 四槓子 三槓子完成者に生牌（注38）を明カンさせた時." Yes, it discourages players from discarding "Shonpai" (Fresh tiles). For Dai Sangen (Big Three Elements), the person who enables Player A to meld the 3rd Dragon "Pon/Kan" off his discard will suffer. Suffering also occurs for letting Player A meld the 4th Wind "Pon/Kan" and the 4th "Kan" via discard. There are no "Hot tiles" or that 5 fewer tiles remaining in wall, it applies any time in the hand, depending on Player A's hand development. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 16 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Aug 6 2006 11:35 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 "J. R. Fitch" <jrfi...@ninedragons.com> wrote in message news:44D6C197.23A2CC40@ninedragons.com... > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> .. is the purpose of this bao rule to discourage players from >> discarding any "raw or fresh" pais? > The answer could only be Yes. How else could one determine the risk? But > it is not fair, considering that tiles might still be in the Wall. > So, to me this bao is not logical. I don't think it's logical either. But I am still curious to learn if there is anything related to the "Yakuman hand" would suggest otherwise. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 17 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Mon, Aug 7 2006 8:53 am Email: d...@my-deja.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > Before C discards, A already has two sets of Dragons displayed. At this > point, the "Big Three Dragons Alert" is in effect. The alert carries the > penalty like this: > (b) If anyone discards the thrid Dragon and player A pungs/kongs it (not an > immediate win), the discarder will pay the penalty if at a later time player > A wins on drawing by himself, AND if his winning hand contains the element > of Big Three Dragons. This is where "bao through to the end" takes place. In > this "bao" situation, the one who has discarded the third Dragon pays the > selfmake scores (three X two times per player). Hmmm... I am no lawyer (and I don't play one on TV either), but this sounds like a lot of legal talk. So if player "A already has two sets of Dragons displayed" and "A pungs/kongs (the third Dragon)" and "A wins on drawing by himself", then can you give an example situation where the winning hand DOES NOT "contain the element of Big Three Dragons"? I cannot think of a case where all this wording is necessary. So your house rule is that the player who supplied the third Dragon pung (not an immediate win) is responsible for "bao selfdraw". This is a much simpler rule than all that legal if (a), (b), (c)... stuff. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 18 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Aug 7 2006 10:30 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1154966002.279960.14980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> Before C discards, A already has two sets of Dragons displayed. At this >> point, the "Big Three Dragons Alert" is in effect. The alert carries the >> penalty like this: >> (b) If anyone discards the thrid Dragon and player A pungs/kongs it (not >> an >> immediate win), the discarder will pay the penalty if at a later time >> player >> A wins on drawing by himself, AND if his winning hand contains the >> element >> of Big Three Dragons. This is where "bao through to the end" takes place. >> In >> this "bao" situation, the one who has discarded the third Dragon pays the >> selfmake scores (three X two times per player). > Hmmm... I am no lawyer (and I don't play one on TV either), but this > sounds like a lot of legal talk. So if player "A already has two sets > of Dragons displayed" and "A pungs/kongs (the third Dragon)" and "A > wins on drawing by himself", then can you give an example situation > where the winning hand DOES NOT "contain the element of Big Three > Dragons"? I cannot think of a case where all this wording is > necessary. NORMALLY there won't be such an example! I noticed the "abandon" wording but understood it was necessary to be there to demonstrate one of the required conditions for the bao penalty. On the other hand, there could *always* be exceptions in mahjong - again, that's why it's such a wonderful game!!! See an ABNORMAL example below (it could happen, right?!): - Player A punged the third Dragon but was too excited to collect the discarded Dragon from the floor! In this case he only displayed two Dragons on his display line and didn't know the mistake! (Wouldn't you ask why other players didn't or shouldn't tell him about the mistake?) He later on selfdrew and opened all pais of his concealed hand at once to claim a win with the Big Three Dragons, but only to know that he had made a false win! > So your house rule is that the player who supplied the third Dragon > pung (not an immediate win) is responsible for "bao selfdraw". This is > a much simpler rule than all that legal if (a), (b), (c)... stuff. If you rely on rules (or house rules, or legal...) by word of mouth, you can tell them whatever way you prefer, and provide explanations (also by mouth) whenever and however questions are raised. Those (a), (b)... (especially (e)) are necessary to show you the *whole picture* in answering, *in writing*, to your questions - perhaps to other readers who are interested in the topic as well. To avoid any confusions, and again, these are traditional rules in HKOS (or traditional house rules if you prefer calling it this way). Should any expert in HKOS ask the question you've asked in the first place? I guess you are just not appreciated the thorough answers I've provided! -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 19 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Mon, Aug 7 2006 11:24 am Email: d...@my-deja.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > To avoid any confusions, and again, these are traditional rules in HKOS (or > traditional house rules if you prefer calling it this way). Should any > expert in HKOS ask the question you've asked in the first place? I guess you > are just not appreciated the thorough answers I've provided! Don't get me wrong, Cofa. I appreciate all the detail answers you provided because they explained your answer with all the possibilities. What I didn't appreciate was the legal wording and all the extra words (not to mention your unique English terms you use, but that is another discussion :-) ). I think HKOS rules are usually quite simple in their nature, and so I was looking for the simple answer as usual -- players understand there are exceptions and those are the times that make the game exciting as you say. In my circle, we only honor the "bao" if it is an immediate win, I don't know how "traditional" this rule is. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 20 From: J. R. Fitch - view profile Date: Mon, Aug 7 2006 4:10 pm Email: "J. R. Fitch" <jrfi...@ninedragons.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 d...@my-deja.com wrote: >> In my circle, we only honor the "bao" if it is an immediate win, >> I don't know how "traditional" this rule is. From all that I know about HKOS, both the Nine Pieces bao and its Twelve Pieces corollary are 100% traditional and essential. -- J. R. Fitch Nine Dragons Software San Francisco, CA USA http://www.ninedragons.com Reply » Rate this post: ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 21 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Mon, Aug 7 2006 4:55 pm Email: d...@my-deja.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 J. R. Fitch wrote: > d...@my-deja.com wrote: > >> In my circle, we only honor the "bao" if it is an immediate win, > >> I don't know how "traditional" this rule is. > From all that I know about HKOS, both the Nine Pieces bao and its Twelve > Pieces corollary are 100% traditional and essential. > -- > J. R. Fitch > Nine Dragons Software > San Francisco, CA USA > http://www.ninedragons.com You mean Nine Pieces (discarder "bao" on immediate win) and Twelve Pieces (discarder "bao" for self-draw win) for "Pure One Suit" right? That is traditional in HKOS and I am aware of them and we play by these rules. But the difference for Big Three Scholar (in Cofa's interpretation) is that it is discarder "bao" on self-draw win when only Nine Pieces are showing, this is not the same as the Twelve Pieces "bao" of Pure One Suit. We all agree on the "bao" on immediate win case for Big Three Scholar, it is when the win is not immediate that we have different interpretations. Reply » Rate this post: ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 22 From: J. R. Fitch - view profile Date: Mon, Aug 7 2006 6:59 pm Email: "J. R. Fitch" <jrfi...@ninedragons.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 d...@my-deja.com wrote: > You mean Nine Pieces (discarder "bao" on immediate win) and Twelve > Pieces (discarder "bao" for self-draw win) for "Pure One Suit" right? > That is traditional in HKOS and I am aware of them and we play by these > rules. Okay. Good. > But the difference for Big Three Scholar (in Cofa's interpretation) is > that it is discarder "bao" on self-draw win when only Nine Pieces are > showing, this is not the same as the Twelve Pieces "bao" of Pure One > Suit. We all agree on the "bao" on immediate win case for Big Three > Scholar, it is when the win is not immediate that we have different > interpretations. Ok. I can understand your hesitation in that situation. You provided the 3rd set of Dragons but that player still might or might not have a ready hand. But what about Big Four Winds? If you provide the 4th set, and that player then wins by self-pick, is that a bao? -- J. R. Fitch Nine Dragons Software San Francisco, CA USA http://www.ninedragons.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 23 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 8 2006 10:14 am Email: d...@my-deja.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 J. R. Fitch wrote: > Ok. I can understand your hesitation in that situation. You provided the > 3rd set of Dragons but that player still might or might not have a ready > hand. Exactly, so our table rule is that it is a "bao" only if there is an immediate win on the third Dragon; otherwise there is no "bao". > But what about Big Four Winds? If you provide the 4th set, and that > player then wins by self-pick, is that a bao? This is slightly different. Now the winning hand has 12-tiles showing and therefore the player who provided the 4th Wind should be responsible for a self-draw win (i.e., "bao"). This situation is similar to the Pure-One-Suit 12-tile "bao" rule. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 24 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 8 2006 11:34 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1155057270.073196.173240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > J. R. Fitch wrote: >> Ok. I can understand your hesitation in that situation. You provided the >> 3rd set of Dragons but that player still might or might not have a ready >> hand. > Exactly, so our table rule is that it is a "bao" only if there is an > immediate win on the third Dragon; otherwise there is no "bao". >> But what about Big Four Winds? If you provide the 4th set, and that >> player then wins by self-pick, is that a bao? > This is slightly different. Now the winning hand has 12-tiles showing > and therefore the player who provided the 4th Wind should be > responsible for a self-draw win (i.e., "bao"). This situation is > similar to the Pure-One-Suit 12-tile "bao" rule. I guess the quotes of 9-piece and 12-piece respecting the bao rules are just for convenience. In practice we normally name the exact pai (e.g., "bao Red Dragon", "bao East", "bao Wans" or "bao Honours") for the bao. The concepts of various "bao selfdraw win" rules in HKOS are consistent with respect to those relatively high-score hands: Big Four Winds, Big Three Dragons and Pure Same / Pure Honours. The nature of the cause for the penalty for providing the third set of Dragons, fourth set of Winds, fourth set of same suit or Honours, is the same - That is, the "provider" shall pay the penalty for helping the achievement of the high-score hand; and if the hand is not immediately won, the penalty is deferred to the time when the hand is won by selfdraw. The consistency and the various rules are part of the tradition of HKOS. -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 25 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Aug 7 2006 4:47 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1154975076.094472.179730@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> To avoid any confusions, and again, these are traditional rules in HKOS >> (or >> traditional house rules if you prefer calling it this way). Should any >> expert in HKOS ask the question you've asked in the first place? I guess >> you >> are just not appreciated the thorough answers I've provided! > Don't get me wrong, Cofa. I appreciate all the detail answers you > provided because they explained your answer with all the possibilities. > What I didn't appreciate was the legal wording and all the extra words > (not to mention your unique English terms you use, but that is another > discussion :-) ). I think HKOS rules are usually quite simple in their > nature, and so I was looking for the simple answer as usual -- players > understand there are exceptions and those are the times that make the > game exciting as you say. In my circle, we only honor the "bao" if it > is an immediate win, I don't know how "traditional" this rule is. OK, if you think your "...the player who supplied the third Dragon pung (not an immediate win) is responsible for "bao selfdraw"" is not legal at all, is short enough to cover your needs... then I think that's good for you! However, I guess when you meet the unexpected exceptions you can always come back to this post for reference. One may understand it's hard for anyone to learn all the traditional stuffs (the "whole picture") of HKOS within just one small group of players. Re: > (not to mention your unique English terms you use, but that is another > discussion :-) ). I do have some thoughts to share... - You have used the terms "Big Three Scholars" and "Green Dragon" in one single message. I guess both "Scholars" and "Dragons" could be unique English terms - Unique enough to be used for the same things, in one same message ^_^ - I have posted my suggestion of the World Unified Mahjong Terminology discussions in May 2006 (http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives209.html) and since then I have used terms recommended in the WUMT Table. Recently, I noticed that Tom has added his "Preferred" terms in his FAQ 6. I also noticed that terms like "WIN" (instead of "go out", "mahjong", etc) and "ELEMENT" (instead of "hand", respecting points or scores of a winning hand) are also used by other posters now in this newsgroup. I'm quite satisfied as these all prove that a "standardized list of mahjong terminology" never exists, and people are now working on towards getting one! Cheers! -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 26 From: Edwin Phua - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 8 2006 1:40 am Email: "Edwin Phua" <fant...@pacific.net.sg> 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 - d...@my-deja.com wrote: > Cofa Tsui wrote: > > Before C discards, A already has two sets of Dragons displayed. At this > > point, the "Big Three Dragons Alert" is in effect. The alert carries the > > penalty like this: > > (b) If anyone discards the thrid Dragon and player A pungs/kongs it (not an > > immediate win), the discarder will pay the penalty if at a later time player > > A wins on drawing by himself, AND if his winning hand contains the element > > of Big Three Dragons. This is where "bao through to the end" takes place. In > > this "bao" situation, the one who has discarded the third Dragon pays the > > selfmake scores (three X two times per player). > Hmmm... I am no lawyer (and I don't play one on TV either), but this > sounds like a lot of legal talk. So if player "A already has two sets > of Dragons displayed" and "A pungs/kongs (the third Dragon)" and "A > wins on drawing by himself", then can you give an example situation > where the winning hand DOES NOT "contain the element of Big Three > Dragons"? I cannot think of a case where all this wording is > necessary. > So your house rule is that the player who supplied the third Dragon > pung (not an immediate win) is responsible for "bao selfdraw". This is > a much simpler rule than all that legal if (a), (b), (c)... stuff. It is my impression that Cofa's writing of the rule: "If anyone discards the third Dragon and player A pungs/kongs it (not an immediate win), the discarder will pay the penalty if at a later time player A wins on drawing by himself, AND if his winning hand contains the element of Big Three Dragons" is reasonable, although the wording does seem troubling, especially the last part to which d objects to. In Cofa's original post, the winning hand is both Pure Honours and Big Three Dragons. In this case, although Player C gave Player A the third Dragon, Player A did not win yet, so there is a bao situation going on. This is superseded by the next bao situation that arises from Player B giving Player A the four set of Honours. So, the last part of Cofa's ruling could be interpreted to mean "and ONLY if his winning hand contains the SOLE element of Big Three Dragons", because some other element (Pure Honours, the only possible other element) has higher 'priority', but only if the Twelve Pieces bao situation is in effect. I am unsure of how to argue why Pure Honours has higher priority (if it really does). Cheers! Edwin Phua Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 27 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 15 2006 9:50 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 | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Edwin Phua wrote: > It is my impression that Cofa's writing of the rule: "If anyone > discards the third Dragon and player A pungs/kongs it (not an immediate > win), the discarder will pay the penalty if at a later time player A > wins on drawing by himself, AND if his winning hand contains the > element of Big Three Dragons" is reasonable, although the wording does > seem troubling, especially the last part to which d objects to. > In Cofa's original post, the winning hand is both Pure Honours and Big > Three Dragons. In this case, although Player C gave Player A the third > Dragon, Player A did not win yet, so there is a bao situation going on. > This is superseded by the next bao situation that arises from Player B > giving Player A the four set of Honours. > So, the last part of Cofa's ruling could be interpreted to mean "and > ONLY if his winning hand contains the SOLE element of Big Three > Dragons", Hi Edwin, On second thought, I think your "...contains the SOLE element of Big Three Dragons" suggestion might face problem in certain situations. Say, if after the third set of Dragons is displayed, player A draws and makes an unfolded kong (concealed kong) of Honours *by himself*. And, later on player A selfdraws and wins with a hand containing both Pure Honours and Big Three Dragons... In the above rare situation, player C still has to bao selfdraw win, because there is no penalty related to the existence of the Pure Honours. In International Mahjong Rules (http://www.imahjong.com/mruonline1101imjrulesc_simplified.html), art. 33 says if more than one player are subject to the penalty of Big Three Dragons and Pure Honours, only the penalty for Pure Honours is valid. Art. 33.1 defines that the penalty is applicable only if the help is from *another player*. (FYI: International Mahjong Rules assembles the rule details of HKOS, although modifications are added.) because some other element (Pure Honours, the only possible > other element) has higher 'priority', but only if the Twelve Pieces bao > situation is in effect. I am unsure of how to argue why Pure Honours > has higher priority (if it really does). I believe your suggestion ("This is superseded by the next bao situation") is a good reason for the higher priority. I am not aware of the rule details in this respect in HKOS (i.e., cannot find any written reference), therefore a specific stipulation in writing (like art. 33) would help to lay the ruling. Cheers! Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 28 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 15 2006 6:46 pm Email: d...@my-deja.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > On second thought, I think your "...contains the SOLE element of Big > Three Dragons" suggestion might face problem in certain situations. > Say, if after the third set of Dragons is displayed, player A draws and > makes an unfolded kong (concealed kong) of Honours *by himself*. And, > later on player A selfdraws and wins with a hand containing both Pure > Honours and Big Three Dragons... > In the above rare situation, player C still has to bao selfdraw win, > because there is no penalty related to the existence of the Pure > Honours. This is interesting, because now it raises the question of "what exactly is Player C responsible for the bao?" Is Player C responsible to bao when Player A wins by self-draw, regardless of what the worth of the hand is? Or is Player C only responsible for bao of Big-Three-Scholars? More questions along the same direction: after Player A displayed the three sets of Dragon pungs, if Player D discarded an Honour tile and it was immediately claimed by Player A to win an All Honours hand, is Player D responsible for any kind of bao? What about Player C, is he responsible for anything? Again, if after Player A pung'd the third Dragon and he wins off of a discard, would that player be responsible for any kind of bao? Would Player C be responsible for anything? If neither the discarder nor Player C are responsible for any kind of bao, then it would be in the interest of Player C to "feed" Player A to win from a discard. It is because of fuzzyness like these that we have adopted the much simpler "bao" rules. If the third Dragon is not an immediate win, there is no "bao" in place. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 29 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 15 2006 8:30 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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 <d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1155692799.179558.127210@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Cofa Tsui wrote: >> On second thought, I think your "...contains the SOLE element of Big >> Three Dragons" suggestion might face problem in certain situations. >> Say, if after the third set of Dragons is displayed, player A draws and >> makes an unfolded kong (concealed kong) of Honours *by himself*. And, >> later on player A selfdraws and wins with a hand containing both Pure >> Honours and Big Three Dragons... >> In the above rare situation, player C still has to bao selfdraw win, >> because there is no penalty related to the existence of the Pure >> Honours. Hi D again! Although it looks "fuzzy" (as you said - see below the bottom of the quote of yours), mahjong can be a wonderful game only if its rule details are consistent and fair. With the HKOS traditional details (or IMJ's written details) all your questions (below) can be answered precisely with consistency... > This is interesting, because now it raises the question of "what > exactly is Player C responsible for the bao?" Is Player C responsible > to bao when Player A wins by self-draw, regardless of what the worth of > the hand is? Or is Player C only responsible for bao of > Big-Three-Scholars? Yes. The bao penalty is regardless of the contents of the winning hand, other than the necessary element of Big Three Dragons. If the hand contains only Big Three Dragons and Selfdraw (obviously), then player C is lucky and pays probably the least. Other situations could be: - All Pungs, Mixed Same (one Serial suit only), Mixed Unios, Big Three Dragons, Selfdraw; - All Pungs, Pure Honours, Big Three Dragons, Selfdraw (or, even Kong on Kong); etc., etc. You see, C's bao penalty could be cheap or very expensive - the bottom line is he is to pay the consequence for providing the third set of Dragons under a bao alert. > More questions along the same direction: after Player A displayed the > three sets of Dragon pungs, if Player D discarded an Honour tile and it > was immediately claimed by Player A to win an All Honours hand, is > Player D responsible for any kind of bao? What about Player C, is he > responsible for anything? - If player D discards an Honour and player A wins on the discard with a Pure Honours hand, player D is to bao the penalty out of the Pure Honours alert (or, the "Nine-Piece Bao", because three sets of Dragons have triggered the Pure Honours Alert). - In this case, player C is released as player D pays for everyone. > Again, if after Player A pung'd the third Dragon and he wins off of a > discard, would that player be responsible for any kind of bao? Would > Player C be responsible for anything? If neither the discarder nor > Player C are responsible for any kind of bao, then it would be in the > interest of Player C to "feed" Player A to win from a discard. - After the display of the third set of Dragons, if player A wins on a discard... I actually have answered question similar to this one - see my message dated August 3 that you thought was "too legal". It is also true that player C (or any player for that matter) should feed player A if he is responsible for the "bao selfdraw win" penalty - It's also a well known HKOS technique, too! > It is because of fuzzyness like these that we have adopted the much > simpler "bao" rules. If the third Dragon is not an immediate win, > there is no "bao" in place. But then everyone would select to take the risk to feed the third or fourth set, as the risk of immediate win is relatively low; and on the other hand, it would be unfair to other players to have to pay the high (sometimes, very much high) price should a selfdraw win eventually materialize! -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 30 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Jul 31 2006 10:51 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.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 <d...@my-deja.com> wrote > Well, I didn't have the time to visit the IMJ site to look for the > answer. But I would think that no one has to "bao". When Player C > discarded the Green Dragon and Player A did not win from it > immediately, my understanding is that Player C is not under obligation > to "bao" -- the "bao" is applied ONLY if Player A won from the third > dragon immediately, if he merely pung the third dragon, the discarder > is off the hook. In the same manner, when Player B discarded the tile > and Player A did not win from it immediately, he too is off the hook. > In this case, it is a self-drawn limit hand and everyone pays Player A. Is "bao" Cantonese, while "pao" is Mandarin Chinese? Tom Reply » Rate this post: ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 31 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Jul 31 2006 11:32 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.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" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:ZK2dnYMxEKCP21PZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > Is "bao" Cantonese, while "pao" is Mandarin Chinese? > Tom BAO is good for both pinyin (Mandarin) and Cantonese, and is official in pinyin. "Pao" could be a variant, or translation, that was created not according to any consistent system (other than for other dialects). -- Cofa Tsui www.iMahjong.com Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 32 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Jul 31 2006 3:07 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Cofa Tsui" <I...@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.com> wrote... > BAO is good for both pinyin (Mandarin) and Cantonese, and is official in > pinyin. > "Pao" could be a variant, or translation, that was created not according > to any consistent system (other than for other dialects). OK, thanks Tom Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 33 From: Edwin Phua - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 1 2006 12:07 am Email: "Edwin Phua" <fant...@pacific.net.sg> 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: > "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message > news:ZK2dnYMxEKCP21PZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > Is "bao" Cantonese, while "pao" is Mandarin Chinese? > > Tom > BAO is good for both pinyin (Mandarin) and Cantonese, and is official in > pinyin. > "Pao" could be a variant, or translation, that was created not according to > any consistent system (other than for other dialects). 'Bao' is indeed good for hanyu pinyin. However, there is this existing problem when non-Mandarin speakers pronounce 'bao' with a voiced bilabial /b/, rather than an unaspirated unvoiced bilabial /p/. A phonetic representation of 'bao' would be something like [pau], so it is not that far off. Mandarin 'Pao' would be rendered as something like [phau]. Hence, 'pao' is sometimes used (perhaps not very scientifically, but not totally wrong either) as an alternative spelling/pronunciation. Cheers! Edwin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 34 From: d...@my-deja.com - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 1 2006 8:17 am Email: d...@my-deja.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 Edwin Phua wrote: > 'Bao' is indeed good for hanyu pinyin. However, there is this existing > problem when non-Mandarin speakers pronounce 'bao' with a voiced > bilabial /b/, rather than an unaspirated unvoiced bilabial /p/. A > phonetic representation of 'bao' would be something like [pau], so it > is not that far off. Mandarin 'Pao' would be rendered as something like > [phau]. > Hence, 'pao' is sometimes used (perhaps not very scientifically, but > not totally wrong either) as an alternative spelling/pronunciation. But the sound of the Chinese character "bao" in any Chinese dialect always start with a voiced "b" sound, not a silent "p" sound. So for a non-scientific pronounciation of "pao" it just does not sound right, while "bao" would sound closer to the Chinese. And we all know that with Chinese, not getting the sound just right could have a completely different meaning. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 35 From: ithinc - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 1 2006 9:00 am Email: "ithinc" <ithi...@gmail.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 - d...@my-deja.com wrote: > Edwin Phua wrote: > > 'Bao' is indeed good for hanyu pinyin. However, there is this existing > > problem when non-Mandarin speakers pronounce 'bao' with a voiced > > bilabial /b/, rather than an unaspirated unvoiced bilabial /p/. A > > phonetic representation of 'bao' would be something like [pau], so it > > is not that far off. Mandarin 'Pao' would be rendered as something like > > [phau]. > > Hence, 'pao' is sometimes used (perhaps not very scientifically, but > > not totally wrong either) as an alternative spelling/pronunciation. > But the sound of the Chinese character "bao" in any Chinese dialect > always start with a voiced "b" sound, not a silent "p" sound. So for a > non-scientific pronounciation of "pao" it just does not sound right, > while "bao" would sound closer to the Chinese. And we all know that > with Chinese, not getting the sound just right could have a completely > different meaning. The discarded tile making someone go out could be called "pao" tile. :) Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 36 From: Julian Bradfield - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 1 2006 1:05 pm Email: j...@inf.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) 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 <1154445443.831508.204...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, <d...@my-deja.com> wrote: >But the sound of the Chinese character "bao" in any Chinese dialect >always start with a voiced "b" sound, not a silent "p" sound. So for a Err...one of the early things taught to English learners of Chinese is that pinyin <b> is not a voiced sound. (Why do you think Wade-Giles used <p> and <p'> rather than <b> and <p> ?) To English ears, it sounds like more like a /b/, because our own /b/ vs /p/ distinction is, as in Chinese, much more dependent on aspiration than on voicing (word-initially). The standard Mandarin /p/ is more aspirated than the English /p/, and the standard Mandarin /b/ is unaspirated and unvoiced, whereas the English /b/ is (word-initially) unaspirated and somewhat voiced - but it's easy to do experiments to show that the non-aspiration is a more important cue than the voicing. Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 37 From: Edwin Phua - view profile Date: Wed, Aug 2 2006 10:28 pm Email: "Edwin Phua" <fant...@pacific.net.sg> 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...@my-deja.com wrote: > But the sound of the Chinese character "bao" in any Chinese dialect > always start with a voiced "b" sound, not a silent "p" sound. So for a > non-scientific pronounciation of "pao" it just does not sound right, > while "bao" would sound closer to the Chinese. And we all know that > with Chinese, not getting the sound just right could have a completely > different meaning. As a Hokkien/Teochew (both Southern Min varieties) speaker, it becomes more difficult, as there is a three-way contrast of the bilabials: /b/, /p/ and /ph/, compared to two each for English (/b/ and /p/) and Mandarin Chinese (/p/ and /ph/). So, when it is written as "bao", do the Southern Min speaker pronounce the 'b' like the English do (i.e. voiced), or as the Mandarin speakers (i.e. unaspirated and unvoiced)? Note: A voiced consonant in phonetics means that the vocal cords vibrate during production whilst an unvoiced consonant does not cause the vocal cords to vibrate (compare standard English /s/ and /z/; and /f/ and /v/). The Cantonese would have no problems, since they do not utilise a voiced bilabial (to the best of my knowledge). Cheers! Edwin Phua Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 38 From: ithinc - view profile Date: Tues, Aug 1 2006 8:56 am Email: "ithinc" <ithi...@gmail.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 wrote: > <d...@my-deja.com> wrote > > Well, I didn't have the time to visit the IMJ site to look for the > > answer. But I would think that no one has to "bao". When Player C > > discarded the Green Dragon and Player A did not win from it > > immediately, my understanding is that Player C is not under obligation > > to "bao" -- the "bao" is applied ONLY if Player A won from the third > > dragon immediately, if he merely pung the third dragon, the discarder > > is off the hook. In the same manner, when Player B discarded the tile > > and Player A did not win from it immediately, he too is off the hook. > > In this case, it is a self-drawn limit hand and everyone pays Player A. > Is "bao" Cantonese, while "pao" is Mandarin Chinese? > Tom In Mandarin Chinese, not "pao" but "bao". Reply » Rate this post: ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== |
|
|
||
|
^ | Home | |