 |
|
|
|
[History of MAHJONG - Front page] History of MAHJONG - Newsgroup archives 2001-10-02
The following archived messages may be searched from the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) with the following text strings: "Nine tiles warning".
[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong
newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) - 1 From: Martin Rep - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 2 2001 12:19 pm Email: Martin Rep <m...@mahjongnews.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 Hi, The other day a friend and I disputed about the following when playing Hong Kong Mahjong. I had none tiles melded of the same series, don't recall exactly which one (does not matter, though). So this was a situation of 'chau cheung', dangerous game. In my hand I had a pung of the same series and another tile. My friend - how carefree - discarded a tile I could use to claim a kong since I had already a hidden pung of the same tile. Although it did not ameliorate the value of my hand, I decided to kong that tile mainly because I wanted to 'nail' him. Because now, I thought, he had to pao when I completed my pure hand with a self pick. But my friend did not agree he had been nailed. He claimed my hand had not changed basically, since I still needed the same one tile to go out. His 'mistake' had not made the situation more alarming. What is common in cases like this? | Martin Rep | The Independent Internet Mahjong Newspaper | http://www.mahjongnews.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 2 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 2 2001 5:37 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.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 Greetings, Martin, you wrote: >In my hand I had a pung of the same series and another tile. >My friend - how carefree - discarded a tile I could use to claim a >kong since I had already a hidden pung of the same tile. Although it >did not ameliorate the value of my hand, I decided to kong that tile >mainly because I wanted to 'nail' him. Because now, I thought, he had >to pao when I completed my pure hand with a self pick. If everyone at the table is clear that pao applies when giving someone a kong, then he'd be nailed, all right! >But my friend did not agree he had been nailed. He claimed my hand had >not changed basically, since I still needed the same one tile to go >out. His 'mistake' had not made the situation more alarming. >What is common in cases like this? What's common is for players to get into an argument! (^_^) What's better is for players to be fully in agreement on all details of the rules being played, before playing. But this is a narrow case that's just likely not to have been well-documented previously. The Perlman & Chan "special pao rule" #1 (page 73) probably applies. Any player who throws a tile of your suit is responsible if you win, even if you win on a self-picked tile. I see his point (his tile didn't actually complete an incomplete group in your hand, it only supplemented it), but it's reasonable that he should have to pao for discarding a tile of your suit, given the rules in Perlman & Chan. In addition, the rule "Bao Sang Jeung" given in Amy Lo's book (page 46) adds further weight to this viewpoint (that your friend should pao). This rule says that when there are 5 or fewer tiles left in the wall, any player discarding a previously undiscarded/unrevealed tile (see?) must pao (bao). I don't know how many tiles were left in the wall, but it's just too bad an idea to discard a tile of your suit after the 9-tiles warning has been issued. As I said, I understand your friend's point, but there's too much weight on your side. Cheers, Tom Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 3 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 2 2001 10:51 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 Here's Martin's experience of a 'Nine tiles warning' situation: >>... > >But my friend did not agree he had been nailed. He claimed my hand had > >not changed basically, since I still needed the same one tile to go > >out. His 'mistake' had not made the situation more alarming. > >What is common in cases like this? Martin, your friend might be right - He was not nailed unless you had eventually won the Game. But, then, there would still be many details you all had to look at... - Did you verbally announced the '9-piece warning' situation in the first place? - Did you eventually win the game? - Did you win with the 'pure suite' pattern? - Was your friend 'forced' to discard the tile for you to claim the Kong? Tom quoted: > The Perlman & Chan "special pao rule" #1 (page 73) probably applies. Any > player who throws a tile of your suit is responsible if you win, even if you > win on a self-picked tile. I see his point (his tile didn't actually > complete an incomplete group in your hand, it only supplemented it), but > it's reasonable that he should have to pao for discarding a tile of your > suit, given the rules in Perlman & Chan. Perlman & Chan's rule is correct with HK Mahjong (HKOS), only if those 'fuller explanations' as detailed above are included. (This refers to HKOS rules in general, not to Perlman & Chan's rules.) Tom also quoted: > In addition, the rule "Bao Sang Jeung" given in Amy Lo's book (page 46) adds > further weight to this viewpoint (that your friend should pao). This rule > says that when there are 5 or fewer tiles left in the wall, any player > discarding a previously undiscarded/unrevealed tile (see?) must pao (bao). The "Bao Sang Jeung" rule is different from "9-piece pao rule". With "Bao Sang Jeung" rule, one must pao regardless the pattern of the winning hand. Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 4 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 3 2001 9:06 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.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: >Perlman & Chan's rule is correct with HK Mahjong (HKOS), only if those 'fuller explanations' as detailed above are included. (This refers to HKOS rules in general, not to Perlman & Chan's rules.) Quite right. >The "Bao Sang Jeung" rule is different from "9-piece pao rule". With "Bao Sang Jeung" rule, one must pao regardless the pattern of the winning hand. Quite right again. I only mentioned that rule to show that there was added weight (in the absence of a rule specifically about throwing a tile that completes a kong rather than a pung) for making Martin's friend pay the penalty for disregarding the 9 pieces warning. Cheers, Tom http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 5 From: Martin Rep - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 3 2001 10:49 am Email: Martin Rep <m...@mahjongnews.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 On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 06:51:05 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >Martin, your friend might be right - He was not nailed unless you had >eventually won the Game. But, then, there would still be many details >you all had to look at... >- Did you verbally announced the '9-piece warning' situation in the >first place? Er, no... when we play this is not compulsorily >- Did you eventually win the game? No :-( >- Did you win with the 'pure suite' pattern? No, see above >- Was your friend 'forced' to discard the tile for you to claim the >Kong? No, he just did not take care too well But I think this all has nothing to do with he principal question if my friend was nailed or not. | Martin Rep | The Independent Internet Mahjong Newspaper | http://www.mahjongnews.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 6 From: Martin Rep - view profile Date: Sun, Oct 7 2001 9:22 pm Email: Martin Rep <m...@mahjongnews.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 On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:37:40 GMT, "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote: >What's common is for players to get into an argument! (^_^) What's better >is for players to be fully in agreement on all details of the rules being >played, before playing. But this is a narrow case that's just likely not to >have been well-documented previously. An addition question that came up. I suppose there is no 'dangerous game' when there are six tiles of one series displayed and a hidden kong in the same color is added? | Martin Rep | The Independent Internet Mahjong Newspaper | http://www.mahjongnews.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 7 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 8 2001 9:20 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 Hello Martin, You asked: > An addition question that came up. I suppose there is no 'dangerous > game' when there are six tiles of one series displayed and a hidden > kong in the same color is added? Before answering to this question, let's make sure we are using the same 'language': - By 'dangerous game' we are referring to the '9-piece bao rules' in HKOS. - By 'hidden kong' we are referring to 'Kong that is formed with tiles from within one's concealed hand'. On this basis, the answer to your question is: As soon as the Kong is disclosed and the '9-piece bao' warning is verbally declared, the '9-piece bao rules' BECAME IN EFFECT. In this scenario, all aspects of the 'bao rules' will take effect: - If a player (the "Chucker") discards the same suite and the player who has set up the 'bao pattern' wins on 'pure same suite', the Chucker will have to bao. - If a player (the "Discarder") discards the same suite and the player (player "Winner") who has set up the 'bao pattern' makes the 4th set of Pong (or Kong), the bao rule will take place if later on the Winner selfmakes with a winning pattern of 'pure same suite'. - Other 'exemption rules' will also take effect. Hope this has answered your question. Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 8 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 9 2001 3:48 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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 Mon, 08 Oct 2001 07:22:18 +0200, Martin Rep <m...@mahjongnews.com> wrote: >On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:37:40 GMT, "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> >wrote: >>What's common is for players to get into an argument! (^_^) What's better >>is for players to be fully in agreement on all details of the rules being >>played, before playing. But this is a narrow case that's just likely not to >>have been well-documented previously. My take is that the friend is not responsible for Pao, since his discard didn't help you complete the hand. See Millington p53, rule #92; as HKOS is a descendent of Chinese Classical, it makes sense that it inherits most of its rules too. >An addition question that came up. I suppose there is no 'dangerous >game' when there are six tiles of one series displayed and a hidden >kong in the same color is added? If your group plays with the traditional rule that concealed kongs have to be revealed when they are melded, the dangerous game rule is in effect. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 9 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 9 2001 7:42 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.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 Alan wrote: >My take is that the friend is not responsible for Pao, since his >discard didn't help you complete the hand. See Millington p53, rule >#92; as HKOS is a descendent of Chinese Classical, it makes sense that >it inherits most of its rules too. Millington!! Yes! Here I'd only been looking in Lo and P&C. Yes, this Millington rule clearly cinches it. But, as Cofa pointed out, Martin's situation is moot since there was no verbal 9 pieces warning. Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 10 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 9 2001 8:19 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bc2e2b7.6295075@news.netvigator.com... > On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 07:22:18 +0200, Martin Rep <m...@mahjongnews.com> > wrote: > >On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:37:40 GMT, "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> > >wrote: > >>What's common is for players to get into an argument! (^_^) What's better > >>is for players to be fully in agreement on all details of the rules being > >>played, before playing. But this is a narrow case that's just likely not to > >>have been well-documented previously. > My take is that the friend is not responsible for Pao, since his > discard didn't help you complete the hand. See Millington p53, rule > #92; as HKOS is a descendent of Chinese Classical, it makes sense that > it inherits most of its rules too. By helping a player to advance from a "9-piece" situation to a "12-piece" situation, that discarder deserves the penalty. The spirit of the HKOS "12-piece penalty" is indeed upgraded from the "9- piece penalty", providing a longer term of restrictions (or warning) to those who tend to ignore the risks of danger. It specifically provides that the discarder will "pao" when the winning player SELFMAKES, but no penalty if the winning player wins by claiming any discard. Rule #92 (of Millington Chinese Classical) consists of 3 parts (3 long sentences), I have a hard time trying to find out how the ruling these 3 parts provide as a whole. #92 might be ambiguous or insufficient (for the purposes of ruling on "Pao"), the 2nd part of the rule seems has the similarity of the HKOS "12-piece penalty", although it also seems to be contradictory to the other two parts. (Whether HKOS is a descendent of CC, OR vice versa, OR they both were evolved from one original form that is not known to us, is a debate yet to be concluded. For an issue like this, don't you find the quote at the end of the Tom Sloper's FAQ posting meaningful? <><><><><> ... Ada asked if Ruby thought Stobrod had written the song.......) Cheers! Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 11 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 9 2001 1:47 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.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 wrote: >By helping a player to advance from a "9-piece" situation to a "12-piece" situation, that discarder deserves the penalty. Completely at odds with what Millington says, if anyone cares what Millington says (I know I do). >Rule #92 (of Millington Chinese Classical) consists of 3 parts (3 long >sentences), I have a hard time trying to find out how the ruling these 3 >parts provide as a whole. #92 might be ambiguous or insufficient (for >the purposes of ruling on "Pao"), the 2nd part of the rule seems has the >similarity of the HKOS "12-piece penalty", although it also seems to be >contradictory to the other two parts. Not at all. The first sentence says the penalty applies if the "chucker" (to use your term) gives the winning tile. The second sentence says the penalty also applies if the "chucker" helps the 9 Pieces player complete a pung or a chow, which enables the completing of the hand either immediately or thereafter. The third sentence says the penalty does NOT apply if the "chucker" merely helps the 9 Pieces player complete a kong that does not enable the completing of the hand (which could presumably only be by means of a loose tile). >(Whether HKOS is a descendent of CC, OR vice versa, OR they both were >evolved from one original form that is not known to us, is a debate yet >to be concluded. Most of us here believe that CC is the original game. I am not interested in debating it again. But I must state one more time that the writings on the game from the 1920s describe CC, and that there are to date no writings describing HKOS from the 1920s. Show us proof positive evidence that HKOS existed in the 1920s (there is proof positive evidence that CC existed in the 1920s). >For an issue like this, don't you find the quote at the >end of the Tom Sloper's FAQ posting meaningful? ><><><><><> >... Ada asked if Ruby thought Stobrod had written the song.......) No. Not in the least. Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 12 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 9 2001 8:47 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote in message news:0gKw7.28401$SO.6568380@typhoon.we.rr.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa wrote: > >By helping a player to advance from a "9-piece" situation to a > "12-piece" situation, that discarder deserves the penalty. > Completely at odds with what Millington says, if anyone cares what > Millington says (I know I do). > >Rule #92 (of Millington Chinese Classical) consists of 3 parts (3 long > >sentences), I have a hard time trying to find out how the ruling these 3 > >parts provide as a whole. #92 might be ambiguous or insufficient (for > >the purposes of ruling on "Pao"), the 2nd part of the rule seems has the > >similarity of the HKOS "12-piece penalty", although it also seems to be > >contradictory to the other two parts. > Not at all. > The first sentence says the penalty applies if the "chucker" (to use your > term) gives the winning tile. > The second sentence says the penalty also applies if the "chucker" helps the > 9 Pieces player complete a pung or a chow, which enables the completing of > the hand either immediately or thereafter. > The third sentence says the penalty does NOT apply if the "chucker" merely > helps the 9 Pieces player complete a kong that does not enable the > completing of the hand (which could presumably only be by means of a loose > tile). Let's look at what Millington wrote: First sentence: "The discard of a dangerous tile is not liable to penalty unless it is both claimed by the player displaying the sets as specified above ('the dangerous player'), and used by him to complete one of the hands specified above." I first was not quite sure what means by "to complete ... one's hand". As you used the term "Chucker", I assume this means "to Mah- Jongg", or "to win". Given that, this first sentence is very clear to understand. (For your information, "Chucker" is used ONLY if one lets out a tile for other player to win immediately.) Second sentence: "The discard is liable to penalty if it is claimed, either for Mah-Jongg, or for pong or chow and the dangerous player subsequently completes the specified hand either by drawing from the wall or by claiming a non-dangerous discard." My understanding is: Other than the immediate "Mah-Jongg" scenario, this "dangerous player" must first have had claimed and displayed the 4th set of "pong" or "chow" (thus have had advanced to a "12-piece position" as similar to HKOS), then discarded a tile, then, at a later time, "subsequently completes the specified hand [either] by drawing from the wall [or by claiming a non-dangerous discard]." (Words in [...] are not relevant to the "12-piece pure suite pao" rules.) This "subsequently completes..." description is exactly where the discarder must "pao" in the HKOS "12-piece penalty" scenario. The THIRD sentence: "If the discard is claimed for kong it does not complete the hand, or make possible its completion, and therefore is not liable to penalty." In the general flow of play, claiming and displaying a set of kong is mostly the same as claiming and displaying a set of pong or chow. Claiming a kong, then discarding a tile, then subsequently completing a hand by picking up another tile - This is exactly the same scenario of the second sentence. I don't understand why Millington had to single out the kong in a third sentence. Obviously the second sentence does not fit in the scenarios of either the first sentence or the third one. There could be a "more complete" meaning of the rule #92 if all 3 sentences are read all together - I just couldn't get it or Tom hasn't yet shown it. I didn't mean I didn't care what Millington says, I just could not understand what he really means (or if he really means to be such ambiguous). Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 13 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 9 2001 10:30 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.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...@my-deja.com> >Let's look at what Millington wrote: >First sentence: "The discard of a dangerous tile is not liable to >penalty unless it is both claimed by the player displaying the sets as >specified above ('the dangerous player'), and used by him to complete >one of the hands specified above." >I first was not quite sure what means by "to complete ... one's hand". >As you used the term "Chucker", I assume this means "to Mah- Jongg", or >"to win". Given that, this first sentence is very clear to understand. >(For your information, "Chucker" is used ONLY if one lets out a tile for >other player to win immediately.) I was mindless of this fine point in the term "chucker." I only used it to be synonymous with "discarder." The term "to complete one's hand" is indeed used by Millington to be synonymous with "to win" or "to go mah- jongg." >The THIRD sentence: "If the discard is claimed for kong it does not >complete the hand, or make possible its completion, and therefore is not >liable to penalty." >In the general flow of play, claiming and displaying a set of kong is >mostly the same as claiming and displaying a set of pong or chow. >Claiming a kong, then discarding a tile, then subsequently completing a >hand by picking up another tile - This is exactly the same scenario of >the second sentence. I don't understand why Millington had to single out >the kong in a third sentence. I see a difference, but I don't have the energy to continue trying to clarify. >Obviously the second sentence does not fit in the scenarios of either >the first sentence or the third one. There could be a "more complete" >meaning of the rule #92 if all 3 sentences are read all together - I >just couldn't get it or Tom hasn't yet shown it. Sorry my words were not up to the task. >I didn't mean I didn't >care what Millington says, I just could not understand what he really >means (or if he really means to be such ambiguous). His stating of the rule sounds clear enough to me. Sorry I wasn't of any help. Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 14 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 10 2001 9:01 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote in message news:mWRw7.1407$aJ.367089@typhoon.we.rr.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > From: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> > >The THIRD sentence: "If the discard is claimed for kong it does not > >complete the hand, or make possible its completion, and therefore is not > >liable to penalty." > >In the general flow of play, claiming and displaying a set of kong is > >mostly the same as claiming and displaying a set of pong or chow. > >Claiming a kong, then discarding a tile, then subsequently completing a > >hand by picking up another tile - This is exactly the same scenario of > >the second sentence. I don't understand why Millington had to single out > >the kong in a third sentence. > I see a difference, but I don't have the energy to continue trying to > clarify. Don't worry, Tom. Everyone does have the energy to write just about anything, but pointing out and accepting the right and wrong is about one's ability and courage. > >I didn't mean I didn't > >care what Millington says, I just could not understand what he really > >means (or if he really means to be such ambiguous). > His stating of the rule sounds clear enough to me. Sorry I wasn't of any > help. In case my comments on Millington's rule #92 don't sound clear enough to you, it mean rule #92 is ambiguous or insufficient in the dealing with the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty", OR, it shouldn't be used to deal with the HKOS games in the first place. Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 15 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 15 2001 7:39 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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, 10 Oct 2001 04:47:10 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >Let's look at what Millington wrote: >First sentence: "The discard of a dangerous tile is not liable to >penalty unless it is both claimed by the player displaying the sets as >specified above ('the dangerous player'), and used by him to complete >one of the hands specified above." It states two /necessary/ conditions for Pao: 1. The dangerous player claims the dangerous discard. If I discard a dangerous C3 and it is not claimed or is claimed by another player other than the dangerous player, I do not Pao. 2. The claiming player (eventually) completes his hand with the specified pattern. If the claiming player does not complete his hand, or if he completes his hand without the specified pattern (for example, if he makes only "Mixed One-Suit"), I do not Pao. For example, if I discard a dragon which is claimed to complete a third dragon pong, but later another player goes out, I do not pao even though he gets the extra faan for Big Three Dragons when his hand is scored (as an incomplete hand). If it's me who is going out, then the other players pay him and I pay nothing for my blunder. >The THIRD sentence: "If the discard is claimed for kong it does not >complete the hand, or make possible its completion, and therefore is not >liable to penalty." >Claiming a kong, then discarding a tile, then subsequently completing a >hand by picking up another tile - This is exactly the same scenario of >the second sentence. I don't understand why Millington had to single out >the kong in a third sentence. When you claim a tile for chow or pung, you (supposedly) advance your hand and make it closer to ready. If you claim a tile for kong, you do not advance your hand (with the claimed tile *itself*), since you already have a set (namely, a concealed pung) before you claim the kong. Thus the discard "does not complete the hand, or make possible its completion". It doesn't make sense to penalize a player because his discarded tile is claimed for kong and 'allows the player to draw an extra tile'. For one, if I am his upper seat, he is going to draw one tile anyway, kong or not. And then, if I am his upper seat and I claim a pong from his discard, and then he self-draws on his immediately following turn, should I be held liable too for 'making his turn come sooner'? "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 16 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 15 2001 1:55 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 Thanks to Alan, for the very detailed explanations on Millington's rule on "Pao". This is especially helpful for those (including me) who are not used to the CC rules. With Alan's explanations, I believe Millington's rule #92 is not intended to deal with the HKOS "12- piece pao penalty" situations. OR, is there "12-piece pao penalty" in CC at all? Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 17 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Mon, Oct 15 2001 11:27 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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 Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:55:13 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >Thanks to Alan, for the very detailed explanations on Millington's rule >on "Pao". This is especially helpful for those (including me) who are >not used to the CC rules. With Alan's explanations, I believe >Millington's rule #92 is not intended to deal with the HKOS "12-piece >pao penalty" situations. Why? It really is the same, in CC or in HKOS. Clearly stated in the second sentence of rule #92. The original CC pao rules are simply more complete. When people propagate HKOS, they often leave out some of the rules, such as the correct pao rules for patterns other than Pure One-Suit. In Millington's CC rules, the pao rules for Big Three Dragons (for example) are consistent (has the same logic) with those for Pure One-Suit, except that there is also the case of winning on a non-dangerous discard after the third pong. (In a Pure One-Suit hand, a non-dangerous tile obviously cannot be included in the hand.) "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 18 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 16 2001 9:42 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bcbd93b.3377747@news.netvigator.com... > On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:55:13 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> > wrote: > >Thanks to Alan, for the very detailed explanations on Millington's rule > >on "Pao". This is especially helpful for those (including me) who are > >not used to the CC rules. With Alan's explanations, I believe > >Millington's rule #92 is not intended to deal with the HKOS "12-piece > >pao penalty" situations. > Why? It really is the same, in CC or in HKOS. Clearly stated in the > second sentence of rule #92. Why? Because if you use #92 to explain the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty", the 2nd sentence will be contradictory to the 1st and 3rd sentences respecting the "12-piece pao penalty" (as explained in my earlier posting). In particular, the portion "The discard is liable to penalty if ... the dangerous player subsequently completes the specified hand ... by claiming a non-dangerous discard" of the 2nd sentence is totally irrelevant and not acceptable in the HKOS "12-piece pao rules". > The original CC pao rules are simply more complete. When people > propagate HKOS, they often leave out some of the rules, such as the > correct pao rules for patterns other than Pure One-Suit. In > Millington's CC rules, the pao rules for Big Three Dragons (for > example) are consistent (has the same logic) with those for Pure > One-Suit, except that there is also the case of winning on a > non-dangerous discard after the third pong. (In a Pure One- Suit hand, > a non-dangerous tile obviously cannot be included in the hand.) If the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty" is to be dealt with correctly, Millington would have to separate the 2nd sentence into a separate rule (#92a perhaps). I can assume Millington simply did not know there was "12-piece pao penalty" as we know it in the HKOS rules. (My making such assumption on Millington rules is in contrast to your making assumption on HKOS rules.) The original CC pao rules could be complete. And so could be the original HKOS pao rules. As to Millington's CC rules, I don't see it fit in all HKOS rules. Besides, I doubt that if Millington's CC rules are equivalent to the original CC rules. Unless CC was *invented* by Millington, there could be some long existing CC rules that had been missed by Millington, although they might not have been documented. Likewise, many rules of the HKOS (or of the same game style quoted by other names or by no name at all) could be existing and played, long long before those foreigners visited China and learned the games of mahjong, you can't simply say that they were not existing because they were not documented. Given the missing part of the history of the games of mahjong and the many possibilities the games of mahjong were being evolved and developed, one can easily ASSUME anything on HKOS rules because these were not documented. However, it is simply not right by making any CONCLUSIONS whatsoever on the HKOS rules based on other different rules that were documented. Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 19 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 17 2001 10:25 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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, 17 Oct 2001 05:42:59 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >"Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message >news:3bcbd93b.3377747@news.netvigator.com... >> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:55:13 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> >> wrote: >> >Thanks to Alan, for the very detailed explanations on Millington's >rule >> >on "Pao". This is especially helpful for those (including me) who are >> >not used to the CC rules. With Alan's explanations, I believe >> >Millington's rule #92 is not intended to deal with the HKOS "12-piece >> >pao penalty" situations. >> Why? It really is the same, in CC or in HKOS. Clearly stated in the >> second sentence of rule #92. >Why? Because if you use #92 to explain the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty", >the 2nd sentence will be contradictory to the 1st and 3rd sentences >respecting the "12-piece pao penalty" (as explained in my earlier >posting). In particular, the portion "The discard is liable to penalty >if ... the dangerous player subsequently completes the specified hand >... by claiming a non-dangerous discard" of the 2nd sentence is totally >irrelevant and not acceptable in the HKOS "12-piece pao rules". So? The rule correct covers the pao rules for all relevant patterns, including both Pure One-Suit and Big Three Dragons. That the rule contains a clause which is /irrelevant/ (but definitely not "contradictory") to Pure One-Suit doesn't change that. >> The original CC pao rules are simply more complete. When people >> propagate HKOS, they often leave out some of the rules, such as the >> correct pao rules for patterns other than Pure One-Suit. In >> Millington's CC rules, the pao rules for Big Three Dragons (for >> example) are consistent (has the same logic) with those for Pure >> One-Suit, except that there is also the case of winning on a >> non-dangerous discard after the third pong. (In a Pure One-Suit hand, >> a non-dangerous tile obviously cannot be included in the hand.) >If the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty" is to be dealt with correctly, >Millington would have to separate the 2nd sentence into a separate rule >(#92a perhaps). I can assume Millington simply did not know there was >"12-piece pao penalty" as we know it in the HKOS rules. (My making such >assumption on Millington rules is in contrast to your making assumption >on HKOS rules.) If you read carefully, the HKOS 12-tile pao rules is a subset of rule #92; that rule is identical in both versions. But Millington's rule is written so that it also covers other cases (such as Big Three Dragons and Big Four Winds), while the corresponding rule is often (improperly) omitted when HKOS rules are propagated. >The original CC pao rules could be complete. And so could be the >original HKOS pao rules. Commonly propagted HKOS pao rules are obviously incomplete, because they often fail to specify clearly what happens if one discards to allow a 3rd dragon pung or a 4th wind pung but the limit hand goes out later. And it is obviously inconsistent if there is a 12-tile pao rules for Pure One-Suit, but there is no clearly defined corresponding rule for the limit patterns. In any case, the player who discards the 3rd dragon or 4th wind should be held no less responsible than one who discards to allow a 4th meld in one-suit, since the former confirms the limit pattern while the latter doesn't confirm Pure One- Suit. I'm completely losing your point, Cofa; can't see what you're arguing for. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 20 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Oct 18 2001 10:09 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bce7252.8352983@news.netvigator.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 05:42:59 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> > wrote: > >Why? Because if you use #92 to explain the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty", > >the 2nd sentence will be contradictory to the 1st and 3rd sentences > >respecting the "12-piece pao penalty" (as explained in my earlier > >posting). In particular, the portion "The discard is liable to penalty > >if ... the dangerous player subsequently completes the specified hand > >... by claiming a non-dangerous discard" of the 2nd sentence is totally > >irrelevant and not acceptable in the HKOS "12-piece pao rules". > So? The rule correct covers the pao rules for all relevant patterns, > including both Pure One-Suit and Big Three Dragons. That the rule > contains a clause which is /irrelevant/ (but definitely not > "contradictory") to Pure One-Suit doesn't change that. If one advances to the "12-piece" position in HKOS by claiming a Kong, #92 will not be able to handle it correctly. So, what would you expect from a rule that you concluded to be PERFECT AND COMPLETE? Whether the description of a rule is "irrelevant" or "contradictory" could be vital in a play if the rule is to be taken seriously - The looser would like it to be contradictory (and therefore invalid) while the winner would like it to be irrelevant. Who is going to pay? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> The original CC pao rules are simply more complete. When people > >> propagate HKOS, they often leave out some of the rules, such as the > >> correct pao rules for patterns other than Pure One- Suit. In > >> Millington's CC rules, the pao rules for Big Three Dragons (for > >> example) are consistent (has the same logic) with those for Pure > >> One-Suit, except that there is also the case of winning on a > >> non-dangerous discard after the third pong. (In a Pure One-Suit hand, > >> a non-dangerous tile obviously cannot be included in the hand.) > >If the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty" is to be dealt with correctly, > >Millington would have to separate the 2nd sentence into a separate rule > >(#92a perhaps). I can assume Millington simply did not know there was > >"12-piece pao penalty" as we know it in the HKOS rules. (My making such > >assumption on Millington rules is in contrast to your making assumption > >on HKOS rules.) > If you read carefully, the HKOS 12-tile pao rules is a subset of rule > #92; that rule is identical in both versions. But Millington's rule > is written so that it also covers other cases (such as Big Three > Dragons and Big Four Winds), while the corresponding rule is often > (improperly) omitted when HKOS rules are propagated. If the subset of #92 could deal with the HKOS "12-piece pao" scenarios it would not cause any contradiction (see above and in my previous messages). One must understand that what Millington's writing on rule #92 is not intended for HKOS, and it does not conclude that HKOS rules are incomplete (see below). > >The original CC pao rules could be complete. And so could be the > >original HKOS pao rules. > Commonly propagted HKOS pao rules are obviously incomplete, because > they often fail to specify clearly what happens if one discards to > allow a 3rd dragon pung or a 4th wind pung but the limit hand goes out > later. And it is obviously inconsistent if there is a 12- tile pao > rules for Pure One-Suit, but there is no clearly defined corresponding > rule for the limit patterns. In any case, the player who discards the > 3rd dragon or 4th wind should be held no less responsible than one who > discards to allow a 4th meld in one-suit, since the former confirms > the limit pattern while the latter doesn't confirm Pure One- Suit. Alan, what you see of the HKOS rules might probably be those *improperly propagated rules* of nowadays game play, could we stick with those more traditional HKOS rules, please? HKOS uses the principle "Ji shi ji bao" (immediate Win immediate pao, or "pao is valid on immediate Win only"). This principle applies in all pao situations in HKOS rules except the "pure one suite" pattern, probably because the latter is dealt with differently due to its distintive pattern. (I use the word "probably" because I don't want to make conclusion on things of the old history.) In my opinion, "pure one suite" IS distintive because it will not fit in other "pao" patterns, while other "pao" patterns could also be part of the "pure one suite" pattern (see HKOS exclusions below). Besides, "Ji shi ji bao" gives the chances to all players to gamble their luck (or risk), which is also an exciting part of the game! In addition, in HKOS there is no pao for "All-Green" and "Heads and Tails" patterns (Millington rules 90(e) & (f)), probably because "All-Green" can only be found in the "Bamboo" suite, thus loosing the balance with other suites. ("Heads and Tails" can only be found in the "number" suites, etc.) In my opinion, "Ji shi ji bao" and NO "All- Green" and "Heads and Tails" are perfectly correct, and are more logic. > I'm completely losing your point, Cofa; can't see what you're arguing > for. Alan, in your messages I see that you are making (or trying to make) conclusions on the HKOS game style, rather than purely answering to the "12-piece pao" question. Alan, you are making the "new points" in this question, I am just following your points :) HKOS could be more complete than you read and think, because what you read is mostly rules of different game styles and what you think is based on the writing of these different styles. Should you learn more HKOS rules (other than the "commonly propagated" rules) from experienced players (the elderly players, the older the better), you could easily find out the completeness of HKOS by itself. What is correct and what is not, is difficult to conclude when you compare two different rule sets, while one is documented and the other is not, and you make your assumption/conclusion based on the written one. For example, "Ji shi ji bao" is a principle that HAS ALWAYS BEEN a part of the HKOS rule system long long before you and I have started learning the game. You may not be easily finding it in most books on mahjong, nor could you discover it from those "commonly propagted" rules that you see today. HKOS rules are perfect and very clear by itself, what is unfortunate is that you CANNOT READ it because they are not existing in writing! Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 21 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 23 2001 2:45 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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, 18 Oct 2001 18:09:58 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >"Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message >news:3bce7252.8352983@news.netvigator.com... >If one advances to the "12-piece" position in HKOS by claiming a Kong, >#92 will not be able to handle it correctly. So, what would you expect >from a rule that you concluded to be PERFECT AND COMPLETE? Whether the >description of a rule is "irrelevant" or "contradictory" could be vital >in a play if the rule is to be taken seriously - The looser would like >it to be contradictory (and therefore invalid) while the winner would >like it to be irrelevant. Who is going to pay? I can't see your point. Rule #92 clearly covers the case: a disarded tile claimed for kong is not subject to penalty. Where is the "contradiction" you see in the rule? I do not think that the Millington rules are perfect and complete, and have never claimed so. Rather, I do think that it is a reasonable set of rules, and a very good reference. In this particular instance, the rule in question is rather clear and complete, and I fail to see your complaint. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> >> The original CC pao rules are simply more complete. When people >> >> propagate HKOS, they often leave out some of the rules, such as the >> >> correct pao rules for patterns other than Pure One-Suit. In >> >> Millington's CC rules, the pao rules for Big Three Dragons (for >> >> example) are consistent (has the same logic) with those for Pure >> >> One-Suit, except that there is also the case of winning on a >> >> non-dangerous discard after the third pong. (In a Pure One-Suit >hand, >> >> a non-dangerous tile obviously cannot be included in the hand.) >> >If the HKOS "12-piece pao penalty" is to be dealt with correctly, >> >Millington would have to separate the 2nd sentence into a separate >rule >> >(#92a perhaps). I can assume Millington simply did not know there was >> >"12-piece pao penalty" as we know it in the HKOS rules. (My making >such >> >assumption on Millington rules is in contrast to your making >assumption >> >on HKOS rules.) >> If you read carefully, the HKOS 12-tile pao rules is a subset of rule >> #92; that rule is identical in both versions. But Millington's rule >> is written so that it also covers other cases (such as Big Three >> Dragons and Big Four Winds), while the corresponding rule is often >> (improperly) omitted when HKOS rules are propagated. >If the subset of #92 could deal with the HKOS "12-piece pao" scenarios >it would not cause any contradiction (see above and in my previous >messages). One must understand that what Millington's writing on rule >#92 is not intended for HKOS, and it does not conclude that HKOS rules >are incomplete (see below). I have, from the start, made it very clear that Millington's rules apply to CC, and that it would be a reasonable solution to look at the 'parent' CC rules for the cases where common HKOS rules fail to cover properly. Rule #92 clearly specifies how the 12-tile pao for Pure One-Suit is applied. I can't see your point. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> >The original CC pao rules could be complete. And so could be the >> >original HKOS pao rules. >> Commonly propagted HKOS pao rules are obviously incomplete, because >> they often fail to specify clearly what happens if one discards to >> allow a 3rd dragon pung or a 4th wind pung but the limit hand goes out >> later. And it is obviously inconsistent if there is a 12- tile pao >> rules for Pure One-Suit, but there is no clearly defined corresponding >> rule for the limit patterns. In any case, the player who discards the >> 3rd dragon or 4th wind should be held no less responsible than one who >> discards to allow a 4th meld in one-suit, since the former confirms >> the limit pattern while the latter doesn't confirm Pure One-Suit. >Alan, what you see of the HKOS rules might probably be those *improperly >propagated rules* of nowadays game play, could we stick with those more >traditional HKOS rules, please? >HKOS uses the principle "Ji shi ji bao" (immediate Win immediate pao, or >"pao is valid on immediate Win only"). This is not a universal HKOS principle, according to my knowledge. This is just one of the table rules people use to resolve rules ambiguities (resulting from improper omissions in rules propagation). (p.140, Hoi Toi, Gaan: "The pao rules for Big Three Dragons should always be negotiated before play.") Just like the "5 piece pao raw tile" rule, we have a nice-sounding 4-word saying, but it is a table rule. >Besides, "Ji shi ji bao" gives the chances to all players to gamble >their luck (or risk), which is also an exciting part of the game! But the "principle" is not consistently applied to all cases, the offender being Pure One-Suit. What do you think is a good reason for that? (Remember my point that a 3rd dragon or 4th wind is usually a more dangerous and worse discard than a dangerous suit tile.) >In addition, in HKOS there is no pao for "All-Green" and "Heads and >Tails" patterns (Millington rules 90(e) & (f)), probably because >"All-Green" can only be found in the "Bamboo" suite, thus loosing the >balance with other suites. In HKOS All-Green is a non-standard pattern. Thus it is a matter of course that there are no standard pao rules for it. >("Heads and Tails" can only be found in the >"number" suites, etc.) Pure Terminals is also a somewhat non-standard pattern in HKOS. Ideally, when these patterns are adopted, the pao rules should also apply to them, for the same logic behind the pao rules for the more staple patterns. Unfortunately, mahjong rules evolution history is neither ideal nor logical (otherwise we should never have the excessive self-draw bonus in HKOS etc., IMO). >Should you learn more >HKOS rules (other than the "commonly propagated" rules) from experienced >players (the elderly players, the older the better), you could easily >find out the completeness of HKOS by itself. Different "experienced" HKOS players play different rules. It is easy to complete any rules set when one plays it for many years: when you run into a hole in the rules, you just make up the rules for it and keep playing. So one group may have a "very clear and complete" set of "HKOS rules", but the irony is that other "HKOS" players play it differently. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 22 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 23 2001 9:08 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bd53f9a.5853800@news.netvigator.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:09:58 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> > wrote: > >"Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message > >news:3bce7252.8352983@news.netvigator.com... > >If one advances to the "12-piece" position in HKOS by claiming a Kong, > >#92 will not be able to handle it correctly. So, what would you expect > >from a rule that you concluded to be PERFECT AND COMPLETE? Whether the > >description of a rule is "irrelevant" or "contradictory" could be vital > >in a play if the rule is to be taken seriously - The looser would like > >it to be contradictory (and therefore invalid) while the winner would > >like it to be irrelevant. Who is going to pay? > I can't see your point. Rule #92 clearly covers the case: a disarded > tile claimed for kong is not subject to penalty. Where is the > "contradiction" you see in the rule? Be careful when you play in HKOS, a disarded tile claimed for kong in a "12-piece pao" situation IS subject to penalty! It has the same effect as advancing a player to the "12-piece pao" situation by letting a Pong or a Chow! In HKOS, the end results of making Kong, Pong and Chow are the same. Although you gave explanations to the Kong ruling, but that's for Millington's CC rules and will not apply to HKOS scenarios. Using a CC rule (i.e., #92) to apply to HKOS ruling could cause problems. > I do not think that the Millington rules are perfect and complete, and > have never claimed so. Rather, I do think that it is a reasonable set > of rules, and a very good reference. In this particular instance, the > rule in question is rather clear and complete, and I fail to see your > complaint. This is a very good statement! However, "reasonable" and "very good" won't give you the ground to assume and conclude other different rule sets to be "incomplete" or being its "descendant"! > I have, from the start, made it very clear that Millington's rules > apply to CC, and that it would be a reasonable solution to look at the > 'parent' CC rules for the cases where common HKOS rules fail to cover > properly. Again, this is a good statement! And again, taking it as a reference is good, but using it to critisize and make conclusions on other rule sets... > Rule #92 clearly specifies how the 12-tile pao for Pure One- Suit is > applied. I can't see your point. The points are: Millington's CC rule #92 cannot rule the "12-piece pao" scenarios in HKOS. AND, #92's failure in ruling a HKOS scenario should NOT conclude that HKOS to be incomplete! - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >Alan, what you see of the HKOS rules might probably be those *improperly > >propagated rules* of nowadays game play, could we stick with those more > >traditional HKOS rules, please? > >HKOS uses the principle "Ji shi ji bao" (immediate Win immediate pao, or > >"pao is valid on immediate Win only"). > This is not a universal HKOS principle, according to my knowledge. > This is just one of the table rules people use to resolve rules > ambiguities (resulting from improper omissions in rules propagation). > (p.140, Hoi Toi, Gaan: "The pao rules for Big Three Dragons should > always be negotiated before play.") Just like the "5 piece pao raw > tile" rule, we have a nice-sounding 4-word saying, but it is a table > rule. Alan, "Ji shi ji bao" is a universal principle in traditional HKOS rules. The "5 piece pao raw" rule was a traditional HKOS rule, but was gradually abandoned by players in the 1970's. Ambiguities should be common when you refer to rules that are NOT in writing, especially with players trying to apply some written rules of other play styles to rule on the HKOS style. "Verify before play" was especially common in those years while HKOS rules undergoing dramatical changes in the years 1970/80's. We are talking about the *traditional* HKOS rules. What year of Mr Gaan's book do you have? > >Besides, "Ji shi ji bao" gives the chances to all players to gamble > >their luck (or risk), which is also an exciting part of the game! > But the "principle" is not consistently applied to all cases, the > offender being Pure One-Suit. What do you think is a good reason for > that? (Remember my point that a 3rd dragon or 4th wind is usually a > more dangerous and worse discard than a dangerous suit tile.) This principle is exceptional to "Pure One-suite", because of its distinctive pattern. The good reason for the exception is probably because "Pure One-suit" is distinctive, as explained earlier. (I use the word "probably", because I did not invent the rule.) 3rd dragon or 4th wind might be more dangerous, but how did they (those who invented or developed the games) know when they didn't have the math knowledge you have today! Besides, whether these two patterns are *more* dangerous is only *your* point - In real play it won't give any difference because they all carry the *same scores* (recent "improperly propagated" HKOS rules try to lower the scores for "Pure One- suit" hands, but that's not in the current topic). Also, 3rd dragon or 4th wind, like other patterns, are NOT DISTINCTIVE, and are therefore not included in the similar "12-piece pao" rule. That is the consistence in HKOS. > Ideally, when these patterns are adopted, the pao rules should also > apply to them, for the same logic behind the pao rules for the more > staple patterns. Unfortunately, mahjong rules evolution history is > neither ideal nor logical (otherwise we should never have the > excessive self-draw bonus in HKOS etc., IMO). And, ideally... we should never have the "All-Green" covered in Millington's CC rules #90/92, while some number suits are being ignored etc., IMHO ^_^ > >Should you learn more > >HKOS rules (other than the "commonly propagated" rules) from experienced > >players (the elderly players, the older the better), you could easily > >find out the completeness of HKOS by itself. > Different "experienced" HKOS players play different rules. It is easy > to complete any rules set when one plays it for many years: when you > run into a hole in the rules, you just make up the rules for it and > keep playing. So one group may have a "very clear and complete" set > of "HKOS rules", but the irony is that other "HKOS" players play it > differently. That's the reason I suggest you ask "the elderly players, the older the better"! When you asked 100 people and those 100 people gave you the same answers - That's the traditional rule that we should refer to. Any "improperly propagated" or "made up" rules are obviously out of the question! -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 23 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 24 2001 11:31 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 > "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message > news:3bd53f9a.5853800@news.netvigator.com... [...] > > I have, from the start, made it very clear that Millington's rules > > apply to CC, and that it would be a reasonable solution to look at the > > 'parent' CC rules for the cases where common HKOS rules fail to cover > > properly. I might have had missed this, isn't it another example how you are selling the "Millington's CC rules is the 'MOTHER' of ALL mahjong games" kind of theory? Your theory is telling us anything about mahjong prior to Millington's CC rules that is not in writing, is non-existing! This is simply a WRONG IDEA! However, this exactly reveals how far you could see. (Can't see there *must* have the existence of the Grand Father, and perhaps the Grand Grand Father and many brothers and sisters, although they all might not have had any printed ID!) -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 24 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 26 2001 7:40 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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, 25 Oct 2001 07:31:27 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >> "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message >> news:3bd53f9a.5853800@news.netvigator.com... >[...] >> > I have, from the start, made it very clear that Millington's rules >> > apply to CC, and that it would be a reasonable solution to look at >the >> > 'parent' CC rules for the cases where common HKOS rules fail to >cover >> > properly. >I might have had missed this, isn't it another example how you are >selling the "Millington's CC rules is the 'MOTHER' of ALL mahjong games" >kind of theory? Your theory is telling us anything about mahjong prior >to Millington's CC rules that is not in writing, is non- existing! This >is simply a WRONG IDEA! Don't put words in my mouth. >-( Millington's rules is a good presentation of one version of CC. I never indicated or implied otherwise. If we believe that HKOS has evolved from CC and we want to look at the roots of HKOS, we of course find a version of CC we have access to and look at it. How otherwise do we get to work? And I do have read about pre-Millington CC rules. I've even posted about it here! If you want to keep the argument going, please do it in a grown- up, gentalmanly manner. If you turn childish, I'll find no more need to continue the discussion. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 25 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 26 2001 5:40 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bd98274.4091276@news.netvigator.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:31:27 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> > wrote: > >> "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message > >> news:3bd53f9a.5853800@news.netvigator.com... > >[...] > >> > I have, from the start, made it very clear that Millington's rules > >> > apply to CC, and that it would be a reasonable solution to look at > >the > >> > 'parent' CC rules for the cases where common HKOS rules fail to > >cover > >> > properly. > >I might have had missed this, isn't it another example how you are > >selling the "Millington's CC rules is the 'MOTHER' of ALL mahjong games" > >kind of theory? Your theory is telling us anything about mahjong prior > >to Millington's CC rules that is not in writing, is non- existing! This > >is simply a WRONG IDEA! > Don't put words in my mouth. >-( There are your own words in your mouth that imply the similar meaning! If this was a mistake, CC rules should not have been referred to as the 'parent' of the HKOS rules in the first place. > Millington's rules is a good presentation of one version of CC. I > never indicated or implied otherwise. If we believe that HKOS has > evolved from CC and we want to look at the roots of HKOS, we of course > find a version of CC we have access to and look at it. How otherwise > do we get to work? Referring to and looking at rules that are readily available is very fine; critizing and making conclusions on other rule styles would be totally different. If you use "IF we believe..." every time when you assume and make conclusions on HKOS based on other game style, that would save us a lot of unnecessary discussions! Readers (old and new) of this newsgroup deserve the facts and the truth! The "12-piece pao" scenarios in HKOS simply prove that CC rules are NOT always capable of handling any HKOS situations. And any suggestions or conclusions that HKOS rules are incomplete etc., are simply not appropriate. > And I do have read about pre-Millington CC rules. I've even posted > about it here! > If you want to keep the argument going, please do it in a grown-up, > gentalmanly manner. If you turn childish, I'll find no more need to > continue the discussion. The childish way is to *easily* assume and conclude other things that are not known while those assumption and conclusions are based *only* on things that are known. The grown-up way is to be able to see and value all the possibilities that are not readily visible! -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 26 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 26 2001 8:04 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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, 23 Oct 2001 17:08:32 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >This principle is exceptional to "Pure One-suite", because of its >distinctive pattern. The good reason for the exception is probably >because "Pure One-suit" is distinctive, as explained earlier. (I use the >word "probably", because I did not invent the rule.) And I propose another conjecture: that the original rules have all patterns covered equally, but because of erroneous ommisions in HKOS rules propagation ... In many versions of mahjong, we often see examples of rules pretaining to more common occurences (such as Pure One-Suit) which are well-propagated, while rules pretaining to rarer occurrences are erroneously omitted. >3rd dragon or 4th wind might be more dangerous, but how did they (those >who invented or developed the games) know when they didn't have the math >knowledge you have today! Besides, whether these two patterns are *more* >dangerous is only *your* point - In real play it won't give any >difference because they all carry the *same scores* (recent "improperly >propagated" HKOS rules try to lower the scores for "Pure One- suit" >hands, but that's not in the current topic). Also, 3rd dragon or 4th >wind, like other patterns, are NOT DISTINCTIVE, and are therefore not >included in the similar "12-piece pao" rule. That is the consistence in >HKOS. It is very obvious that the third dragon or 4th wind is more dangerous than a suit tile: 1. The wind or dragon confirms the pattern, while the suit tile does not. You can have a chicken hand with 4 sets in the same suit, if the pair is in another suit. You cannot have a chicken hand with three dragon pung. 2. The wind or dragon is absolutely required for the limit pattern, while one-suit doesn't absolutely require any specific tile in the suit. If your opponent has Wh and R, he absolutely can't have Big Three Dragons unless he has the Green. But your opponent doesn't necessarily need any B3, even given that he is making Pure One- Suit in bamboos. So it is IMO very hard to argue for the "rationality" or "consistency" of the "instand out instand pao" rule, when the 12-tile rule for Pure One-Suit is in force. It's "selective prosecution" in my eyes. To be "consistent", at least you have to pao for a self-draw win. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 27 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Oct 26 2001 7:47 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bd986ec.5235077@news.netvigator.com... > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:08:32 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> > wrote: > >This principle is exceptional to "Pure One-suite", because of its > >distinctive pattern. The good reason for the exception is probably > >because "Pure One-suit" is distinctive, as explained earlier. (I use the > >word "probably", because I did not invent the rule.) > And I propose another conjecture: that the original rules have all > patterns covered equally, but because of erroneous ommisions in HKOS > rules propagation ... You can PROPOSE whatever you like, as long as you don't CONCLUDE that to be what you express, unless evidence (or any reason) is provided at the same time. > In many versions of mahjong, we often see examples of rules pretaining > to more common occurences (such as Pure One-Suit) which are > well-propagated, while rules pretaining to rarer occurrences are > erroneously omitted. This could also be seen in the opposite manners. Many new or complicated things could be added to the simple originals. (Such as All Green, 7 pairs, etc. are also found in nowadays HKOS house rules.) - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >3rd dragon or 4th wind might be more dangerous, but how did they (those > >who invented or developed the games) know when they didn't have the math > >knowledge you have today! Besides, whether these two patterns are *more* > >dangerous is only *your* point - In real play it won't give any > >difference because they all carry the *same scores* (recent "improperly > >propagated" HKOS rules try to lower the scores for "Pure One-suit" > >hands, but that's not in the current topic). Also, 3rd dragon or 4th > >wind, like other patterns, are NOT DISTINCTIVE, and are therefore not > >included in the similar "12-piece pao" rule. That is the consistence in > >HKOS. > It is very obvious that the third dragon or 4th wind is more dangerous > than a suit tile: > 1. The wind or dragon confirms the pattern, while the suit tile does > not. You can have a chicken hand with 4 sets in the same suit, if the > pair is in another suit. You cannot have a chicken hand with three > dragon pung. > 2. The wind or dragon is absolutely required for the limit pattern, > while one-suit doesn't absolutely require any specific tile in the > suit. If your opponent has Wh and R, he absolutely can't have Big > Three Dragons unless he has the Green. But your opponent doesn't > necessarily need any B3, even given that he is making Pure One-Suit in > bamboos. > So it is IMO very hard to argue for the "rationality" or "consistency" > of the "instand out instand pao" rule, when the 12-tile rule for Pure > One-Suit is in force. It's "selective prosecution" in my eyes. To be > "consistent", at least you have to pao for a self-draw win. Your above may be a good lesson whether one should or should not pursue any particular pattern (that's about how easy or how difficult to pursue a specific pattern). As to which one is *more dangerous*, I would look at which pattern I would pay *more*. If the scores of the patterns are the same, they are equally dangerous to me. -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 28 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Sat, Oct 27 2001 12:32 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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 Cofa, are you *pretending* to be dumb, or what? Some issues are worth arguing, but why are you arguing against this obvious a point, which really has no room for argument, with such a lame argument of yours? Even if the patterns are "equally dangerous", the issue of selective prosecution is still there. To be consistent, the player who discards the 3rd dragon or 4th wind should at least pao for a self-draw win. And your point is simply WRONG. Pure One-Suit and the limit patterns are not supposed to carry the same score in HKOS. /Some/ HKOS players truncate the upper end of the payoff scheme, so they get paid the same (limit) value in /their/ games. Such truncation is driven by none but the fact that the basic HKOS system, with faan (doubles) and many of them, was inherently broken and impractical, and needed to be fixed (by the complex "laak" limit system, and then premature truncation when even that isn't felt to be adequate). On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 03:47:50 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >"Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message >> It is very obvious that the third dragon or 4th wind is more dangerous >> than a suit tile: >> 1. The wind or dragon confirms the pattern, while the suit tile does >> not. You can have a chicken hand with 4 sets in the same suit, if the >> pair is in another suit. You cannot have a chicken hand with three >> dragon pung. >> 2. The wind or dragon is absolutely required for the limit pattern, >> while one-suit doesn't absolutely require any specific tile in the >> suit. If your opponent has Wh and R, he absolutely can't have Big >> Three Dragons unless he has the Green. But your opponent doesn't >> necessarily need any B3, even given that he is making Pure One-Suit in >> bamboos. >> So it is IMO very hard to argue for the "rationality" or "consistency" >> of the "instand out instand pao" rule, when the 12-tile rule for Pure >> One-Suit is in force. It's "selective prosecution" in my eyes. To be >> "consistent", at least you have to pao for a self-draw win. >Your above may be a good lesson whether one should or should not pursue >any particular pattern (that's about how easy or how difficult to pursue >a specific pattern). As to which one is *more dangerous*, I would look >at which pattern I would pay *more*. If the scores of the patterns are >the same, they are equally dangerous to me. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 29 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Oct 27 2001 8:35 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bda70f7.1296511@news.netvigator.com... > Cofa, are you *pretending* to be dumb, or what? Some issues are worth > arguing, but why are you arguing against this obvious a point, which > really has no room for argument, with such a lame argument of yours? Who is "dumb" and who is "what", the READERS will make a judgement. I have seen some improvements here - Raising question rather than making a conclusion! But why should you now turn "childish"? > Even if the patterns are "equally dangerous", the issue of selective > prosecution is still there. To be consistent, the player who discards > the 3rd dragon or 4th wind should at least pao for a self- draw win. You suggestions about "pao" are very right! This is also the reason IMJ Rules had adopted this principle (Articles 33.2 & 33.3). However, the current topic is about *traditional* rules. Should they be "equally dangerous", there should not be the issue of "selective prosecution". (Then, it's easier to understand that the "Pure One-suit" is an issue about "distinctive pattern".) > And your point is simply WRONG. Pure One-Suit and the limit patterns > are not supposed to carry the same score in HKOS. /Some/ HKOS players > truncate the upper end of the payoff scheme, so they get paid the same > (limit) value in /their/ games. Such truncation is driven by none but > the fact that the basic HKOS system, with faan (doubles) and many of > them, was inherently broken and impractical, and needed to be fixed > (by the complex "laak" limit system, and then premature truncation > when even that isn't felt to be adequate). I will not argue with you whether they are, or whether they should be (your use of the word "suppose" is very good!), carrying the same scores in the *traditional* HKOS rules. My statements are according to EXPERIENCE, not any thing that is in WRITING. However, I would advise you to refer to the very well presented Millington's CC rules for reference of the similar issues. -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 30 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 2 2001 8:16 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:35:22 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >However, I would advise >you to refer to the very well presented Millington's CC rules for >reference of the similar issues. The CC rules do not give the same value to (most) Pure One-Suit hands as the limit hands. The reason is obvious: Pure One-Suit is a lot easier and more common than Big Three Dragons or Big Four Winds! (BTW, I do not agree with Millington's singling out of those One- Suit type limit hands except for Nine Gates.) The faan system worked in CC in conjunction with the simple limit system, but when you inflate the faan values (as in HKOS), it breaks down quickly because any limit value is either too high as to be impractical, or too low so that the upper end of the scoring scale is badly truncated: the mildly difficult hands (such as Pure One- Suit) are already hugely rewarded, and you can't afford to reward the really difficult hands even more. And may I emphasize again, if we accept the theory that HKOS is a descendent of CC by my conjectured process of evolution of the rules with my conjectured reasons behind the changes, then everything falls into place nicely and we have a very good explanation of how the peculiarities in the HKOS rules came by. In this particular instance: faan-only scoring in HKOS -> inflated faan values to maintain interest, excitement and color -> too many faan is broken and impractical, so complex "laak" limit system developed -> still too "risky", so some truncate the upper limit to the score value of Pure One-Suit If we really look at it objectively and open-minded, we can see that the HKOS system contradicts itself, because it uses the faan system but then departs from it with the laak system. The laak system is a compromise system necessiated by the problem that the faan system is inherently broken if there are too many faan. In the ideal world, the moment that the faan system was determined broken and impractical because of the inflated faan values, it should have been done away with entirely and replaced with a simpler scoring scheme (such as a linear additive one). "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 31 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Nov 4 2001 1:01 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 Alan, I think you have gone far too much than answering to a simple HKOS question on "12 pc pao"... As to your "theory" about the relation between HKOS and CC, of course you can make whatever "theory" and whatever conjecture you like, as long as you let the readers understand that these are not proven truth or facts of history. When the game "mahjong" was first known to foreigners many wrote books about the game of mahjong, but NONE of them concluded the origin of the game! You mentioned "if we accept the theory that HKOS is a descendent of CC..." I must tell you I cannot accept such a theory... This is a kind of "blind theory" based on nowadays information AND the ignorance of unknown, undocumented facts of the long (and lost) history of the game of mahjong. When you study a long, undocumented history like that of the games of mahjong, you simply CANNOT refer to recent books ONLY and ignore the possibilities of the unknown. If you study your family history you cannot just say that your father is the origin because you can see his printed ID only, and ignore the possibilities of the existence of your grand and grand grand fathers and the many brothers and sisters of your father, simply because you don't see their printed ID's! "Theories" like "HKOS is a descendent of CC" and "CC is the origin of mahjong" etc., can only be seen in this newsgroup - What a sad fact! -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3be36962.3244567@news.netvigator.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:35:22 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> > wrote: > >However, I would advise > >you to refer to the very well presented Millington's CC rules for > >reference of the similar issues. > The CC rules do not give the same value to (most) Pure One- Suit hands > as the limit hands. The reason is obvious: Pure One-Suit is a lot > easier and more common than Big Three Dragons or Big Four Winds! > (BTW, I do not agree with Millington's singling out of those One-Suit > type limit hands except for Nine Gates.) > The faan system worked in CC in conjunction with the simple limit > system, but when you inflate the faan values (as in HKOS), it breaks > down quickly because any limit value is either too high as to be > impractical, or too low so that the upper end of the scoring scale is > badly truncated: the mildly difficult hands (such as Pure One- Suit) > are already hugely rewarded, and you can't afford to reward the really > difficult hands even more. > And may I emphasize again, if we accept the theory that HKOS is a > descendent of CC by my conjectured process of evolution of the rules > with my conjectured reasons behind the changes, then everything falls > into place nicely and we have a very good explanation of how the > peculiarities in the HKOS rules came by. > In this particular instance: > faan-only scoring in HKOS > -> inflated faan values to maintain interest, excitement and color > -> too many faan is broken and impractical, so complex "laak" limit > system developed > -> still too "risky", so some truncate the upper limit to the score > value of Pure One-Suit > If we really look at it objectively and open-minded, we can see that > the HKOS system contradicts itself, because it uses the faan system > but then departs from it with the laak system. The laak system is a > compromise system necessiated by the problem that the faan system is > inherently broken if there are too many faan. In the ideal world, the > moment that the faan system was determined broken and impractical > because of the inflated faan values, it should have been done away > with entirely and replaced with a simpler scoring scheme (such as a > linear additive one). > "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com > http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) > Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com > (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 32 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 14 2001 10:43 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.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 Nov 2001 09:01:00 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> wrote: >"Theories" like >"HKOS is a descendent of CC" and "CC is the origin of mahjong" etc., can >only be seen in this newsgroup - What a sad fact! Yes, it is really sad - for the widespread ignorance about CC. Most players are not aware that CC existed and think HKOS was the original form of mahjong. You yourself were ignorant about CC, and were so shocked to learn about CC that you still refuse to believe the obvious connection between CC and HKOS! "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 33 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 14 2001 2:06 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3bf2ba6f.3597997@news.netvigator.com... > On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 09:01:00 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my- deja.com> > wrote: > >"Theories" like > >"HKOS is a descendent of CC" and "CC is the origin of mahjong" etc., can > >only be seen in this newsgroup - What a sad fact! > Yes, it is really sad - for the widespread ignorance about CC. Most > players are not aware that CC existed and think HKOS was the original > form of mahjong. You yourself were ignorant about CC, and were so > shocked to learn about CC that you still refuse to believe the obvious > connection between CC and HKOS! Well, Allan, the sad fact might not be that kind of *imagination* as you have... (Again, imagination!) So you have read a lot of books about CC but could find none about HKOS, and have come up with a conclusion that HKOS is a descendent of CC. If history researches could be conducted and concluded that easy, why instead you don't see such conclusion be announced by numerous writers of books and organizations of previous researches? Did they all decide to give you the honour to make such an announcement? OR is it true that they simply could not make such an important conclusion based on their findings, rather than on *imagination*? There is an attempt of setting up a "debate" on the same subject in this newsgroup. On one side it is agreed that "The absence of evidence for the existence of HKOS in the 1920s (the absence of 1920s books on HKOS) does not NECESSARILY mean, in and of itself, that HKOS did not exist in the 1920s.". On the other side a debate on "CC predates HKOS; HKOS evolved from CC [based on books of the 1920's]" is kept being sold... You mentioned: "What I do NOT want to see is, one side presents persuasive arguments, while the other side keeps yelling "no!" but babbles nothing useful, persuasive, or meaningful." Are you in fact describing yourself? MOST players in this newsgroup are very well "mj-educated", they won't think HKOS was the original form of mahjong (me won't either) - Your imagination is again wrong! If you insist that "HKOS is a descendent of CC" and "CC is the origin of mahjong", show us the FACTS, rather than IMAGINATION and ASSUMPTION. This is a serious issue not only about the game. Be responsible and honest to the history! -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 34 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Oct 9 2001 9:42 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@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 "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote in message news:0gKw7.28401$SO.6568380@typhoon.we.rr.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa wrote: > >(Whether HKOS is a descendent of CC, OR vice versa, OR they both were > >evolved from one original form that is not known to us, is a debate yet > >to be concluded. > Most of us here believe that CC is the original game. I am not interested > in debating it again. But I must state one more time that the writings on > the game from the 1920s describe CC, and that there are to date no writings > describing HKOS from the 1920s. Show us proof positive evidence that HKOS > existed in the 1920s (there is proof positive evidence that CC existed in > the 1920s). No matter HOW MANY do you mean by "Most of us here", the proof you have IS NO MORE THAN THIS: "CC was existing in the 1920s". To be honest to the history, anything more than "CC was existing in the 1920s" are just "ADDITIVES". MAHJONG in general had been existing in China long long before any foreigners went to China, learned to play one or two styles, then wrote books and created a name for that style they had learned and played. From the world OUTSIDE CHINA, you only read books describing one style, of which the name was even created by a foreigner writer. From WITHIN CHINA, many people were playing the game, in many different styles and those styles were ever evolving, and those many people just didn't care the needs of any written books to describe the games they played. NO ONE WRITER of those 1920s articles claimed that CC was the original game of Mahjong! ALMOST ALL WRITERS admitted that THERE WERE MANY STYLES OTHER THAN CC were existing in the 1920s. And NO ONE WRITER of those 1920s articles claimed that any of those other styles then existing were derived from THE STYLE that was named by a foreigner writer. You can say "CC was existing in the 1920s". But there is NO PROOF by saying "CC is the original game of Mahjong" and "HKOS was derived from CC". I am not interested in opening or continuing this debate again either. I just took the liberty to opinion the truth one could only see from different sides of the history. Besides, if you could not see "things" that were happening PRIOR TO those articles being written in the 1920s, WE ARE NOT ON THE SAME TOPIC! Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 35 From: Gottlieb Pirsic - view profile Date: Wed, Oct 10 2001 9:17 am Email: Gottlieb Pirsic <gottlieb.pir...@oeaw.ac.at> 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 Martin Rep wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:37:40 GMT, "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> > wrote: > >What's common is for players to get into an argument! (^_^) What's better > >is for players to be fully in agreement on all details of the rules being > >played, before playing. But this is a narrow case that's just likely not to > >have been well-documented previously. > An addition question that came up. I suppose there is no 'dangerous > game' when there are six tiles of one series displayed and a hidden > kong in the same color is added? And yet another question, that came up, while I just played PK Mahjongg on my Palm Pilot : is there some MJ rule set, which employs different penalties, if more than one player announces "9 pieces"? In the game, I just played, actually all other three AI players did, which made the situation seem a bit unfair to me :) (Act.ly, I'm quite content with the rule sets I have, though they clearly make me pay, so it's not really a question, but just my at most .02$ contribution to this thread .) Enjoy, Gottlieb Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== |
|
|
||
|
^ | Home | |