Hi mahjong friends
I wonder if there are any written - perhaps unwritten - rules about
giving back your tiles after a very bad deal. I do not quite
understand what happens in the Japanese game (riichi) of Shanghai
(2nd) Dynasty. When are you allowed to ask for a re-deal? Do the same
agreements go for Hong Kong mahjong? There are times I wish I could
give back my tiles...
| Martin Rep
| The Independent Internet Mahjong Newspaper
| http://www.mahjong-nl.com/index_uk.htm
| 'A treasure of mahjong knowledge'
| in Dutch and English
On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 14:11:15 GMT, Martin Rep <mrep@mahjong-nl.com> wrote:
>I wonder if there are any written - perhaps unwritten - rules aboutModern Japanese has a "nine terminals abortive draw" rule. It is very common though not universal. If your dealt hand (plus your first draw if not East) contains 9 /different/ terminals, you may call an abortive draw, so that the hand ends immediately and all players' hands must be dealt again.
I think the rule is somewhat superfluous, since it probably was developed back when Thirteen Terminals was a first-round-only hand. Under modern rules, that kind of hand may well aim for Thirteen Terminals, so it is not really a bad deal and shouldn't need to call for a re-deal.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
Hi
Personally, I think a re-deal would be appropiate in the follwoing
case:
all tiles never 'touching' each other: no pairs, no would-be chows
with 1 tile missing (e.g. B1, B3, or B2, B3), not forming a special
hand (but who would ask for a re-deal when he/she has 9 or 10 tiles
ofthe Thirteen Unique Wonders)
I think East has a right to ask for a re-deal right away; the other
players when theyhave drawn a tile from the Wall intheir first turn.
(IOW, when they have 14 tiles)
| Martin Rep
| The Independent Internet Mahjong Newspaper
| http://www.mahjong-nl.com/index_uk.htm
| 'A treasure of mahjong knowledge'
| in Dutch and English
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:33:19 GMT, Martin Rep <mrep@mahjong-nl.com> wrote:
>Personally, I think a re-deal would be appropiate in the follwoingThis is "Fourteen Independents", an old limit pattern (first-round only) which has been abolished probably because it is too rare. :-P (Strictly speaking, the old pattern is "Thirteen Independents", with exactly one pair.)
It has been recycled as a not-limit pattern by removing the
first-round restriction, in New Style and some other styles.
Sometimes other restrictions (such as requiring the numeric tiles to
be 3 numbers apart within each suit) are imposed because the pattern
is otherwise too easy.
IMHO, with the adoption of Thirteen Termionals, most hands which are not close to it should be able to get within "3 tiles until ready" within a few draws, so redeal rules are mostly superfluous.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
Oh, I have heard of the 13 independents. At least I think I have. It's
literally called something like 13 non-related (sup sahm but dop). I'm
not sure of it's point value because the people I play with don't
consider it as a winning hand. It's something like each number of one
type has to be at least two away from it and you can't have duplicates,
even of fahn gees. Uh, well maybe you can for the eyes. Well, I heard
both, meaning the you win with a pair for eyes or they really are all
different, so you don't even have a pair
The only time I have played where "sup sahm but dop" is a legal winning
hand is online and they use I guess a Singaporean scoring system so I
didn't understand it. However, it had to be very unique. For example the
only way you can win it is if you have 1-4-7 of one suit, 2-5-8, of
another, and 3-6-9 of the last, plus you had to have 4 different fahn
gees and one to match it for the eyes.
As for getting sort of back on topic, I know I mentioned some cases in which there is a re-deal. But, personally in my opinion, I think it's just a waste of time. I mean, you spent a few minutes building the wall and getting your hand, then right in the beginning get rid of it? I think that's why in some cases there is a minimum point value set, so one hand can last longer than if all everybody goes for are chicken hands. Well, that reason and it's more fun to see big hands.
--Patrick
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:25:47 -0400, Patrick Ho <patho@email.sjsu.edu> wrote:
>Oh, I have heard of the 13 independents. At least I think I have. It'sYes, that's the original Chinese name of the pattern.
[sap6 saam1 bat1 daap3] in Jyut Ping.
The original definition requires exactly one pair, as indicated by the name (13, not 14, unrelated tiles). But it gets changed later. The reason is probably to make the pattern not too easy, when the first-round-only restriction is waived.
>The only time I have played where "sup sahm but dop" is a legal winningAgain, this is an additional restriction added to make the pattern not too easy.
>As for getting sort of back on topic, I know I mentioned some cases inTime has virtually proven that a minimum limit is harmful to the playability of the game. It tends to create lots of drawn hands, which leads to yet more strange, 'bad' rules, such as "draw to the last tile" in HKOS and "not-ready penalty" in Modern Japanese. The game mechanics have originally been designed with the allowance of the full array of regular hands in mind, and chopping away a large bunch of them can only ruin the elegant original balance. Read Millington for a full discourse on the problems brought about by a minimum limit.
The primary problem with "too many chicken hands" in HKOS stems from its origin, Chinese Classical (in which the common occurence of low-value hands is simply a nature of the game and not a problem). Chinese Classical is a game mainly about going out, not about attempting big hands all the time, so by inheriting its set of patterns, HKOS inherently carries the same emphasis. When players realize that some patterns are more difficult than they are worth (1 faan for Mixed One-Suit is definitely more difficult than 1 faan for a dragon or Chow Hand), they raise their faan value. So of course, the valuable patterns are more difficult. It also turns out that the main valuable patterns, namely One-Suit and Pong Hand, in HKOS happen to be 'strict-admission' patterns: the starting material (the dealt hand) tends to be a relatively large deciding factor on whether an attempt would succeed. When players attempt such patterns with 'average' deals, no wonder they are often frustrated as their attempts fail.
The only true solution IMO is to add more patterns. In full-blown New Style, there are so many patterns that it is actually hard to get a chicken hand, so that some players award faans for it. Barring full-blown New Style (which many players consider too complex), even complementing the pattern list with just some patterns used in Modern Japanese (namely Three Similar Chows, "1-9 Run", Mixed Terminals in Each Set, etc.) would create many more feasible opportunities for attempting big hands. In particular, the 3 patterns I named here are 'tough-completion' patterns: a larger set of starting hands can feasibly attempt the pattern, as it is the luck and sometimes skill in getting the last few tiles (rather than the starting material) which is a relatively large deciding factor on whether one would succeed. The point is that you can feasibly begin playing towards these hands with average deals, although you must decide later on the way whether you're going to pursue it all the way or you're giving up half-way and settling for a smaller hand. This serves to make the play more interesting, while still maintaining a nice ratio of completed big hands vs. small ones. (With a minimum limit, only big hands can be completed, and believe me or not, that takes the thrill out of it, and it gets boring quickly.) Especially Three Similar Chows, of which shape is so much unlike One-Suit and Pong Hand that it complements them beautifully, by creating opportunities for many (dealt) hands which are clearly not oriented towards One-Suit or Pong Hand. Just try playing HKOS but recognize Three Similar Chows for 3 faan, and you'll see what I mean.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
From: Martin Rep <mrep@mahjong-nl.com>
>Personally, I think a re-deal would be appropiate in the follwoingThere are two situations like this in Japanese Modern.
a. "Nine unique nagare" ("nah-gah-reh" = redeal): Dealer has exactly 9 unique honors and terminals on the initial deal. If you are the dealer and this happens to you, you have a choice of saying you want a redeal or not.
[You do not have this choice if you have 8 -- because you have a chance of turning the hand into something.]
[You do not have this choice if you have 10 unique honors and terminals -- because you should go for the Unique Wonders hand.]
For a non-dealer, you have this option if you are dealt exactly 8 unique honors and terminals, plus exactly one duplicate of any. Or if any player has exactly 8 unique honors and terminals and draws another unique honor/term on the first draw.
(This is the same description that's in the Shanghai Second Dynasty in-game manual; I would like to make it clearer if this isn't clear enough. I added the sentences in brackets for this post.)
b. Thirteen Unrelated Tiles (Shiisan puutaa) - Only valid on the initial deal, and only for dealer's initial hand. Hand has thirteen unrelated tiles (odd Honors or Terminals, for instance, and/or numbers separated by 2 or more numbers, like 1-4-7 or 2-5-8 or 3-6-9; 1-4-8, 1-5-8, or 1-5-9 for example; nothing in the hand can be easily turned into a Chow or Pung). Hand is total garbage, in other words, which will be nearly impossible to turn into a winning hand of Pungs and Chows. The 14th tile may match any tile in the hand.
Cheers!
Tom
--
Tom Sloper, Activision
Executive Producer, Shanghai
tsloper@activision.com
http://www.activision.com/games/shanghai/faq/faqmain.html
(Opinions expressed are mine, not those of my employer)
Martin Rep <mrep@mahjong-nl.com> wrote in message
news:tlg5fsgtm29t4tjt0rgcvg7g908nr5uj7c@4ax.com...
> Hi
> Personally, I think a re-deal would be appropiate in the follwoing
> case:
> all tiles never 'touching' each other: no pairs, no would-be chows
> with 1 tile missing (e.g. B1, B3, or B2, B3), not forming a special
> hand (but who would ask for a re-deal when he/she has 9 or 10 tiles
> ofthe Thirteen Unique Wonders)
[snip]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:24:58 -0700, "Tom Sloper" <actsearch@aol.com> wrote:
>There are two situations like this in Japanese Modern.The books I've read allow this with 10 or more uniques, although it is true that the player might well be going for the Unique Wonders hand instead.
Though one may not want to go for Unique Wonders when he is East (even with 10 terminals in the dealt hand), because of the importance of keeping the deal. As I have mentioned before, the key in the success of Unique Wonders is the luck in drawing the last few tiles. Having more tiles to start with helps a bit, but not by a lot.
In /jiko-chuushin-ha/ (a silly mahjong manga), in one scenario, one player, on his first turn, disclosed his hand tiles one by one. All the other players are pretty shocked to see 1 terminal pair and 11 other terminal tiles, thinking that he is going to declare a "Blessing of Heaven" + "Unique Wonders" hand. But he disclosed his last tile, a middle number tile, and declare, "re-deal". ^_^
>For a non-dealer, you have this option if you are dealt exactly 8 uniqueThis I haven't heard of. The books indicate the same condition as for East: if a non-East player has 9 different honors/terminals in his hand after drawing his first tile from the wall, he may declare a re-deal. Tom's version is probably a less common local house rule.
>(This is the same description that's in the Shanghai Second Dynasty in-gameSome players allow it for non-East too, after drawing the first tile from the wall.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
Alan wrote an eloquent article about Chicken vs. Minimum Fan:
>Time has virtually proven that a minimum limit is harmful to theI agree that "simple is best." One of the questions American mah-jongg players usually ask me when discovering that I play other forms of mah-jongg is "which one is your favorite?" I am coming to favor the simplest form -- somewhere in the vicinity of Chinese Classical and/or HKOS. I'm not a big fan of "payment to all" -- I think it complicates the scoring. I like the simplicity of just counting the fan.
>The primary problem with "too many chicken hands" in HKOS stems fromYes! "'Tis a gift to be simple." -- old American Quaker hymn.
>Chinese Classical is a game mainly about going out, not about(^_^) I am trying to imagine so many patterns that "chicken" is hard to get!
[snipped eloquent stuff to keep reply brief]
>The point is that you can feasibly begin playing towards these handsMan, how you talk! I greatly admire the way you reason this stuff out.
>(With a minimum limit, only big hands can beWell, I got lost in that logic there. I /have/ found Sanshoku (Three-Color aka Three Sisters aka 3 Similar Chows) to be very hard to make when I'm trying to. Usually I wind up with a 2-way call, and having to pass on the wrong one (and nothing else to use for my required fan). Or I find that I've got a furiten and have to go for a Reach instead.
Tom
Tom Sloper, Activision
Executive Producer, Shanghai
tsloper@activision.com (wkdays)
Actsearch@aol.com (wkends)
The opinions expressed herein are those of the writer, not of Activision.
http://www.activision.com/games/dynasty
I had written:
>>[You do not have this choice if you have 10 unique honors and terminals --Alan wrote:
>The books I've read allow this with 10 or more uniques, although it isI remain jealous that I cannot read Japanese that well. (I guess I could study it seriously and learn how to read Japanese.) Anyway, I learned Japanese mah-jongg from my local mah-jongg experts. As might be expected, their rules vary somewhat from the rules in use by others. Accordingly, the rule in use in the Shanghai dynasty of games is that you are not allowed to ask for a redeal if you have 10 or more uniques. Certainly if I got 10 or more uniques, I'd want the option. But I would probably go for Unique Wonders in such a case. What the heck.
>In /jiko-chuushin-ha/ (a silly mahjong manga), in one scenario, one(^_^)
I had described how this situation works for a non-dealer, and Alan responded:
>This I haven't heard of. The books indicate the same condition as forQuite possible.
Also, when I described this situation, I neglected to mention that it's not a redeal -- it's a special winning situation:
>>b. Thirteen Unrelated Tiles (Shiisan puutaa) - Only valid on the initialI certainly would prefer that rule myself.
Thanks, Alan.
Tom
Tom Sloper, Activision
Executive Producer, Shanghai
tsloper@activision.com (wkdays)
Actsearch@aol.com (wkends)
The opinions expressed herein are those of the writer, not of Activision.
http://www.activision.com/games/dynasty
From: Martin Rep mrep@mahjong-nl.com
>I wonder if there are any written - perhaps unwritten - rules aboutYes. Japanese mah-jongg has a rule about bad deals. And there is an optional table rule in American mah-jongg about bad deals too.
>I do not quiteI am sorry I did not explain it more clearly in the manual. If I knew which part of my explanation was faulty, I would see if I can re-write it to be more clear.
>Do the sameNo. Different game, different rules.
>There are times I wish I couldDon't we all wish we could do that from time to time.
Cheers!
Tom
Tom Sloper, Activision
Executive Producer, Shanghai
tsloper@activision.com (wkdays)
Actsearch@aol.com (wkends)
The opinions expressed herein are those of the writer, not of Activision.
http://www.activision.com/games/dynasty
Martin Rep <mrep@mahjong-nl.com> writes:
> I wonder if there are any written - perhaps unwritten - rules aboutRobertson's version of Vanilla Western has this rule:
Should any player, on picking up his original hand, find that he has no Winds or Dragons, 1's or 9's, Flowers and no Pungs, Kongs, Chows or Pairs, he may claim a re-shuffle. This means that the other three players must throw their hands in also.
I think I've only seen this happen once or twice -- so it doesn't have a lot of practical significance.
Cheers,
--
Jesper Harder Use this information only for good; never for evil.
Do not expose to fire. Do not operate heavy equipment after reading, may cause drowsiness.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:57:55 GMT, Jesper Harder
<jesper_harder@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do the rules allow usual regular hands? Why would one want to throw away a good, speedy "valueless" hand?
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
tarot@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) writes:
> Do the rules allow usual regular hands?The rules only allow a subset of the regular hands of the Classical Chinese game, i.e. all regular hands have to be cleared (one suit) and only one chow is allowed (except in a hidden mahjong).
> Why would one want to throw away a good, speedy "valueless" hand?Because in Robertson's rules the only way of getting a valueless hand is by going for an all-concealed hand.
Cheers,
--
Jesper Harder Use this information only for good; never for evil.
Do not expose to fire. Do not operate heavy equipment after reading, may cause drowsiness.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:42:46 GMT, Jesper Harder
<jesper_harder@hotmail.com> wrote:
But then in this case, isn't the re-deal rule too inadequate? Isn't a hand with one or two single, isolated 1 or 9 or worthless wind in no way better? Really, shouldn't a re-deal be allowed for any hand which contains neither a complete set nor 9 or more tiles in any one suit + honors? What's the point of imposing a re-deal rule which doesn't characterize "undesirable" dealt hands under the rules set in question?
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
tarot@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) writes:
> But then in this case, isn't the re-deal rule too inadequate? Isn't aWell, at least an initial hand with terminals and/or honours could earn more points. One thing to bear in mind is that due to the one-chow restriction, terminals and honours are not significantly more difficult to use in a mahjong hand than other tiles.
> Really, shouldn't a re-deal be allowed for any hand which containsI agree that Robertson's re-deal rule is not very well thought out. IMHO you could just as well ignore it -- after all, the probability of getting a hand where it applies is less than ca. 1/100.000.
Cheers,
--
Jesper Harder Use this information only for good; never for evil.
Do not expose to fire. Do not operate heavy equipment after reading, may cause drowsiness.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:50:42 GMT, Jesper Harder
<jesper_harder@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wait ... If that's Max Robertson you're talking about, then I agree completely with Millington that his entire set of rules is not very well thought out ... (Millington p.148-152)
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
tarot@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) writes:
> Wait ... If that's Max Robertson you're talking about,It sure is.
> then I agree completely with Millington that his entire set of rulesIn some ways Millington is right. The rules aren't as logical or well-balanced as Classical Chinese. The one-chow and cleared-hand restrictions, in particular, change the basic combinatorical game mechanics a lot.
On the other hand, I don't think the rules are quite as awful as Millington depicts them. They do give a reasonable mix of regular hands and special hands without creating too many draws.
--
Jesper Harder Use this information only for good; never for evil.
Do not expose to fire. Do not operate heavy equipment after reading, may cause drowsiness.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:54:50 GMT, Jesper Harder
<jesper_harder@hotmail.com> wrote:
Only a tiny fraction of regular hands fulfill both conditions. Even when taking into account hand-building by the player, such hands amount to a small fraction (perhaps 8%) of winning hands in regular play of Chinese Classical.
Mahjong is a game with 3 number suits, and there are about 10 times as many chows as there are pungs in the 136-tile set. Thus one-suit hands and hands with few chows are the exception rather than the norm. The other alternative, the concealed one-suit hand, is even rarer, because mixed one-suit hands typically need to pung one or two set of honors.
>On the other hand, I don't think the rules are quite as awful asThat may be true after players have become familiar with the system, but the large departure from regular hands creates a high entrance barrier for new players learning the game. While with Chinese Classical it is possible for a new player to "learn as one plays" by learning just the regular hand structure (and no patterns) to start with, such an approach isn't possible or useful for "western" rules such as Robertson's. (i.e. It isn't useful to teach by beginning with the regular hand concept, when you can't go out with most regular hands, and most hands you can go out with are not regular.)
I bet that 99.98% of rule-makers and proponants of western mahjong are not versed in (basic) combinatorics at all, so they have no idea on the 'difficulty' of a pattern (regular or irregular) when they make one up. Some irregular patterns are worth limit or such, but they in fact are not any more difficult (sometimes even less) than the concealed all-chow hand. Why not allow the regular hand to go out, while allowing the easy irregular hand? It's just turning the game upside down, IMHO.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
I have played enough to have seen some instances in which there is a re-deal. The first is in some Japanese styles where I think it's if you have like a bunch of ones and nines and a lot of other non-numbers (fahn gees), then you can restart. I'm not too sure about it because I've only played the Japanese style on computer and wasn't too clear about the rules. The second instance where I've seen this in the Taiwanese style. Again, this was on computer, so I'm not too sure about it. I noticed that if the first person throws out a tile, usually a direction (E,S,W,N) or maybe it's always a direction tile. Then, if the other three follow, for some reason there is a re-deal. The third reason, isn't really a reason at all. I'm just putting it here because I've seen before and the hand had to be redealt. What happened was someone got mad and throw a tantrum and just shoved all his tiles into the while. Of course, like I said this isn't a good reason and if you do do that, I'm pretty sure that's extremely rude and no one would want toplay with you anymore. However, that would go along with something like a natural disaster like and earthquake knocking all your tiles over, or a leg of the table falls, or the light comes crashing down. Okay, now I'm just being silly, but you get the idea for that. Anyway, the first two reasons I listed are the only times where I have seen it done as part of nornal game play.
--Patrick
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 18:46:26 -0400, Patrick Ho <patho@email.sjsu.edu> wrote:
>I have played enough to have seen some instances in which there is aThe "Nine Terminals Abortive Draw" rule is common in Modern Japanese.
>The second instance where I've seen this in the Taiwanese style.The "Four Same Wind Abortive Draw" rule is another common rule in Modern Japanese. Taiwanese is an offspring of Modern Japanese and Modern Chinese, so this rule is inherited.
For more deatils on Abortive Draws in Modern Japanese, please visit my website.
>The third reason, isn't really a reasonSimple: this is an illegal interruption of the game, and is punishable by the maximum penalty as for a false out. For those who don't know it already, the heavy false out penalty in most rules is originally not for an innocent mistaken call, but rather for illegal interruption of the game, in principle. (See also Millington p.47)
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)