In article <362cfc7d.3786584@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) writes:
>I am not sure Gary made the question clear. Our rules do allow
>robbing your own kong for mj. Our rules also allow a kong to
>be robbed for mj at any time after an open kong is displayed.
This does not make sense to me at all, maybe I am just not seeing the mechanics of this rule. Someone can probably explain this to me via an example. The way I see it (assume we are playing with 13 tiles, and 14 tiles are needed to win):
Robbing someone else's (displayed) kong:
a) Supposed you have not melded any tiles, then you should have
13 tiles in your hand. You are either ready to go out with one tile or you are almost ready to go out if you can meld another triplet or form the eyes.a.1) You are ready to go out and the winning tile you need is
already displayed as a somebody else's kong -- then when it is your turn (or actually "AT ANY TIME"), you just say "I win" without drawing a tile?a.2) You draw a tile and melded your final triplet (or eyes),
and now if you discard the extra tile (the 14th tile) then you can claim the kong tile to win. If you don't claim a win now, then at your next turn, you are back to situation a.1. But why wait, why not discard and claim a win immediately (as the rules allow you to do so "at any time")?a.3) Therefore, situation a.1 should never arise, because you
should always claim a win after your discard (this is sort of like Gin-Rummy, where the winner discards the last card and say "Gin").Am I missing something here?
Robbing your own (displayed) kong:
b) You have a kong displayed (for simplicity, let's say it is
your only melded tiles displayed), then you should have 10 tiles in your hand, and you need 11 tiles to win. Again, you are either ready to go out with one tile or you are almost ready to go out if you can meld another triplet or form the eyes.b.1) You are ready to go out and the winning tile you need is
already displayed as your own kong -- then at your next turn, you just say "I win" without drawing a tile?b.2) You draw a tile and melded your final triplet (or eyes),
and now if you discard the extra tile (the 11th tile) then you can claim your own kong tile to win. If you don't claim a win now, then at your next turn, you are back to situation b.1. But why wait, why not discard and claim a win immediately?b.3) Therefore, situation b.1 should never arise, because you
should always claim a win after your discard.So what am I missing? This is a really strange rule because you declare win AFTER YOUR OWN DISCARD, which is not like any other way of winning in MJ. So does this rule also credit you with a self-pick win? Because after all, you did pick the tile to allow you to win.
Also, what if someone else can claim a win from your final discard, who gets priority? Maybe the rules are like Gin-Rummy in that the last discard is done face down?
Priority of robbing a displayed kong:
c) You know you can go out at any time, because your winning
tile is already displayed as a kong (either by yourself or someone else). But instead of claiming a win immediately, you just keep on playing, drawing tiles and discarding tiles.c.1) If "robbing a displayed kong" has priority over other wins,
then because you know you can claim a win "AT ANY TIME", if someone you don't like claims a win, you immediately say "I win" and prevent the other person from winning. This leads to cheating.c.2) If "robbing a displayed kong" does not have priority, then
there is no reason to wait to claim a win, and all such wins should be claimed immediately when possible.So again, what am I missing? Why should there be any conflicts with other people winning (except for the case I pointed out above, when someone else can claim a win from my final discard). All in all, this sounds like a really strange set of rules.
On 20 Oct 1998 19:28:31 GMT, dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
>In article <362cfc7d.3786584@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) writes:
>>I am not sure Gary made the question clear. Our rules do allow
>>robbing your own kong for mj. Our rules also allow a kong to
>>be robbed for mj at any time after an open kong is displayed.
>
>This does not make sense to me at all, maybe I am just not seeing
>the mechanics of this rule. Someone can probably explain this to
>me via an example. The way I see it (assume we are playing with
>13 tiles, and 14 tiles are needed to win):
>
>Robbing someone else's (displayed) kong:
>a) Supposed you have not melded any tiles, then you should have
> 13 tiles in your hand. You are either ready to go out with
> one tile or you are almost ready to go out if you can meld
> another triplet or form the eyes.
>a.1) You are ready to go out and the winning tile you need is
> already displayed as a somebody else's kong -- then when it
> is your turn (or actually "AT ANY TIME"), you just say "I
> win" without drawing a tile?
>a.2) You draw a tile and melded your final triplet (or eyes),
> and now if you discard the extra tile (the 14th tile) then
> you can claim the kong tile to win. If you don't claim a win
> now, then at your next turn, you are back to situation a.1.
> But why wait, why not discard and claim a win immediately (as
> the rules allow you to do so "at any time")?
>a.3) Therefore, situation a.1 should never arise, because you
> should always claim a win after your discard (this is sort of
> like Gin-Rummy, where the winner discards the last card and
> say "Gin").
>
>Am I missing something here?
>
>Robbing your own (displayed) kong:
>b) You have a kong displayed (for simplicity, let's say it is
> your only melded tiles displayed), then you should have 10
> tiles in your hand, and you need 11 tiles to win. Again,
> you are either ready to go out with one tile or you are
> almost ready to go out if you can meld another triplet or
> form the eyes.
>b.1) You are ready to go out and the winning tile you need is
> already displayed as your own kong -- then at your next
> turn, you just say "I win" without drawing a tile?
>b.2) You draw a tile and melded your final triplet (or eyes),
> and now if you discard the extra tile (the 11th tile) then
> you can claim your own kong tile to win. If you don't
> claim a win now, then at your next turn, you are back to
> situation b.1. But why wait, why not discard and claim a
> win immediately?
>b.3) Therefore, situation b.1 should never arise, because you
> should always claim a win after your discard.
>
>So what am I missing? This is a really strange rule because you
>declare win AFTER YOUR OWN DISCARD, which is not like any other
>way of winning in MJ. So does this rule also credit you with a
>self-pick win? Because after all, you did pick the tile to allow
>you to win.
With our rules, you can go out by robbing a kong only on your turn, not when it is someone else's turn. You can't call mj after your own discard, because your turn is over.
We allow robbing of any open kong, even the player's own previously displayed kong. The player whose kong is robbed loses the extra point count of the kong, 2 points instead of 8 or 4 points instead of 16. In our rules, robbing a kong is worth an extra 10 points for the mj.
>Also, what if someone else can claim a win from your final
>discard, who gets priority? Maybe the rules are like Gin-Rummy
>in that the last discard is done face down?
>
>Priority of robbing a displayed kong:
>c) You know you can go out at any time, because your winning
> tile is already displayed as a kong (either by yourself or
> someone else). But instead of claiming a win immediately,
> you just keep on playing, drawing tiles and discarding tiles.
>c.1) If "robbing a displayed kong" has priority over other wins,
> then because you know you can claim a win "AT ANY TIME", if
> someone you don't like claims a win, you immediately say
> "I win" and prevent the other person from winning. This
> leads to cheating.
No way to cheat. You either have the tiles to mj or you do not. If you claim false mj at the same time as a legitimate mj, you can be penalized and the legitimate mj will still be honored. If you call false mj before the other big hand has gotten mj, you may have to pay a big penalty. It depends on how the others in our group feel. Usually we don't invoke false mj penalties. We would if we felt someone was trying to cheat.
>c.2) If "robbing a displayed kong" does not have priority, then
> there is no reason to wait to claim a win, and all such wins
> should be claimed immediately when possible.
The wait we were talking about is the requirement that the mj by robbing a kong can only happen on the players fresh turn. Example: I draw a tile from the wall or discard that completes my final pung or chow. I have a single tile that can be paired by stealing from another player's kong. But I have another tile to discard before I can claim the tile from the kong. When I discard my extra tile, my turn is over. I can't rob the kong at that point. I must wait until play returns to me. Someone else may call mj before it is my turn again. I am out of luck in this case and my possible mj is simply a losing hand.
Note that rules vary a lot in this area. If your rules only allow for robbing a kong as it is first displayed, this whole line of reasoning may not make sense to you. Under that type of rule, as I understand it, robbing the kong can be done by any player, but only at the time the open kong is 1st displayed. We do not play that version of the rule.
>So again, what am I missing? Why should there be any conflicts
>with other people winning (except for the case I pointed out
>above, when someone else can claim a win from my final discard).
>All in all, this sounds like a really strange set of rules.
The question we were after was not whether robbing a kong can be done at any time, it was whether the claim of a discarded tile prevents the turn from passing to the player who wants to rob a kong for mj. My contention was that the claimed discard is valid, and the robbing of the kong will be forced to wait. It has nothing to do with a player that wants to wait. By waiting beyond the 1st opportunity to rob the kong, a player takes a big chance that someone else may mj before he gets a 2nd chance to rob the kong.
Bob Null
In article <362d5f19.1782645@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) writes:
>On 20 Oct 1998 19:28:31 GMT, dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
>
>>In article <362cfc7d.3786584@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) writes:
>>>I am not sure Gary made the question clear. Our rules do allow
>>>robbing your own kong for mj. Our rules also allow a kong to
>>>be robbed for mj at any time after an open kong is displayed.
>
>With our rules, you can go out by robbing a kong only on your
>turn, not when it is someone else's turn. You can't call mj
>after your own discard, because your turn is over.
OK, now it is clearer (but it contradicts what Merlin wrote earlier). So given this rule that the player must wait until his next turn, then if someone else claims a discard, play does not pass to the next sequential player, and that player cannot claim a win because it is not his turn. No confusions or conflicts here.
However, IF "robbing a displayed kong" is allowed, it brings up interesting situations. Supposed players A and B have kong'ed the 6 and 9 of the same suit, and another player (could be A, B, or some other player) needs a 6/9 to win, then who is dinged for the win? And how do you score it if I robbed my own kong, do I lose points because my kong was robbed, and get points for robbing a kong at the same time? Maybe the fair thing to do is to credit the winner with a self draw win (no matter whose kong is robbed) and penalize all players the same.
But other implications of such a rule is that the whole playing strategy changes: Instead of avoiding a call on a tile that has been kong'ed, with this rule, one should play to call on a kong'ed tile, because it is a guaranteed win (no need to guess or hope that your calling tile will appear). On the other hand, players would want to avoid forming kongs, because it makes it much easier for someone else to rob it later.
In article <70k8b8$ffq$1@scnews.sc.intel.com>,
dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
> In article <362d5f19.1782645@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null)
writes:
> >On 20 Oct 1998 19:28:31 GMT, dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <362cfc7d.3786584@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null)
writes:
>
> However, IF "robbing a displayed kong" is allowed, it brings
> up interesting situations. Supposed players A and B have
> kong'ed the 6 and 9 of the same suit, and another player (could
> be A, B, or some other player) needs a 6/9 to win, then who is
> dinged for the win? And how do you score it if I robbed my own
> kong, do I lose points because my kong was robbed, and get points
> for robbing a kong at the same time? Maybe the fair thing to do
> is to credit the winner with a self draw win (no matter whose
> kong is robbed) and penalize all players the same.
>
> But other implications of such a rule is that the whole playing
> strategy changes: Instead of avoiding a call on a tile that
> has been kong'ed, with this rule, one should play to call on a
> kong'ed tile, because it is a guaranteed win (no need to guess
> or hope that your calling tile will appear). On the other hand,
> players would want to avoid forming kongs, because it makes it
> much easier for someone else to rob it later.
Yes, these are few of the problems that could occur with the rule "robbing any
displayed Kong is allowed". Since this rule is so strange to me and is indeed
interesting, I am really eager to hear how you normally deal with this type of
problems, Bob? (Or Gary?) (OR, do you have no problems of this type at all?)
Cheers!
--
COFA TSUI
Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(8a21a.)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On 21 Oct 1998 09:08:56 GMT, dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
>In article <362d5f19.1782645@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) writes:
>>On 20 Oct 1998 19:28:31 GMT, dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <362cfc7d.3786584@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) writes:
>>>>I am not sure Gary made the question clear. Our rules do allow
>>>>robbing your own kong for mj. Our rules also allow a kong to
>>>>be robbed for mj at any time after an open kong is displayed.
>>
>>With our rules, you can go out by robbing a kong only on your
>>turn, not when it is someone else's turn. You can't call mj
>>after your own discard, because your turn is over.
>
>OK, now it is clearer (but it contradicts what Merlin wrote
>earlier). So given this rule that the player must wait until
>his next turn, then if someone else claims a discard, play
>does not pass to the next sequential player, and that player
>cannot claim a win because it is not his turn. No confusions
>or conflicts here.
>
>However, IF "robbing a displayed kong" is allowed, it brings
>up interesting situations. Supposed players A and B have
>kong'ed the 6 and 9 of the same suit, and another player (could
>be A, B, or some other player) needs a 6/9 to win, then who is
>dinged for the win? And how do you score it if I robbed my own
>kong, do I lose points because my kong was robbed, and get points
>for robbing a kong at the same time? Maybe the fair thing to do
>is to credit the winner with a self draw win (no matter whose
>kong is robbed) and penalize all players the same.
The way we score robbing your own kong is: your kong score reverts to a pung. A simple drops from 8 to 2, a terminal or honor from 16 to 4.
You then get the 10 points for robbing the kong, but not the 2 points for self pick.
>But other implications of such a rule is that the whole playing
>strategy changes: Instead of avoiding a call on a tile that
>has been kong'ed, with this rule, one should play to call on a
>kong'ed tile, because it is a guaranteed win (no need to guess
>or hope that your calling tile will appear). On the other hand,
>players would want to avoid forming kongs, because it makes it
>much easier for someone else to rob it later.
Yes, the rule does enter into strategy, although kongs of honors are not often robbed, since they can't be used for a chow.
Bob Null
In article <362d5f19.1782645@news>,
merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) wrote:
> On 20 Oct 1998 19:28:31 GMT, dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
>
> >In article <362cfc7d.3786584@news> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null)
writes:
> >>I am not sure Gary made the question clear. Our rules do allow
> >>robbing your own kong for mj. Our rules also allow a kong to
> >>be robbed for mj at any time after an open kong is displayed.
> >
> >This does not make sense to me at all, maybe I am just not seeing
> >the mechanics of this rule. Someone can probably explain this to
> >me via an example. The way I see it (assume we are playing with
> >13 tiles, and 14 tiles are needed to win):
> >
By Cofa: The rules that Gary and Bob are playing on are really different from other variations of mahjong that I have learned of. Unless their "rule set" has clear stipulations to solve the problem that was brought to this Group, our opinions are, as one could easily understood, only based on the theory of the types of mahjong that we are familiar with.
[snipped]
>
> With our rules, you can go out by robbing a kong only on your
> turn, not when it is someone else's turn. You can't call mj
> after your own discard, because your turn is over.
>
> We allow robbing of any open kong, even the player's own
> previously displayed kong. The player whose kong is robbed
> loses the extra point count of the kong, 2 points instead
> of 8 or 4 points instead of 16. In our rules, robbing a kong
> is worth an extra 10 points for the mj.
By Cofa:
I think the main problem with this ruling is that whether the rule set has any
clear stipulations regarding:
(a) When a new turn starts?
(b) What action (pung, chow, Mj, etc.) can be done when a new turn starts? (i.e., the legal action or legal move.)
(c) Who can do it and how?
(d) If more than one players claim to do a "legal action" (or more than one legal actions), who should have the turn?
Unless the rule set has very clear indications, I will still present my same opinions as posted in a message of another thread (under "Who goes out?").
By "clear indications", I mean the rule set must deal with all particular cases, especially in the situations related to "robbing one's own Kong". For example, if your rule set says (just as an example): (a) A new turn starts whenever a tile is discarded; and (b) Mj has priority over other actions. Then, one can /actuall/ win on his own Kong AT ANYTIME! -- Exactly like what Dan Lau said (see paragraph below). So, when drafting your rules you must be very careful.
>
> >Also, what if someone else can claim a win from your final
> >discard, who gets priority? Maybe the rules are like Gin-Rummy
> >in that the last discard is done face down?
> >
> >Priority of robbing a displayed kong:
> >c) You know you can go out at any time, because your winning
> > tile is already displayed as a kong (either by yourself or
> > someone else). But instead of claiming a win immediately,
> > you just keep on playing, drawing tiles and discarding tiles.
>
> >c.1) If "robbing a displayed kong" has priority over other wins,
> > then because you know you can claim a win "AT ANY TIME", if
> > someone you don't like claims a win, you immediately say
> > "I win" and prevent the other person from winning. This
> > leads to cheating.
>
> No way to cheat. You either have the tiles to mj or you do not.
> If you claim false mj at the same time as a legitimate mj, you
> can be penalized and the legitimate mj will still be honored.
> If you call false mj before the other big hand has gotten mj,
> you may have to pay a big penalty. It depends on how the
> others in our group feel. Usually we don't invoke false mj
> penalties. We would if we felt someone was trying to cheat.
>
By Cofa: Whether there is a "false mj" depends on whether there are stipulations defining when a new turns starts and what can be done and who can do it. If you are sure that it is a "false mj", you probable already have some rules governing the turn of play, haven't you?
> >c.2) If "robbing a displayed kong" does not have priority, then
> > there is no reason to wait to claim a win, and all such wins
> > should be claimed immediately when possible.
>
> The wait we were talking about is the requirement that the mj
> by robbing a kong can only happen on the players fresh turn.
> Example: I draw a tile from the wall or discard that completes
> my final pung or chow. I have a single tile that can be paired
> by stealing from another player's kong. But I have another tile
> to discard before I can claim the tile from the kong. When I
> discard my extra tile, my turn is over. I can't rob the
> kong at that point. I must wait until play returns to me.
> Someone else may call mj before it is my turn again. I am
> out of luck in this case and my possible mj is simply a losing
> hand.
>
By Cofa:
It is true, when you discard your extra tile, your turn is over. However,
depending on how your rule set defines, A NEW TURN starts immediately which I
assume is open to ALL players, including yourself... Like I said, you must be
very careful when drafting the rules.
> Note that rules vary a lot in this area. If your rules
> only allow for robbing a kong as it is first displayed, this
> whole line of reasoning may not make sense to you. Under
> that type of rule, as I understand it, robbing the kong can
> be done by any player, but only at the time the open kong
> is 1st displayed. We do not play that version of the rule.
>
> >So again, what am I missing? Why should there be any conflicts
> >with other people winning (except for the case I pointed out
> >above, when someone else can claim a win from my final discard).
> >All in all, this sounds like a really strange set of rules.
>
> The question we were after was not whether robbing a kong can
> be done at any time, it was whether the claim of a discarded
> tile prevents the turn from passing to the player who wants
> to rob a kong for mj. My contention was that the claimed discard
> is valid, and the robbing of the kong will be forced to wait.
> It has nothing to do with a player that wants to wait. By
> waiting beyond the 1st opportunity to rob the kong, a player
> takes a big chance that someone else may mj before he gets
> a 2nd chance to rob the kong.
>
By Cofa: Again, the conlusion may be different, depending on how your rule set defines "a new turn" and "who can do what, and in what priority sequence".
By the way, why the player should kong and wait to rob his own Kong to win at a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately instead?
--
COFA TSUI
Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(8a20b.)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
*** Bob Null had previously written:
> Our rules do allow
> robbing your own kong for mj. Our rules also allow a kong to
> be robbed for mj at any time after an open kong is displayed.
*** Bob Null later clarified this rule:
With our rules, you can go out by robbing a kong only on your turn, not when it is someone else's turn. You can't call mj after your own discard, because your turn is over. [snip] Note that rules vary a lot in this area. If your rules only allow for robbing a kong as it is first displayed, this whole line of reasoning may not make sense to you. Under that type of rule, as I understand it, robbing the kong can be done by any player, but only at the time the open kong is 1st displayed. We do not play that version of the rule.
*** OK, this clarifies things somewhat in terms of when a conflict can happen
under this rule (the discussion centers around when conflicting claims occur,
under the LASFS rule allowing a player to rob his own kong or any kong, not
just a brand new freshly made kong). Let's call the konger (the player who
wants to win by robbing his own kong) "East" for clarity's sake. A
conflicting claim for win can therefore /only/ happen when North has discarded
a tile. There could not be any conflict when South or West has discarded,
because there is no way East can rob his own kong because it is clearly not his
turn.
At the moment that North discards his tile, however, it could be argued that
East's turn is beginning. I assume this is the exact scenario Gary and Bob
were talking about when...
*** Bob Null went on:
The question we were after was not whether robbing a kong can be done at any time, it was whether the claim of a discarded tile prevents the turn from passing to the player who wants to rob a kong for mj. My contention was that the claimed discard is valid, and the robbing of the kong will be forced to wait.
*** Cofa Tsui wrote:
Then, the rule set should have had defined "what action may be done, and by whom and how, and in what priority sequence?" And I assume the rule set is not clear about the robbing one's own Kong scenario, therefore we have [this] problem [snip].
*** I think Alan Kwan said as much when he wrote:
Any rules that allow robbing of one's own kong, or robbing of a kong other than immediately after the kong is declared, are non-standard house rules. Thus, there are no 'standard' rulings that can be spoken of concerning conflict situations arising out of these rules. Use whatever rulings you group can agree to. Period.
*** My original point was that if the table rule allows a player to make a kong at any time, not just on his own turn, then this opens the door to nasty fights, so the table rule should be changed. Now, understanding that the player can only kong on his own turn, I have to agree with Cofa and Alan that the table rule needs clarification to prevent future problems. The table rule specifically needs to govern the exact timing of when the player's turn begins, since the player can win without drawing or picking up a tile (thus bypassing the normal source of conflicting claims). Does the player's turn begin when the upper seat discards? Or does it begin after the upper seat's discard, /and/ after subsequent verification that nobody wants the discard? My recommendation is the latter. Note that this timing question ties also into the question I had raised here earlier (a couple weeks ago) regarding the players' "window of opportunity" for claiming a tile -- East might even draw a tile from the wall, but until he racks it or discards it, his turn is still subject to cancellation if another player claims North's discard. Therefore if I wanted to rob my own kong on my turn, when my turn came around, I would ask the players, "does anybody want North's discard?" Upon receiving no claims for North's discard, then I would know that it was truly my turn and could rob my own kong (given that this is the table rule).
Tom Sloper, Activision
Senior Producer, Shanghai
tsloper@activision.com (weekdays)
Actsearch@aol.com (weekends)
Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free
demo:
http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/
Cofa Tsui asked,
By the way, why the player should kong and wait to rob his own Kong to win at
a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately instead?
*** Very good question. In other words: "Didn't the player make a mistake making that kong? Why should he be allowed to recover from it by taking an action that has the potential for conflict?"
Tom Sloper, Activision
Senior Producer, Shanghai
tsloper@activision.com (weekdays)
Actsearch@aol.com (weekends)
Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free
demo:
http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/
In article <19981021135609.06382.00004848@ng-fi1.aol.com> actsearch@aol.com (ACTSEARCH) writes:
>
>Cofa Tsui asked,
>By the way, why the player should kong and wait to rob his own Kong to win
at
>a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately instead?
>
>*** Very good question. In other words: "Didn't the player make a mistake
>making that kong? Why should he be allowed to recover from it by taking an
>action that has the potential for conflict?"
>
>Tom Sloper, Activision
Situations like this actually happen more often than I'd like. Supposed early in the hand, all I have is three 9's of one suit and no other tiles in that suit (or just other low numbers). Then it makes sense to kong the 9's because there is no reason to keep one around. Then as the hand is played, I pick up a 7 and 8 of the same suit and eventually ended up calling for the 6/9. Without the "robbing a displayed kong" rule, I would have to wait for a 6 (which may be in short supply by then). But with the rule, I am almost guaranteed a win.
Therefore, in this case, there is no mistake in making the kong, in fact, it is preferrable to make the kong instead of discarding the extra tile. Making a kong in this case is just another way to keep a tile in play for either my own or someone else's use later. So the whole strategy of playing needs to be re-adjusted.
In article <70kqsi$qg1$1@scnews.sc.intel.com>,
dlau@xcs101.sc.intel.com (Dan Lau) wrote:
> In article <19981021135609.06382.00004848@ng-fi1.aol.com> actsearch@aol.com
(ACTSEARCH) writes:
> >
> >Cofa Tsui asked,
> >By the way, why the player should kong and wait to rob his own Kong to
win at
> >a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately
instead?
> >
> >*** Very good question. In other words: "Didn't the player make a
mistake
> >making that kong? Why should he be allowed to recover from it by
taking an
> >action that has the potential for conflict?"
> >
> >Tom Sloper, Activision
>
> Situations like this actually happen more often than I'd like.
> Supposed early in the hand, all I have is three 9's of one
> suit and no other tiles in that suit (or just other low
> numbers). Then it makes sense to kong the 9's because there
> is no reason to keep one around. Then as the hand is played,
> I pick up a 7 and 8 of the same suit and eventually ended
> up calling for the 6/9. Without the "robbing a displayed
> kong" rule, I would have to wait for a 6 (which may be in
> short supply by then). But with the rule, I am almost
> guaranteed a win.
>
> Therefore, in this case, there is no mistake in making the
> kong, in fact, it is preferrable to make the kong instead
> of discarding the extra tile. Making a kong in this case is
> just another way to keep a tile in play for either my own or
> someone else's use later. So the whole strategy of playing
> needs to be re-adjusted.
>
Although Dan Lau has explained the benefit provided by this rule (robbing one's own Kong is allowed), I am not convinced that this is the spirit (reasoning) behind this rule. This rule might provide a "benefit" (a tile is preserved in the form of a "robbable" Kong), it, however, also causes a lot of disadvantages (your Kong becomes a target of other player's winning hand) and contradictions.
Also I don't see any evidence that this rule is to provide a remedy in case making a Kong is a mistake (the Kong could be made just last turn, or made far back to the beginning of the Game). I think the rule shouldn't be related to play strategy either. (Keep the tile for my own use later is OK, for someone else's use? I don't think so. To keep it for your own use, you simply keep all 4 tiles in the concealed hand and you get much much more flexibility than haveing all 4 tiles tied up out there.)
So, is there still any reason that could explain why one should kong and wait to rob his own Kong to win at a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately instead?
--
COFA TSUI
Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(8a21b.)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:49:26 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofa@cofatsui.com> wrote:
>By the way, why the player should kong and wait to rob his own Kong to win
at
>a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately instead?
The kong will usually have been made earlier in the game when the win was not present. Later draws set up the robbing of the kong situation. Normally a player would claim the win, not wait to rob his own kong.
But in the case of the choice of making the kong and then stealing
on the next turn,there might be a point gain by forming the
kong on one turn and then robbing on the next. If the kong was
a simple with a score of 8, the pung created by not forming the
kong would score 2. Robbing the kong would score 10 and two for
the pung. But, the danger is that someone else may get mj before
the robbing can be done.
As in any strategy, it depends on how late in the hand you are. Very early in the hand you might be more willing to risk a wait.
It is most likely that the player waiting to rob his own kong will not want any discards. If a discard were to be available to finish a chow, the point gain would get the full value of the kong, but lose the 10 points for robbing the kong. In the case of a simple kong the points would be 8 instead of 12. Small reason to wait, unless the hand has a lot of doubles. In the case of the kong being a terminal, it would be worth 16 versus the 12 for robbing the kong + pung. No reason to wait there.
Bob Null
In article <362e7ede.279073@news>,
merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:49:26 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofa@cofatsui.com> wrote:
>
> >By the way, why the player should kong and wait to rob his own Kong to
win at
> >a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately
instead?
>
> The kong will usually have been made earlier in the game when the win
> was not present. Later draws set up the robbing of the kong situation.
> Normally a player would claim the win, not wait to rob his own kong.
>
> But in the case of the choice of making the kong and then stealing
> on the next turn,there might be a point gain by forming the
> kong on one turn and then robbing on the next. If the kong was
> a simple with a score of 8, the pung created by not forming the
> kong would score 2. Robbing the kong would score 10 and two for
> the pung. But, the danger is that someone else may get mj before
> the robbing can be done.
>
> As in any strategy, it depends on how late in the hand you are.
> Very early in the hand you might be more willing to risk a
> wait.
>
> It is most likely that the player waiting to rob his own kong
> will not want any discards. If a discard were to be available
> to finish a chow, the point gain would get the full value of
> the kong, but lose the 10 points for robbing the kong. In the
> case of a simple kong the points would be 8 instead of 12.
> Small reason to wait, unless the hand has a lot of doubles.
> In the case of the kong being a terminal, it would be worth
> 16 versus the 12 for robbing the kong + pung. No reason to
> wait there.
>
> Bob Null
>
***Thanks Bob! Thanks for such a clear picture from an insider of this type of play. Do you know what type of mahjong game you are playing? Or where about that type of game is widely played? (Just curious.)
--
COFA TSUI
Buy International Mahjong Rules, get LIFE-LONG membership
http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html
(8a22a.)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:40:35 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofa@cofatsui.com> wrote:
>In article <362e7ede.279073@news>,
> merlinnull@earthlink.net (Merlin Null) wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:49:26 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofa@cofatsui.com> wrote:
>>
>> >By the way, why the player should kong and wait to rob his own Kong
to win at
>> >a later time, rather than NOT making the Kong but win immediately
instead?
>>
>> The kong will usually have been made earlier in the game when the win
>> was not present. Later draws set up the robbing of the kong situation.
>> Normally a player would claim the win, not wait to rob his own kong.
>>
>> But in the case of the choice of making the kong and then stealing
>> on the next turn,there might be a point gain by forming the
>> kong on one turn and then robbing on the next. If the kong was
>> a simple with a score of 8, the pung created by not forming the
>> kong would score 2. Robbing the kong would score 10 and two for
>> the pung. But, the danger is that someone else may get mj before
>> the robbing can be done.
>>
>> As in any strategy, it depends on how late in the hand you are.
>> Very early in the hand you might be more willing to risk a
>> wait.
>>
>> It is most likely that the player waiting to rob his own kong
>> will not want any discards. If a discard were to be available
>> to finish a chow, the point gain would get the full value of
>> the kong, but lose the 10 points for robbing the kong. In the
>> case of a simple kong the points would be 8 instead of 12.
>> Small reason to wait, unless the hand has a lot of doubles.
>> In the case of the kong being a terminal, it would be worth
>> 16 versus the 12 for robbing the kong + pung. No reason to
>> wait there.
>>
>> Bob Null
>>
>
>***Thanks Bob! Thanks for such a clear picture from an insider of this type
>of play. Do you know what type of mahjong game you are playing? Or where
>about that type of game is widely played? (Just curious.)
Gary Louie went through a number of books to put together a suggested set of rules. It was then run several times through the mj players that were also involved in SCIFI (Southern California Institute for Fan Interests), an organization formed to bid and run science fiction conventions. Gary should be able to explain better than I regarding which books the rules were drawn from.
We use a simplified set of special hands to make it easier to involve casual players at LASFS or SCIFI in the games. In the end, I guess you would have to call them "house rules."
We have also been talking about one more round of rules review for some time.
Bob Null
If I understand this correctly, robbing a kong is done instead of drawing a tile from the live wall, and at the same time that you would do that. If so any claim of the discard takes priority. This raises the question of when it is too late to claim.
Do you also allow robbing a kong in the normal way? That is player a draws a tile, and adds it (or a tile from his hand) to an already exposed pong. Player B claims the tile for Mah Jong. If there would have been a penalty for discarding the tile in question, player A suffers this penalty.
Klaus O K
On 22 Oct 1998 13:13:47 +0200, klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) wrote:
>If I understand this correctly, robbing a kong is done instead of drawing a
>tile from the live wall, and at the same time that you would do that. If so
>any claim of the discard takes priority. This raises the question of when
>it is too late to claim.
>
>Do you also allow robbing a kong in the normal way? That is player a draws
>a tile, and adds it (or a tile from his hand) to an already exposed pong.
>Player B claims the tile for Mah Jong. If there would have been a penalty
>for discarding the tile in question, player A suffers this penalty.
>
>Klaus O K
With our rules, you must wait for your turn to rob the kong.
We do not use any penalty for discarding a tile that another uses for mj for any hand, so it can't get involved in a robbing of a kong.
We use a rule that a discard may be claimed anytime until the next player has discarded. I know many rules only allow claiming a discard up to the point the next player draws a tile, not when that player discards. This does mean that sometimes a player will draw a tile and see what it is, and then have to put it back on the wall. Not the best situation, but we did not want to generate the slam-bang type of play where players draw as quickly as possible to prevent claiming of a discard. This can be a real problem if you have a player that fails to announce a tile on time and keeps the tile covered with fingers until the next player has drawn a tile. It is not possible to claim a discard with no time for recognition of the discard.
This could be fixed by requiring that the draw can't be done until the tile is exposed and/or announced. I prefer to go by what I see on the table, not the announcement, as beginning players seem to often name the wrong suit or honor. To claim the tile on the basis of the bad declaration can reveal things about your hand or cause you to be in the position of declaring false mj.
Bob Null
If a person calls out the tile you need for mahjong, then that person should
end up losing the hand, regardless of what he actually throws out. At least
that's how I learned to play. As the person going out on a tile call, you
should not be penalized by someone else's mistake. This should encourage
everyone to announce the tiles correctly. Of course in a friendly game you
can allow some leeway.
Cheers,
Steve
Merlin Null wrote:
> This could be fixed by requiring that the draw can't be done
> until the tile is exposed and/or announced. I prefer to go
> by what I see on the table, not the announcement, as beginning
> players seem to often name the wrong suit or honor. To claim
> the tile on the basis of the bad declaration can reveal things
> about your hand or cause you to be in the position of declaring
> false mj.
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:10:34 -0500, Steve Lin <r14526@email.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>If a person calls out the tile you need for mahjong, then that person should
>end up losing the hand, regardless of what he actually throws out. At least
>that's how I learned to play. As the person going out on a tile call, you
>should not be penalized by someone else's mistake. This should encourage
>everyone to announce the tiles correctly. Of course in a friendly game you
>can allow some leeway.
This ruling is problematic because it facilitates cheating!
If a player is calling on a big hand and another is calling on a small one, a third player may deliberately name (call out) a tile that he thinks the second player is calling to let him out, even if he doesn't have that tile to discard. This is unfair to the first player. (Especially if the named tile is an exhausted tile, with all 4 copies already in the discard pool!)
Discarding the Japanese way (arranged orderly, without mandatory vocalizing) is one clean way of eliminating this problem, as well as a number of others.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / tarot@notme.netvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews)
DS Editor - http://www.dimension-s.com
(please remove anti-spam section "notme." from mailing address)
Alan Kwan wrote:
> This ruling is problematic because it facilitates cheating!
>
> If a player is calling on a big hand and another is calling on a small
> one, a third player may deliberately name (call out) a tile that he
> thinks the second player is calling to let him out, even if he doesn't
> have that tile to discard. This is unfair to the first player.
> (Especially if the named tile is an exhausted tile, with all 4 copies
> already in the discard pool!)
You have a point there. I guess this rule is really in place to force beginners to call out the correct tiles. A veteran player should never make such a mistake, and it would probably be obvious if he cheats this way.
> Discarding the Japanese way (arranged orderly, without mandatory
> vocalizing) is one clean way of eliminating this problem, as well as a
> number of others.
I'm not sure if vocalizing is mandatory in Taiwanese mahjong, is it in other
styles? I always thought it was more of a courtesy to other players. The
people I play with normally don't call out the tiles, which can be a real drag
when I'm watching TV at the same time:-)
Cheers,
Steve
Steve Lin wrote:
I'm not sure if vocalizing is mandatory in Taiwanese mahjong, is it in other
styles? I always thought it was more of a courtesy to other players. The
people I play with normally don't call out the tiles, which can be a real drag
when I'm watching TV at the same time:-)
*** Yes, some games do require speaking the name of a discard. NMJL and vanilla Western. Many western players of Chinese Classical set this as a table rule. Japanese and Hong Kong players do not speak the name of the discard (you just have to be observant, and quick).
Tom Sloper, Activision
Senior Producer, Shanghai
tsloper@activision.com (weekdays)
Actsearch@aol.com (weekends)
Now available: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY -- check our website for a preview and free
demo:
http://www4.activision.com/games/dynasty/