CMCR: Article 10 Principles vs. Exclusionary Rule

G

Guest

Guest

A new page has been added to the Archives section of the IMJ website:
www.iMahjong.com

(Look for links: General Introduction > Archives > Topic #208)

This message serves the following purposes:

1. To introduce the original and complete meaning of Article 10 of the
Chinese Mahjong Contest Rules in English. Article 10 provides complete rules
for assessing the basic score of a winning hand.

2. To review the "Exclusionary Rule" introduced by Tom Sloper.

In my opinion, the Exclusionary Rule is not a complete rule as far as
assessing the basic score of a winning hand is concerned. In contrast, use
of the Exclusionary Rule alone to assess a winning hand could produce
different results than if the assessment is based on the complete rules of
Article 10.

rec.games.mahjong and follow the topics "CMCR: Article 10 Principles vs.
Exclusionary Rule".

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

G

Guest

Guest

> In my opinion, the Exclusionary Rule is not a complete rule as far as
> assessing the basic score of a winning hand is concerned. In contrast, use
> of the Exclusionary Rule alone to assess a winning hand could produce
> different results than if the assessment is based on the complete rules of
> Article 10.

The Exclusionary rule is not meant to be complete in the sense that it
should be the only rule to apply to scoring. When used it is used in
conjunction with several of the principles you list.

The first four principles I get(I think) but the fifth is a bit confusing
to me. It says:
5. Principle of assesing once:
For a set THAT HAS NOT BEEN COMBINED (in an element), it can only be
assesed once with THE CORRESPONDING SET THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN COMBINED(in
other element).

I think it is the 'corresponding set' part I don't get
Now you use it on the hand:
123B 456C 789D 789C EE

where 789C is the set that has not been combined.
So the 'corresponding set(s)' are 789D and 456C ?
And only one of those can be used for scoring.

But in the hand:
123B 456B 123C 456C

Let's say you combine
123B 456B and 123B 123C.

Now 456C is the set that has not been combined.
And the 'corresponding set(s)' are 456B and 123C?
Now doesn't the rule state that you are allowed to combine only with one
of them? Thus giving the same result as the Exclusionary rule.

-Morten Andersen.

G

Guest

Guest

"Morten Andersen" <gaudrell@diku.dk> wrote in message
>> In my opinion, the Exclusionary Rule is not a complete rule as far as
>> assessing the basic score of a winning hand is concerned. In contrast,
>> use
>> of the Exclusionary Rule alone to assess a winning hand could produce
>> different results than if the assessment is based on the complete rules
>> of
>> Article 10.
>
> The Exclusionary rule is not meant to be complete in the sense that it
> should be the only rule to apply to scoring. When used it is used in
> conjunction with several of the principles you list.
>
> The first four principles I get(I think) but the fifth is a bit confusing
> to me. It says:
> 5. Principle of assesing once:
> For a set THAT HAS NOT BEEN COMBINED (in an element), it can only be
> assesed once with THE CORRESPONDING SET THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN COMBINED(in
> other element).

Hi Morten,

"Corresponding set" used is a straight translation of the Chinese wording.
My understanding is that those two sets that are to be combined shall be
*related* or can be *connected* accordingly. Similarly, here how
"accordingly" is defined is, IMO, of the same effect. But I think it should
not be difficult to manage over time with more exchange of examples and
explanations ^_^

>
> I think it is the 'corresponding set' part I don't get
> Now you use it on the hand:
> 123B 456C 789D 789C EE
>
> where 789C is the set that has not been combined.
> So the 'corresponding set(s)' are 789D and 456C ?
> And only one of those can be used for scoring.

To my understanding it is correct. (Here 123B will not be the corresponding
set as 789D and 123B could hardly link to each other.)

>
> But in the hand:
> 123B 456B 123C 456C
>
> Let's say you combine
> 123B 456B and 123B 123C.

If this is all you are going to get, this is where and why, in my opinion,
the Exclusionary Rule is not complete. One shall combine all possible
elements first in accordance with sub-article 10.1(5): "... by combining all
score elements that are not inevitably linked to one another"), which
creates these four combinations:
123B 456B
123C 456C
123B 123C
456B 456C

>
> Now 456C is the set that has not been combined.
> And the 'corresponding set(s)' are 456B and 123C?
> Now doesn't the rule state that you are allowed to combine only with one
> of them? Thus giving the same result as the Exclusionary rule.

Since all the four combinations *are not inevitably linked to one another*
(in other word, not implied), they shall stand. And since they are all
combined sets, sub-article 10.1(5)5 does not apply to it.

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

G

Guest

Guest

Cofa wrote:

>5. \$BEe;;0l<!86(B?
>\$BG!M-(B*\$B>0L\$(B?\$B9g(B?*\$BE*0lI{GW!\$B~2DF1(B*\$BVa(B?\$B9g(B?\$BE*Aj(B?\$BE*(B*\$B0lI{GWEe;;0l<!!#(B
>5. Principle of assessing once
>For a set *that has not been combined* [in an element], it can only be
>assessed once with *the corresponding set that has already been combined*
>[in other element].
>...
>Upon comparing Tom's Exclusionary Rule and Article 10 of CMCR, I found that
>the Exclusionary Rule is very similar to sub-article 10.1(5)5.

Yes, this appears to be the basis for the exclusionary rule. It certainly
took a long time for anyone to point out the exact location of it!

>Example 3
>234C 567C 234D 567D 88B
>
>Tom said (in summary and with respect to the first 4 sets of the hand):
>Only 3 out of the following 4 combinations can be claimed:
>234C 567C
>234D 567D
>234C 234D
>567C 567D
>
>Explanation based on CMCR: The first step in assessing the hand is "by
>combining all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one
>another" - refer to sub-article 10.1(5). With this first step all of the
>above 4 combinations are formed. The second step is to reduce the number of
>valid elements by applying various principles of Article 10. However, there
>is no valid principle from Article 10 that would reduce the number of
>combinations. Hence all of the 4 combinations may be claimed.

If we go with 10.1.5.5 above, it appears that in fact only 2 of those
combinations may be claimed. Once a player claims two short straights, all 4
of the chow sets have "already been combined." And further combinations may
only be formed by starting with a set that has not already been combined
with anything - going by the wording Cofa provided.

We're really going to need someone who has experience with these rules (as
applied in regular games and in tournaments) to interpret the rule for us.

Tom

G

Guest

Guest

> If we go with 10.1.5.5 above, it appears that in fact only 2 of those
> combinations may be claimed. Once a player claims two short straights, all 4
> of the chow sets have "already been combined." And further combinations may
> only be formed by starting with a set that has not already been combined
> with anything - going by the wording Cofa provided.

That is at least one way to interpret the rules. I don't think the article
10 principles are very clear(they may be clearer to someone who reads
chinese) which is why I prefer the Exclusionary rule(which I find clear
and to the point).

>
> We're really going to need someone who has experience with these rules (as
> applied in regular games and in tournaments) to interpret the rule for us.

Agreed. It was my understanding that the Exclusionary rule was at least
partialy build on the tournament experiences of Ryan Morris.
As long as I get rules that are clearer and less open to interpretation
than the Article 10 rules I'm happy.

-Morten Andersen.

G

Guest

Guest

The one thing (well, the biggest thing) that was interesting to me in
Cofa's translation (and thanks very much, Cofa, for the translation) is
the phrase "main scoring element". It appears for a brief shining
moment at the top of 10.1.5 and then never again. I wonder if that
wasn't what was in the minds of the committee in 10.1.5.5: a set that
has not been combined [in/with the main element] can only be combined
once with a combined set [in/with the main element]. This would give
us our Ryan Morris-approved ruling on everyone's favorite (favourite
for the Commonwealth) example hand, *since a main scoring element must
be picked first* before we can start combining things. To me, that was
what I didn't like about Cofa's interpretation--all four combinations
on the list happened simultaneously; even though the sets at the bottom
of the list had both already been used earlier on the list, it didn't
matter. And if we aren't doing things sequentially, then why does rule
10.1.5.5 exist in the first place?

I agree that we (and by we, I don't mean me, but maybe the EMJC
committee, or someone with appropriate contacts) should find (several)
someone(s) with experience to just in general clarify things. (I
thought that the EMJC committee had gotten in touch with the committee
that wrote the COMJ rules; did I dream that, or did nothing ever really

G

Guest

Guest

>From: "tabstop" <andrewf@math.duke.edu>
>
>The one thing (well, the biggest thing) that was interesting to me in
>Cofa's translation (and thanks very much, Cofa, for the translation)

Hear, hear.

>is
>the phrase "main scoring element". It appears for a brief shining
>moment at the top of 10.1.5 and then never again. I wonder if that
>wasn't what was in the minds of the committee in 10.1.5.5: a set that
>has not been combined [in/with the main element] can only be combined
>once with a combined set [in/with the main element].

Yes! The missing piece of the equation! Brilliant, Andrew.

>This would give
>us our Ryan Morris-approved ruling on everyone's favorite ...
>example hand, *since a main scoring element must
>be picked first* before we can start combining things.

Sounds like that's the ticket to ride! (And she don't care.)

Tom

G

Guest

Guest

(As I could not reply fast enough, pardon me for the cut and paste...)

> ... I don't think the article 10 principles are very clear(they may be
> clearer to someone who reads chinese) which is why I prefer the
> Exclusionary rule(which I find clear and to the point).

I must say that I am as frustrated with the Chinese wording of the rules as
you are with my English translation! But that is not my fault. Many aspects
of the rules of CMCR are not clear enough to avoid the need of further
Flowers, self-drawn tiles, etc. This time is about assessing a winning hand.
I tried to provide the *accurate* translation at all times. In several
previous discussions I also provided the original texts in Chinese - For
this my purpose is to lure/invite someone to help "proof read" my
translation. So far it seems I am the only one who can read Chinese in this
newsgroup - I don't believe it! OR, does it mean my translation seems to be
accurate!?!?

So, if you feel unclear about my translation, it is exactly the way I feel

As far as the Exclusionary Rule is concerned, I only feel that I need to
clarify something because it doesn't seem to be in line with the CMCR (at
least to my understanding, that's why the need of this discussion). (Clear
and to the point is good, only if one doesn't mind seeing a variant from
CMCR is being created.)

Now let's talk about those principles of article 10.

Firstly Tom Sloper wrote:
> If we go with 10.1.5.5 above, it appears that in fact only 2 of those
> combinations may be claimed. Once a player claims two short straights, all
> 4 of the chow sets have "already been combined." And further combinations
> may only be formed by starting with a set that has not already been
> combined with anything - going by the wording Cofa provided.

Then Andrew ("tabstop") wrote:
> The one thing (well, the biggest thing) that was interesting to me in
> Cofa's translation (and thanks very much, Cofa, for the translation) is
> the phrase "main scoring element". It appears for a brief shining
> moment at the top of 10.1.5 and then never again. I wonder if that
> wasn't what was in the minds of the committee in 10.1.5.5: a set that
> has not been combined [in/with the main element] can only be combined
> once with a combined set [in/with the main element]. This would give
> us our Ryan Morris-approved ruling on everyone's favorite (favourite
> for the Commonwealth) example hand, *since a main scoring element must
> be picked first* before we can start combining things. To me, that was
> what I didn't like about Cofa's interpretation--all four combinations
> on the list happened simultaneously; even though the sets at the bottom
> of the list had both already been used earlier on the list, it didn't
> matter. And if we aren't doing things sequentially, then why does rule
> 10.1.5.5 exist in the first place?

In my article on my website, I should have had included a message about the
"main score element" (sub-article 10.1.5). However, I figured this would be
a message too long to write. That unwritten message may be summarized in
brief as follows:
(a) there is no definition of "main score element" in the rulebook;
(b) one may logically find those elements that could be qualified as main
score elements in the "Table Of Value Of The Score Elements" listed under
article 9, and logically assume that elements that are describing the whole
hand may be qualified as a main score element;
(c) complicated relations between rules and lots of contradictions in rules
are to be told.

For instant, "All Pungs" may be considered as a main score element, while
"Four Pure Shifted Pungs" (related to 4 pungs of the hand only, that is, not
involving the pair of eyes) will not be qualified as a main score element -
This is according to my understanding of the rules only, because the rules
do not provide a definition for "main score element". With these elements,
an example of "contradictions in rules" is seen: Element item #15 ("Four
Pure Shifted Pungs") defines that the element shall involve 4 pungs only,
but it further specifies that "All Pungs" (which shall involve the whole
hand) is not to be counted. (The rule shall stand as is, although the

If we read article 10 in whole, one shall agree that we shall begin with
sub. 10.1.5 to assess a winning hand. Unfortunately, sub. 10.1.5 is itself
also unclear! Although it states that the winning player "shall identify the
main score element of the hand in accordance with the "Table Of Value Of The
Score Elements", it doesn't specify how many main score elements one can
include. (One cannot tell if a noun is plural or singular in the Chinese
language. The Chinese wording of the rule does not specify whether one or
more main score elements can be counted. However, since the "Table Of Value
Of The Score Elements" contains more than one elements that can be qualified
as main score elements - as explained in previous paragraphs, it is logic
and reasonable to assume that one can count more than one main score
elements in a hand. And in reality it seems to be right!)

Next, let's review sub-article 10.1.5.5.

Firstly, let me repeat my translation on my website:
5. Principle of assessing once
For a set *that has not been combined* [in an element], it can only be
assessed once with *the corresponding set that has already been combined*
[in other element].

Secondly, let me repeat what Andrew ("tabstop") said:
"I wonder if that
> wasn't what was in the minds of the committee in 10.1.5.5: a set that
> has not been combined [in/with the main element] can only be combined
> once with a combined set [in/with the main element]. This would give
> us our Ryan Morris-approved ruling on everyone's favorite (favourite
> for the Commonwealth) example hand, *since a main scoring element must
> be picked first* before we can start combining things.

Since *all sets* have to be involved in any *main score element*, every set
in a hand must have had been combined at least once. Based on this
principle, my understanding of this (sub. 10.1.5.5) rule is that it is
dealing with sets THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED IN ANY POSSIBLE ELEMENT (hence
those added [...]). Note also that, the word "ASSESSED ONCE", not "combined
once", is used in the rule.

To my understanding, sub. 10.1.5.5 shall NOT mean to deal with sets related
specifically to the *main element* (as said by Andrew: "in/with the main
element"). If what Andrew said were true, none of those four combinations in
Example 3 would be possible - The winning hand will have any or all of, say,
All Chows, Self-draw, All Simples, Fully Concealed Hand, Last Tile Draw,
etc., etc., as the main score elements. In effect there will be NO *set that
has not been combined [in/with the main element]*, and therefore NONE of
those four combinations will be possible.

On the other hand, since one can count (assess) all possible score elements
"by combining all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one
another" as per sub. 10.1.5, all those four combinations in Example 3 shall
be allowed, so far as none of those five principles would apply.

Also this from Andrew:
"To me, that was
> what I didn't like about Cofa's interpretation--all four combinations
> on the list happened simultaneously; even though the sets at the bottom
> of the list had both already been used earlier on the list, it didn't
> matter. And if we aren't doing things sequentially, then why does rule
> 10.1.5.5 exist in the first place?"

According to sub. 10.1.5, one shall...
1. first pick *all* main score elements of the hand; then
2. count "all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one another";
and
3. while counting, "one shall also observe the following [five] principles".

Accordingly, in "Example 3", whether those four elements are listed in steps
2 & 3 combined or are listed one after one in sequence, is really not
important. The *maximum* count will still be the same:

Steps 2 & 3 combined:
234C 567C
234D 567D
234C 234D
567C 567D

OR, counted in sequence (1):
Firstly:
234C 567C
234D 567D
Secondly:
234C (of the 1st set) + 567D (of the 2nd set) [none of 5 principles applies]
234D (of the 2nd set) + 567C (of the 1st set) [none of 5 principles applies]

Counted in sequence (2):
Firstly:
234C 567C
234C 234D
Secondly:
567D+567C of the 1st set [none of 5 principles applies]
567D+234D of the 2nd set [none of 5 principles applies]

Although the 4th set is not allowed in Example 3 in accordance with the
"Exclusionary Rule", the "Exclusionary Rule" is NOT based on CMCR (and even

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

"Tom Sloper" <tomsterSPAM@sloperamaSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:stqdnVStqf30ns_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> >From: "tabstop" <andrewf@math.duke.edu>
>>
>>The one thing (well, the biggest thing) that was interesting to me in
>>Cofa's translation (and thanks very much, Cofa, for the translation)
>
> Hear, hear.
>
>>is
>>the phrase "main scoring element". It appears for a brief shining
>>moment at the top of 10.1.5 and then never again. I wonder if that
>>wasn't what was in the minds of the committee in 10.1.5.5: a set that
>>has not been combined [in/with the main element] can only be combined
>>once with a combined set [in/with the main element].
>
> Yes! The missing piece of the equation! Brilliant, Andrew.
>
>>This would give
>>us our Ryan Morris-approved ruling on everyone's favorite ...
>>example hand, *since a main scoring element must
>>be picked first* before we can start combining things.
>
> Sounds like that's the ticket to ride! (And she don't care.)
>
> Tom
>

G

Guest

Guest

"Cofa Tsui" <IMJ@cofatsuiTAKETHISOFF.com> wrote in message
news:THs4e.900380\$Xk.446406@pd7tw3no...

TYPO:

> Accordingly, in "Example 3", whether those four elements are listed in
> steps 2 & 3 combined or are listed one after one in sequence, is really
> not important. The *maximum* count will still be the same:
>
> Steps 2 & 3 combined:
> 234C 567C
> 234D 567D
> 234C 234D
> 567C 567D
>
> OR, counted in sequence (1):
> Firstly:
> 234C 567C
> 234D 567D
> Secondly:
> 234C (of the 1st set) + 567D (of the 2nd set) [none of 5 principles
> applies]
> 234D (of the 2nd set) + 567C (of the 1st set) [none of 5 principles
> applies]
>
> Counted in sequence (2):
> Firstly:
> 234C 567C
> 234C 234D
> Secondly:
> 567D+567C of the 1st set [none of 5 principles applies]
> 567D+234D of the 2nd set [none of 5 principles applies]

WITH CORRECTION:

> OR, counted in sequence (1):
> Firstly:
> 234C 567C
> 234D 567D
> Secondly:
234C (of the 1st set) + 234D (of the 2nd set) [none of 5 principles applies]
567C (of the 1st set) + 567D (of the 2nd set) [none of 5 principles applies]

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

G

Guest

Guest

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Cofa Tsui wrote:

> (As I could not reply fast enough, pardon me for the cut and paste...)
>
>> ... I don't think the article 10 principles are very clear(they may be
>> clearer to someone who reads chinese) which is why I prefer the
>> Exclusionary rule(which I find clear and to the point).
>
> I must say that I am as frustrated with the Chinese wording of the rules as
> you are with my English translation! But that is not my fault. Many aspects
> of the rules of CMCR are not clear enough to avoid the need of further
> Flowers, self-drawn tiles, etc. This time is about assessing a winning hand.
> I tried to provide the *accurate* translation at all times. In several
> previous discussions I also provided the original texts in Chinese - For
> this my purpose is to lure/invite someone to help "proof read" my
> translation. So far it seems I am the only one who can read Chinese in this
> newsgroup - I don't believe it! OR, does it mean my translation seems to be
> accurate!?!?
>
> So, if you feel unclear about my translation, it is exactly the way I feel
> about the original Chinese wording!

This is unfortunate (about unclear wording). I don't speak Chinese
myself; there are probably people here in the department who do, but I
don't know if I can convince them to do a translating job for me (that is
to say, I don't know how big a favor it would be to ask). Part of
that is somehow I can't find a link to the Chinese rules, and I
certainly don't have a paper copy. If I can find a link, maybe I can try.

I think I'm cynical enough to expect that the first version of *anything*
produced by a committee is more-or-less worthless, but this is even worse
than I was expecting. Making the assumption that the people who wrote
the rules are also the ones that serve as directors/arbiters of
tournaments, you can usually get a handle on what they meant by what
rulings they make, which is why we're putting such emphasis on the
testimony of people who have played CO tournaments.

> As far as the Exclusionary Rule is concerned, I only feel that I need to
> clarify something because it doesn't seem to be in line with the CMCR (at
> least to my understanding, that's why the need of this discussion). (Clear
> and to the point is good, only if one doesn't mind seeing a variant from
> CMCR is being created.)
>

I'm not sure anyone is trying to make a variant of CMCR so much as find
out what CMCR actually is. At the moment, it's sort of a black box; based
on what has come out of previous tournaments, we know (well Martin Rep
knows, probably) what will be ruled in any given situation; now we just
need to determine *why*, based on what's written.

<snippage>
>
> In my article on my website, I should have had included a message about the
> "main score element" (sub-article 10.1.5). However, I figured this would be
> a message too long to write. That unwritten message may be summarized in
> brief as follows:
> (a) there is no definition of "main score element" in the rulebook;
> (b) one may logically find those elements that could be qualified as main
> score elements in the "Table Of Value Of The Score Elements" listed under
> article 9, and logically assume that elements that are describing the whole
> hand may be qualified as a main score element;
> (c) complicated relations between rules and lots of contradictions in rules
> are to be told.
>
> For instant, "All Pungs" may be considered as a main score element, while
> "Four Pure Shifted Pungs" (related to 4 pungs of the hand only, that is, not
> involving the pair of eyes) will not be qualified as a main score element -
> This is according to my understanding of the rules only, because the rules
> do not provide a definition for "main score element". With these elements,
> an example of "contradictions in rules" is seen: Element item #15 ("Four
> Pure Shifted Pungs") defines that the element shall involve 4 pungs only,
> but it further specifies that "All Pungs" (which shall involve the whole
> hand) is not to be counted. (The rule shall stand as is, although the

> If we read article 10 in whole, one shall agree that we shall begin with
> sub. 10.1.5 to assess a winning hand. Unfortunately, sub. 10.1.5 is
> itself also unclear! Although it states that the winning player "shall
> identify the main score element of the hand in accordance with the
> "Table Of Value Of The Score Elements", it doesn't specify how many main
> score elements one can include. (One cannot tell if a noun is plural or
> singular in the Chinese language. The Chinese wording of the rule does
> not specify whether one or more main score elements can be counted.
> However, since the "Table Of Value Of The Score Elements" contains more
> than one elements that can be qualified as main score elements - as
> explained in previous paragraphs, it is logic and reasonable to assume
> that one can count more than one main score elements in a hand. And in
> reality it seems to be right!)

I don't think this can be right? Since then 10.1.5.2 would forbid any
further points for the hand. I think in the context of combining sets,
"score element" should be restricted to those elements that are a
combination of sets. That seems to be the preferred interpretation, that
"pung hand" or "fully concealed" really belong to the category of "how"
you went out not "what" you have.

>
> Next, let's review sub-article 10.1.5.5.
>
> Firstly, let me repeat my translation on my website:
> 5. Principle of assessing once
> For a set *that has not been combined* [in an element], it can only be
> assessed once with *the corresponding set that has already been combined*
> [in other element].
>
> Secondly, let me repeat what Andrew ("tabstop") said:
> "I wonder if that
>> wasn't what was in the minds of the committee in 10.1.5.5: a set that
>> has not been combined [in/with the main element] can only be combined
>> once with a combined set [in/with the main element]. This would give
>> us our Ryan Morris-approved ruling on everyone's favorite (favourite
>> for the Commonwealth) example hand, *since a main scoring element must
>> be picked first* before we can start combining things.
>
> Since *all sets* have to be involved in any *main score element*, every set
> in a hand must have had been combined at least once. Based on this
> principle, my understanding of this (sub. 10.1.5.5) rule is that it is
> dealing with sets THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED IN ANY POSSIBLE ELEMENT (hence
> those added [...]). Note also that, the word "ASSESSED ONCE", not "combined
> once", is used in the rule.

I have to admit that I don't really understand the above. What's the
difference between assessed and combined? To me assessed means "scored",
as in "assessed points", but that's based on normal English, not rules
English. The only appearance of assessed is in the top 10.1.5 where they
talk about, well, assessing points. I can't see a meaningful distinction
here.

> To my understanding, sub. 10.1.5.5 shall NOT mean to deal with sets related
> specifically to the *main element* (as said by Andrew: "in/with the main
> element"). If what Andrew said were true, none of those four combinations in
> Example 3 would be possible - The winning hand will have any or all of, say,
> All Chows, Self-draw, All Simples, Fully Concealed Hand, Last Tile Draw,
> etc., etc., as the main score elements. In effect there will be NO *set that
> has not been combined [in/with the main element]*, and therefore NONE of
> those four combinations will be possible.
>
> On the other hand, since one can count (assess) all possible score elements
> "by combining all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one
> another" as per sub. 10.1.5, all those four combinations in Example 3 shall
> be allowed, so far as none of those five principles would apply.
>
> Also this from Andrew:
> "To me, that was
>> what I didn't like about Cofa's interpretation--all four combinations
>> on the list happened simultaneously; even though the sets at the bottom
>> of the list had both already been used earlier on the list, it didn't
>> matter. And if we aren't doing things sequentially, then why does rule
>> 10.1.5.5 exist in the first place?"
>
> According to sub. 10.1.5, one shall...
> 1. first pick *all* main score elements of the hand; then
> 2. count "all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one another";
> and
> 3. while counting, "one shall also observe the following [five] principles".
>
> Accordingly, in "Example 3", whether those four elements are listed in steps
> 2 & 3 combined or are listed one after one in sequence, is really not
> important. The *maximum* count will still be the same:
>
> Steps 2 & 3 combined:
> 234C 567C
> 234D 567D
> 234C 234D
> 567C 567D
>
> OR, counted in sequence (1):
> Firstly:
> 234C 567C
> 234D 567D
> Secondly:
> 234C (of the 1st set) + 567D (of the 2nd set) [none of 5 principles applies]
> 234D (of the 2nd set) + 567C (of the 1st set) [none of 5 principles applies]
Except maybe 10.1.5.2? To me, once you've put it in an element, 10.1.5.2
means you can't use it again except as allowed by 10.1.5.5 by combining it
with a previously uncombined set.

> Counted in sequence (2):
> Firstly:
> 234C 567C
> 234C 234D
> Secondly:
> 567D+567C of the 1st set [none of 5 principles applies]
> 567D+234D of the 2nd set [none of 5 principles applies]
This should be explicitly forbidden by 10.1.5.5, since 567D can only be
assessed once (you've combined it twice, and assessed it twice, if I've
got the distinction down).
> Although the 4th set is not allowed in Example 3 in accordance with the
> "Exclusionary Rule", the "Exclusionary Rule" is NOT based on CMCR (and even
>
> Further comments are always welcome!
>
Even if we don't convince anybody, we're sure going to have examples!
--
Andrew Feist http://www.math.duke.edu/~andrewf
If I could put time in a bottle, I wouldn't be able to read the articles.

G

Guest

Guest

"Andrew Feist" <andrewf@math.duke.edu> wrote in message
newsine.LNX.4.62.0504052148540.31792@stokes.math.duke.edu...
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Cofa Tsui wrote:
>
>> (As I could not reply fast enough, pardon me for the cut and paste...)
>>
>>> ... I don't think the article 10 principles are very clear(they may be
>>> clearer to someone who reads chinese) which is why I prefer the
>>> Exclusionary rule(which I find clear and to the point).
>>
>> I must say that I am as frustrated with the Chinese wording of the rules
>> as
>> you are with my English translation! But that is not my fault. Many
>> aspects
>> of the rules of CMCR are not clear enough to avoid the need of further
>> of
>> Flowers, self-drawn tiles, etc. This time is about assessing a winning
>> hand.
>> I tried to provide the *accurate* translation at all times. In several
>> previous discussions I also provided the original texts in Chinese - For
>> this my purpose is to lure/invite someone to help "proof read" my
>> translation. So far it seems I am the only one who can read Chinese in
>> this
>> newsgroup - I don't believe it! OR, does it mean my translation seems to
>> be
>> accurate!?!?
>>
>> So, if you feel unclear about my translation, it is exactly the way I
>> feel
>> about the original Chinese wording!
>
> This is unfortunate (about unclear wording). I don't speak Chinese
> myself; there are probably people here in the department who do, but I
> don't know if I can convince them to do a translating job for me (that is
> to say, I don't know how big a favor it would be to ask). Part of that is
> somehow I can't find a link to the Chinese rules, and I certainly don't
> have a paper copy. If I can find a link, maybe I can try.

Here's where I got the quote of the rules in Chinese from:
http://www.mjclub.com/RulesAndScore/Sports/
(Note the numbering of paragraphs or rule articles on the web pages might be
different from the rulebook - Probably because some of the pages rely on the
html codes to do the numbering.)

>
> I think I'm cynical enough to expect that the first version of *anything*
> produced by a committee is more-or-less worthless, but this is even worse
> than I was expecting. Making the assumption that the people who wrote the
> rules are also the ones that serve as directors/arbiters of tournaments,
> you can usually get a handle on what they meant by what rulings they make,
> which is why we're putting such emphasis on the testimony of people who
> have played CO tournaments.

....but from what I previously learned from Martin's forum and partly from
this newgroup, those who held the previous tournaments had actually produced
something that is clearly not in line with the CMCR (Firstly the numbering
of score elements is different. Then came the Q&A about discarding Flowers
that has actually modified what was in the CMCR.). I am sure the situation
will stay long before another more well thought and organized version of
CMCR is available to replace the current "beta test" version.

>
>> As far as the Exclusionary Rule is concerned, I only feel that I need to
>> clarify something because it doesn't seem to be in line with the CMCR (at
>> least to my understanding, that's why the need of this discussion).
>> (Clear
>> and to the point is good, only if one doesn't mind seeing a variant from
>> CMCR is being created.)
>>
>
> I'm not sure anyone is trying to make a variant of CMCR so much as find
> out what CMCR actually is. At the moment, it's sort of a black box; based
> on what has come out of previous tournaments, we know (well Martin Rep
> knows, probably) what will be ruled in any given situation; now we just
> need to determine *why*, based on what's written.

Finding out why is vital in keeping the CMCR genuene, how to find out why is
also important. My suggestion is that, one shall always ask for (or refer
to) the original rules when any verifications are sought, or guides given.

>
> <snippage>
>>
>> In my article on my website, I should have had included a message about
>> the
>> "main score element" (sub-article 10.1.5). However, I figured this would
>> be
>> a message too long to write. That unwritten message may be summarized in
>> brief as follows:
>> (a) there is no definition of "main score element" in the rulebook;
>> (b) one may logically find those elements that could be qualified as main
>> score elements in the "Table Of Value Of The Score Elements" listed under
>> article 9, and logically assume that elements that are describing the
>> whole
>> hand may be qualified as a main score element;
>> (c) complicated relations between rules and lots of contradictions in
>> rules
>> are to be told.
>>
>> For instant, "All Pungs" may be considered as a main score element, while
>> "Four Pure Shifted Pungs" (related to 4 pungs of the hand only, that is,
>> not
>> involving the pair of eyes) will not be qualified as a main score
>> element -
>> This is according to my understanding of the rules only, because the
>> rules
>> do not provide a definition for "main score element". With these
>> elements,
>> an example of "contradictions in rules" is seen: Element item #15 ("Four
>> Pure Shifted Pungs") defines that the element shall involve 4 pungs only,
>> but it further specifies that "All Pungs" (which shall involve the whole
>> hand) is not to be counted. (The rule shall stand as is, although the
>
>> If we read article 10 in whole, one shall agree that we shall begin with
>> sub. 10.1.5 to assess a winning hand. Unfortunately, sub. 10.1.5 is
>> itself also unclear! Although it states that the winning player "shall
>> identify the main score element of the hand in accordance with the "Table
>> Of Value Of The Score Elements", it doesn't specify how many main score
>> elements one can include. (One cannot tell if a noun is plural or
>> singular in the Chinese language. The Chinese wording of the rule does
>> not specify whether one or more main score elements can be counted.
>> However, since the "Table Of Value Of The Score Elements" contains more
>> than one elements that can be qualified as main score elements - as
>> explained in previous paragraphs, it is logic and reasonable to assume
>> that one can count more than one main score elements in a hand. And in
>> reality it seems to be right!)
>
> I don't think this can be right? Since then 10.1.5.2 would forbid any
> further points for the hand. I think in the context of combining sets,
> "score element" should be restricted to those elements that are a
> combination of sets. That seems to be the preferred interpretation, that
> "pung hand" or "fully concealed" really belong to the category of "how"
> you went out not "what" you have.

You can tell immediately whether my understanding/expression is right or
wrong: Any winning hand can easily get more than one main score elements:
All Chows, Self-draw, All Simples, Fully Concealed Hand, Last Tile Draw,
etc., etc.

I don't think sub. 10.1.5.2 (or any of those five principles for that
matter) is meant to deal with any main score elements. Sub. 10.1.5 says one
shall (a) identify the main score element, then (b) combine all possible
score elements and, while assessing the scores, (c) observe those five
principles.

I would try to express my understanding of any term or phrase ONLY if the
rules have not yet defined it. "Score element" is defined by article 5.26
and all valid score elements are listed in article 9.

>
>>
>> Next, let's review sub-article 10.1.5.5.
>>
>> Firstly, let me repeat my translation on my website:
>> 5. Principle of assessing once
>> For a set *that has not been combined* [in an element], it can only be
>> assessed once with *the corresponding set that has already been combined*
>> [in other element].
>>
>> Secondly, let me repeat what Andrew ("tabstop") said:
>> "I wonder if that
>>> wasn't what was in the minds of the committee in 10.1.5.5: a set that
>>> has not been combined [in/with the main element] can only be combined
>>> once with a combined set [in/with the main element]. This would give
>>> us our Ryan Morris-approved ruling on everyone's favorite (favourite
>>> for the Commonwealth) example hand, *since a main scoring element must
>>> be picked first* before we can start combining things.
>>
>> Since *all sets* have to be involved in any *main score element*, every
>> set
>> in a hand must have had been combined at least once. Based on this
>> principle, my understanding of this (sub. 10.1.5.5) rule is that it is
>> dealing with sets THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED IN ANY POSSIBLE ELEMENT
>> (hence
>> those added [...]). Note also that, the word "ASSESSED ONCE", not
>> "combined
>> once", is used in the rule.
>
> I have to admit that I don't really understand the above. What's the
> difference between assessed and combined? To me assessed means "scored",
> as in "assessed points", but that's based on normal English, not rules
> English. The only appearance of assessed is in the top 10.1.5 where they
> talk about, well, assessing points. I can't see a meaningful distinction
> here.

The words "assess" and "combine" used are to reflect the straight
translation of the Chinese wording. My understanding is: You can combine
pieces or sets to form combinations, but only those valid combinations (or
score elements) can be assessed for scores.

>
>> To my understanding, sub. 10.1.5.5 shall NOT mean to deal with sets
>> related
>> specifically to the *main element* (as said by Andrew: "in/with the main
>> element"). If what Andrew said were true, none of those four combinations
>> in
>> Example 3 would be possible - The winning hand will have any or all of,
>> say,
>> All Chows, Self-draw, All Simples, Fully Concealed Hand, Last Tile Draw,
>> etc., etc., as the main score elements. In effect there will be NO *set
>> that
>> has not been combined [in/with the main element]*, and therefore NONE of
>> those four combinations will be possible.
>>
>> On the other hand, since one can count (assess) all possible score
>> elements
>> "by combining all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one
>> another" as per sub. 10.1.5, all those four combinations in Example 3
>> shall
>> be allowed, so far as none of those five principles would apply.
>>
>> Also this from Andrew:
>> "To me, that was
>>> what I didn't like about Cofa's interpretation--all four combinations
>>> on the list happened simultaneously; even though the sets at the bottom
>>> of the list had both already been used earlier on the list, it didn't
>>> matter. And if we aren't doing things sequentially, then why does rule
>>> 10.1.5.5 exist in the first place?"
>>
>> According to sub. 10.1.5, one shall...
>> 1. first pick *all* main score elements of the hand; then
>> 2. count "all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one
>> another";
>> and
>> 3. while counting, "one shall also observe the following [five]
>> principles".
>>
>> Accordingly, in "Example 3", whether those four elements are listed in
>> steps
>> 2 & 3 combined or are listed one after one in sequence, is really not
>> important. The *maximum* count will still be the same:
>>
>> Steps 2 & 3 combined:
>> 234C 567C
>> 234D 567D
>> 234C 234D
>> 567C 567D
>>
>> OR, counted in sequence (1):
>> Firstly:
>> 234C 567C
>> 234D 567D
>> Secondly:
>> 234C (of the 1st set) + 567D (of the 2nd set) [none of 5 principles
>> applies]
>> 234D (of the 2nd set) + 567C (of the 1st set) [none of 5 principles
>> applies]
> Except maybe 10.1.5.2? To me, once you've put it in an element, 10.1.5.2
> means you can't use it again except as allowed by 10.1.5.5 by combining it
> with a previously uncombined set.

Sub. 10.1.5.2 won't apply here. If you visit Tom's faq#22 (newly revised)
you'll see the meaning of sub. 10.1.5.2:
"if you have 111222333 in one suit, you can either call that three pungs or
three chows. You can't claim points for calling it chows, then claim
additional points for calling it pungs." (Thanks Tom for lending me this
example ^_^)

>
>> Counted in sequence (2):
>> Firstly:
>> 234C 567C
>> 234C 234D
>> Secondly:
>> 567D+567C of the 1st set [none of 5 principles applies]
>> 567D+234D of the 2nd set [none of 5 principles applies]
> This should be explicitly forbidden by 10.1.5.5, since 567D can only be
> assessed once (you've combined it twice, and assessed it twice, if I've
> got the distinction down).

Here is why Tom's Exclusionary Rule is not complete. Sub.10.1.5 allows for
assessing scores by combining all possible elements, and sub. 10.1.5.5 deals
with sets THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED IN ANY POSSIBLE ELEMENT. In this
example, 567D can be assessed once with *the corresponding set that has
already been combined* [in other element]. As one can assess all possible
elements (sub. 10.1.5), 567D can therefore be assessed once with the
corresponding set in *each* of the first two combinations.

>> Although the 4th set is not allowed in Example 3 in accordance with the
>> "Exclusionary Rule", the "Exclusionary Rule" is NOT based on CMCR (and
>> even

Your concept, or that of the Exclusionary Rule, namely, "ANY OTHER SETS IN
THE HAND MAY BE COMBINED WITH AT MOST ONE OF THE ALREADY-SCORED SETS" cannot
simply apply on its own, and is not based on CMCR. When assessing a hand,
the whole of article 10, especially sub. 10.1.5, shall be observed.

>>
>> Further comments are always welcome!
>>
> Even if we don't convince anybody, we're sure going to have examples!

Sure!

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

G

Guest

Guest

(Snippage throughout to keep the message short(er))
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Cofa Tsui wrote:

>> This is unfortunate (about unclear wording). I don't speak Chinese
>> myself; there are probably people here in the department who do, but I
>> don't know if I can convince them to do a translating job for me (that is
>> to say, I don't know how big a favor it would be to ask). Part of that is
>> somehow I can't find a link to the Chinese rules, and I certainly don't
>> have a paper copy. If I can find a link, maybe I can try.
>
> Here's where I got the quote of the rules in Chinese from:
> http://www.mjclub.com/RulesAndScore/Sports/
> (Note the numbering of paragraphs or rule articles on the web pages might be
> different from the rulebook - Probably because some of the pages rely on the
> html codes to do the numbering.)

>>
>> I think I'm cynical enough to expect that the first version of *anything*
>> produced by a committee is more-or-less worthless, but this is even worse
>> than I was expecting. Making the assumption that the people who wrote the
>> rules are also the ones that serve as directors/arbiters of tournaments,
>> you can usually get a handle on what they meant by what rulings they make,
>> which is why we're putting such emphasis on the testimony of people who
>> have played CO tournaments.
>
> ...but from what I previously learned from Martin's forum and partly from
> this newgroup, those who held the previous tournaments had actually produced
> something that is clearly not in line with the CMCR (Firstly the numbering
> of score elements is different. Then came the Q&A about discarding Flowers
> that has actually modified what was in the CMCR.). I am sure the situation
> will stay long before another more well thought and organized version of
> CMCR is available to replace the current "beta test" version.

Well, if the original CMCR rules have holes/are inconsistent, can you say
what the "original" CMCR is, and if so what good does it do? An example,
which may or may not be valid (since I haven't seen the entire rules):
what happens when a blind player shows up at a tournament with a special
set? Do you allow the use of the "nonstandard" equipment? Do you allow
the player to have assistance in picking tiles? If you don't, and the
blind player knocks over part of a wall, what then? Do you make the
players announce their melds? Do you let the blind player keep score with
a Braille writer? And if you make these rule changes, is it stilll CMCR?
If the rules aren't clear/consistent on a point (or many, many points),
you have to do *something*, which is where the Q&A booklet comes in (i.e.,
these are the decisions about the rules that experienced directors and
players have agreed upon). Granted, the Q&A doesn't have official rules
in it, but unless there's a clear contradition I would think the Q&A would
be right (I would certainly trust it over myself anytime about the CMCR
rules).
>>
>>> As far as the Exclusionary Rule is concerned, I only feel that I need to
>>> clarify something because it doesn't seem to be in line with the CMCR (at
>>> least to my understanding, that's why the need of this discussion).
>>> (Clear
>>> and to the point is good, only if one doesn't mind seeing a variant from
>>> CMCR is being created.)
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure anyone is trying to make a variant of CMCR so much as find
>> out what CMCR actually is. At the moment, it's sort of a black box; based
>> on what has come out of previous tournaments, we know (well Martin Rep
>> knows, probably) what will be ruled in any given situation; now we just
>> need to determine *why*, based on what's written.
>
> Finding out why is vital in keeping the CMCR genuene, how to find out why is
> also important. My suggestion is that, one shall always ask for (or refer
> to) the original rules when any verifications are sought, or guides given.
>
>>
>> I don't think this can be right? Since then 10.1.5.2 would forbid any
>> further points for the hand. I think in the context of combining sets,
>> "score element" should be restricted to those elements that are a
>> combination of sets. That seems to be the preferred interpretation, that
>> "pung hand" or "fully concealed" really belong to the category of "how"
>> you went out not "what" you have.
>
> You can tell immediately whether my understanding/expression is right or
> wrong: Any winning hand can easily get more than one main score elements:
> All Chows, Self-draw, All Simples, Fully Concealed Hand, Last Tile Draw,
> etc., etc.
>
> I don't think sub. 10.1.5.2 (or any of those five principles for that
> matter) is meant to deal with any main score elements. Sub. 10.1.5 says one
> shall (a) identify the main score element, then (b) combine all possible
> score elements and, while assessing the scores, (c) observe those five
> principles.
>
> I would try to express my understanding of any term or phrase ONLY if the
> rules have not yet defined it. "Score element" is defined by article 5.26
> and all valid score elements are listed in article 9.

So 10.1.5.2 deals with all score elements except the ones that it doesn't.
I admit that's a pretty flippant way to put it, but that's my view of the
rule too, so I think we agree. (I agree that it shouldn't apply to
whole-hand scoring elements, which I don't think of as combined in the
sense of the rule, and I'm sticking to that interpretation.)

>>
>>>
>>> Next, let's review sub-article 10.1.5.5.
>>>
>>> Firstly, let me repeat my translation on my website:
>>> 5. Principle of assessing once
>>> For a set *that has not been combined* [in an element], it can only be
>>> assessed once with *the corresponding set that has already been combined*
>>> [in other element].
>>>
>
> The words "assess" and "combine" used are to reflect the straight
> translation of the Chinese wording. My understanding is: You can combine
> pieces or sets to form combinations, but only those valid combinations (or
> score elements) can be assessed for scores.

So that's normal English then.
>>
>>> To my understanding, sub. 10.1.5.5 shall NOT mean to deal with sets
>>> related
>>> specifically to the *main element* (as said by Andrew: "in/with the main
>>> element"). If what Andrew said were true, none of those four combinations
>>> in
>>> Example 3 would be possible - The winning hand will have any or all of,
>>> say,
>>> All Chows, Self-draw, All Simples, Fully Concealed Hand, Last Tile Draw,
>>> etc., etc., as the main score elements. In effect there will be NO *set
>>> that
>>> has not been combined [in/with the main element]*, and therefore NONE of
>>> those four combinations will be possible.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, since one can count (assess) all possible score
>>> elements
>>> "by combining all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one
>>> another" as per sub. 10.1.5, all those four combinations in Example 3
>>> shall
>>> be allowed, so far as none of those five principles would apply.
>>>
>>> Also this from Andrew:
>>> "To me, that was
>>>> what I didn't like about Cofa's interpretation--all four combinations
>>>> on the list happened simultaneously; even though the sets at the bottom
>>>> of the list had both already been used earlier on the list, it didn't
>>>> matter. And if we aren't doing things sequentially, then why does rule
>>>> 10.1.5.5 exist in the first place?"
>>>
>>> According to sub. 10.1.5, one shall...
>>> 1. first pick *all* main score elements of the hand; then
>>> 2. count "all score elements that are not inevitably linked to one
>>> another";
--combine, not count; that comes later.
(according to the translation on your site)
>>> and
>>> 3. while counting, "one shall also observe the following [five]
>>> principles".
--same.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, in "Example 3", whether those four elements are listed in
>>> steps
>>> 2 & 3 combined or are listed one after one in sequence, is really not
>>> important. The *maximum* count will still be the same:
>>>
>>> Steps 2 & 3 combined:
>>> 234C 567C
>>> 234D 567D
>>> 234C 234D
>>> 567C 567D
>>>
>>> OR, counted in sequence (1):
>>> Firstly:
>>> 234C 567C
>>> 234D 567D
>>> Secondly:
>>> 234C (of the 1st set) + 567D (of the 2nd set) [none of 5 principles
>>> applies]
>>> 234D (of the 2nd set) + 567C (of the 1st set) [none of 5 principles
>>> applies]
>> Except maybe 10.1.5.2? To me, once you've put it in an element, 10.1.5.2
>> means you can't use it again except as allowed by 10.1.5.5 by combining it
>> with a previously uncombined set.
>
> Sub. 10.1.5.2 won't apply here. If you visit Tom's faq#22 (newly revised)
> you'll see the meaning of sub. 10.1.5.2:
> "if you have 111222333 in one suit, you can either call that three pungs or
> three chows. You can't claim points for calling it chows, then claim
> additional points for calling it pungs." (Thanks Tom for lending me this
> example ^_^)

I'm not going to insist on my interpretation of 10.1.5.2, but it doesn't
really seem that outrageous to me.
>
>>
>>> Counted in sequence (2):
>>> Firstly:
>>> 234C 567C
>>> 234C 234D
>>> Secondly:
>>> 567D+567C of the 1st set [none of 5 principles applies]
>>> 567D+234D of the 2nd set [none of 5 principles applies]
>> This should be explicitly forbidden by 10.1.5.5, since 567D can only be
>> assessed once (you've combined it twice, and assessed it twice, if I've
>> got the distinction down).
>
> Here is why Tom's Exclusionary Rule is not complete. Sub.10.1.5 allows for
> assessing scores by combining all possible elements, and sub. 10.1.5.5 deals
> with sets THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED IN ANY POSSIBLE ELEMENT. In this
> example, 567D can be assessed once with *the corresponding set that has
> already been combined* [in other element]. As one can assess all possible
> elements (sub. 10.1.5), 567D can therefore be assessed once with the
> corresponding set in *each* of the first two combinations.
*each* is a pretty big step. I don't see an each in the rule, I see a
once. If that's what the blue asterisks are supposed to represent (each,
that is), then fine. (In fact, reading the rule with my "rule hat" on, I
would put the "natural" emphasis on "once" rather than on that phrase, but
that's just me.) This would appear to be one of those rules needing
clarification....

>
>>> Although the 4th set is not allowed in Example 3 in accordance with the
>>> "Exclusionary Rule", the "Exclusionary Rule" is NOT based on CMCR (and
>>> even
>
> Your concept, or that of the Exclusionary Rule, namely, "ANY OTHER SETS IN
> THE HAND MAY BE COMBINED WITH AT MOST ONE OF THE ALREADY-SCORED SETS" cannot
> simply apply on its own, and is not based on CMCR. When assessing a hand,
> the whole of article 10, especially sub. 10.1.5, shall be observed.

Thought experiment: what purpose does rule 10.1.5.5 serve, under
your interpretation? The best example I can think of is this, which is
completely impractical, but: suppose you have 123C 456C 789C, but for
whatever reason you don't claim full straight, but decide to claim (123C
456C) as your first score element claimed. Would you allow claiming both
123C 789C and 456C 789C for additional points, or would this violate
10.5.5 (using both sets of the same element with the same non-combined
set); and is this the only (type of) example to which it applies? (And
pretend for the sake of the experiment that 10.1.5.3 isn't there, which
wouldn't allow the 456C 789C.)
I feel that I know what you think 10.1.5.5 doesn't say, but I have no idea
what you think it does say.

>>>
>>> Further comments are always welcome!
>>>
>> Even if we don't convince anybody, we're sure going to have examples!
>
> Sure!
>
>

--
Andrew Feist http://www.math.duke.edu/~andrewf
If I could put time in a bottle, I wouldn't be able to read the articles.

G

Guest

Guest

"Andrew Feist" <andrewf@math.duke.edu> wrote
>

That one's been in the FAQs for some time now.

> ...I haven't seen the entire rules):

If you mean the entire CMCR translated into English, nobody has. But if you

> If I could put time in a bottle, I wouldn't be able to read the articles.

We'd all be better able to read the articles if you would do us the kindness
to excise unnecessary parts of the previous post when responding. No
criticism intended - it's just hard to sift through all the stuff to find
the meaty parts (your replies). Best to just keep the salient parts you're
replying to. The couple extra moments of your time to edit out the noise
would be greatly appreciated by us all.

Don't stop tabbing, Andrew! (^_^) I think the group is enjoying seeing such
a lively conversation after the long dry spell...
Tom

G

Guest

Guest

Tom Sloper said:

> If you mean the entire CMCR translated into English, nobody has.

So you're saying we should pass up the Classical game for an untranslated
ruleset issued in 1998 by a faceless bureaucracy?

Simon Davosi

--
American Code Of Laws For Mah-Jongg: http://tinyurl.com/445ld (in English!)

G

Guest

Guest

"Simon Davosi" wrote...
>
> So you're saying we should pass up the Classical game for an untranslated
> ruleset issued in 1998 by a faceless bureaucracy?

Oh, how could I have been so blind. Yes. Facelessness equates with
untrustworthiness. So forget everything I said, everybody. We should all
follow, um, the faceless person instead! (^_^)

Just kidding. I've met several of the folks of that "bureaucracy" - they're
real people, they're quite nice, and they have faces. They even have real
names! (~_^) And we'll be getting a translation this summer, if I understand
correctly.

Tom

G

Guest

Guest

Tom Sloper wrote:

>> So you're saying we should pass up the Classical game for an untranslated
>> ruleset issued in 1998 by a faceless bureaucracy?
>
> Oh, how could I have been so blind...

OK, I assume that, yes, you think we should pass up the Classical game for
an untranslated ruleset issued in 1998.

> Facelessness equates with untrustworthiness.

Actually, facelessness + bureaucracy = not my idea of a great way to spend a
weekend.

> Just kidding. I've met several of the folks of that "bureaucracy"

When you think of good times and great gaming, do you think of the Chinese
Communist Party?

> And we'll be getting a translation this summer, if I understand correctly.

How do you even know if you LIKE the game if you've never read the rules?

Simon Davosi

--
American Code Of Laws For Mah-Jongg: http://tinyurl.com/445ld

G

Guest

Guest

"Andrew Feist" <andrewf@math.duke.edu> wrote in message
newsine.LNX.4.62.0504060740250.588@tux7.math.duke.edu...
> (Snippage throughout to keep the message short(er))
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Cofa Tsui wrote:
>
[...]

>>
>> ...but from what I previously learned from Martin's forum and partly from
>> this newgroup, those who held the previous tournaments had actually
>> produced
>> something that is clearly not in line with the CMCR (Firstly the
>> numbering
>> of score elements is different. Then came the Q&A about discarding
>> Flowers
>> that has actually modified what was in the CMCR.). I am sure the
>> situation
>> will stay long before another more well thought and organized version of
>> CMCR is available to replace the current "beta test" version.
>
> Well, if the original CMCR rules have holes/are inconsistent, can you say
> what the "original" CMCR is, and if so what good does it do?

The original CMCR is, I believe, the booklet that was first published in
Chinese in 1998. It might have holes or inconsistence, in that case
"additional" or "attachment" regulations, if any, may function. I guess
those Q&A may serve this function in any given events. However, until the
CMCR is officially changed, those additional, attachment or Q&A shall not
claim to replace the original CMCR. I'm not quite clear about your question,
let me know if you need further verifications.

An example,
> which may or may not be valid (since I haven't seen the entire rules):

My answers are in [*...] (subject to the CMCR stipulations):
> what happens when a blind player shows up at a tournament with a special
> set? [*No.] Do you allow the use of the "nonstandard" equipment? [*No.]
> Do you allow the player to have assistance in picking tiles? [*No.] If
> you don't, and the blind player knocks over part of a wall, what then? [*I
> think the CMCR has articles to deal with situations like this.] Do you
> make the players announce their melds? [*No.] Do you let the blind
> player keep score with a Braille writer? [*I believe this act won't
> violate the CMCR. However, he/she would have difficult in keeping the time
> limit allowed for any move.] And if you make these rule changes, is it
> stilll CMCR? [*Attachment regulations don't change the CMCR. They are
> conditions that apply to the event that adopts it.]

> If the rules aren't clear/consistent on a point (or many, many points),
> you have to do *something*, which is where the Q&A booklet comes in (i.e.,
> these are the decisions about the rules that experienced directors and
> players have agreed upon). Granted, the Q&A doesn't have official rules
> in it, but unless there's a clear contradition I would think the Q&A would
> be right (I would certainly trust it over myself anytime about the CMCR
> rules).

It's fair, as outlined above.

[...]

>>>> Counted in sequence (2):
>>>> Firstly:
>>>> 234C 567C
>>>> 234C 234D
>>>> Secondly:
>>>> 567D+567C of the 1st set [none of 5 principles applies]
>>>> 567D+234D of the 2nd set [none of 5 principles applies]
>>> This should be explicitly forbidden by 10.1.5.5, since 567D can only be
>>> assessed once (you've combined it twice, and assessed it twice, if I've
>>> got the distinction down).
>>
>> Here is why Tom's Exclusionary Rule is not complete. Sub.10.1.5 allows
>> for
>> assessing scores by combining all possible elements, and sub. 10.1.5.5
>> deals
>> with sets THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED IN ANY POSSIBLE ELEMENT. In this
>> example, 567D can be assessed once with *the corresponding set that has
>> already been combined* [in other element]. As one can assess all possible
>> elements (sub. 10.1.5), 567D can therefore be assessed once with the
>> corresponding set in *each* of the first two combinations.
> *each* is a pretty big step. I don't see an each in the rule, I see a
> once. If that's what the blue asterisks are supposed to represent (each,
> that is), then fine. (In fact, reading the rule with my "rule hat" on, I
> would put the "natural" emphasis on "once" rather than on that phrase, but
> that's just me.) This would appear to be one of those rules needing
> clarification....
>
>>
>>>> Although the 4th set is not allowed in Example 3 in accordance with the
>>>> "Exclusionary Rule", the "Exclusionary Rule" is NOT based on CMCR (and
>>>> even
>>
>> Your concept, or that of the Exclusionary Rule, namely, "ANY OTHER SETS
>> IN
>> THE HAND MAY BE COMBINED WITH AT MOST ONE OF THE ALREADY-SCORED SETS"
>> cannot
>> simply apply on its own, and is not based on CMCR. When assessing a hand,
>> the whole of article 10, especially sub. 10.1.5, shall be observed.
>
> Thought experiment: what purpose does rule 10.1.5.5 serve, under your
> interpretation? The best example I can think of is this, which is
> completely impractical, but: suppose you have 123C 456C 789C, but for
> whatever reason you don't claim full straight, but decide to claim (123C
> 456C) as your first score element claimed. Would you allow claiming both
> 123C 789C and 456C 789C for additional points, or would this violate
> 10.5.5 (using both sets of the same element with the same non-combined
> set); and is this the only (type of) example to which it applies? (And
> pretend for the sake of the experiment that 10.1.5.3 isn't there, which
> wouldn't allow the 456C 789C.)
> I feel that I know what you think 10.1.5.5 doesn't say, but I have no idea
> what you think it does say.

Sub. 10.1.5.5 deals with sets *that have not been combined in any possible
element*. To better understand this sub-article, it shall be better to bring
in sub. 10.1.5 at the same time. Sub. 10.1.5 allows a player to assess the
scores by *combining all possible elements*. Sub. 10.1.5.5 deals with sets a
player wants to combine with *each other*. I think Example 3 on my website
is still a good example, to show that *all possible elements* are combined
and, while assessing the scores, none of the 5 principles applies to the
combinations.

As to your example, both 123C 789C and 456C 789C are allowed (if they are
valid score elements). This will illustrate how "assessed once with *the
corresponding set" works, and why *each* was emphasized in my previous
example.

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

jr

Distinguished

"Simon Davosi" wrote:
>> I assume that, yes, you think we should pass up the Classical game for an
untranslated ruleset issued in 1998.

I've read your postings and I've tried, with little success, to figure out your
point of view and the reasoning behnd it.

If you really know much about mahjong, you must know that for two decades there
has been growing interest in "new style" (pattern-based) mahjong, and growing
frustration that there was no codified "new style" ruleset that had gained the
respect and confidence of the international community.

We can giggle about Tractor Racing contests and the like, but it's undeniable
that the Sports Commission's release of the Chinese Official ruleset was a Major
Event. Yes, there are clarifications needed, but the major influences in the mj
community are committed and on-board.

We may continue to play HKOS (or CC or whatever) for fun but we will be
practicing (and debating) CO with an eye on the next tournament.

>> Actually, facelessness + bureaucracy = not my idea of a great way to spend a
weekend.

Cheeky, but you side-stepped Tom's intent. We've met the learned gentlemen who
designed this game. They do not hide behind pseudonyms.

>> How do you even know if you LIKE the game if you've never read the rules?

We've read them, played by them on the PC and with friends and traveled the
world to play in international CO tournaments. We love it.

--
J. R. Fitch
Nine Dragons Software
http://www.ninedragons.com

G

Guest

Guest

"jr" <jrfitch@ninedragons.com> wrote in message
news:42547FC1.6D9E3C3D@ninedragons.com...
> I've read your postings and I've tried, with little success, to figure out
> your point of view and the reasoning behnd it.

Allow me a brief explanation to clear up whatever confusion may exist and
spare us unnecessary disagreement. After I posted the 1924 American Code to
this forum one week ago, the effort was degraded as "just old stuff that's
easily found in the library" and it was suggested that I "promulgate"
Chinese Official instead, alongside petulant criticism toward my valid use
of a pen name. Indeed, the only reason CO came up in the debate is because
it was held up as a new global standard for serious game play, thus making
the classical rules irrelevant as anything but an historical curiosity. So
my comments should be understood in their proper context; as I have said on
a previous occasion, I had no idea that posting mahjong rules on a mahjong
newsgroup would prove so controversial.

Simon Davosi

--
American Code Of Laws For Mah-Jongg: http://tinyurl.com/445ld

G

Guest

Guest

"Simon Davosi" wrote:
> Allow me a brief explanation to clear up whatever confusion may exist

Please. You can do so by answering the questions at the end of this post.

> After I posted the 1924 American Code to this forum one week ago, the
> effort was degraded as "just old stuff that's easily found in the library"

And you rightly showed me that I could be wrong - that perhaps it wouldn't
be easy to find those old books in the library.

> and it was suggested that I "promulgate" Chinese Official instead,

Because you didn't state your reason for posting the 1924 Code of Laws, I
suggested a more current set of rules, and gave reasons for doing so.

> alongside petulant criticism toward my valid use of a pen name.

Two fake names (not just one). Look at the other posts here on the
newsgroup. We all have real names, we all know who we all are - we even know
where in the world most of us live. You're the only one here who's hiding
his identity.

> Indeed, the only reason CO came up in the debate is because it was held up
> as a new global standard for serious game play,

And that's not a good enough reason? (^_^)

> thus making the classical rules irrelevant as anything but an historical
> curiosity.

I hadn't realized that others in the group weren't aware of the 1924 Code.

> So my comments should be understood in their proper context;

And what is that context? What were you hoping to accomplish by posting the
Laws here?

> as I have said on a previous occasion, I had no idea that posting mahjong
> rules on a mahjong newsgroup would prove so controversial.

A mask-wearing stranger walks into a game clubhouse and announces, "here are
the rules of the game you play." What's the point of doing that?

(2) who is the stranger,

(3) why does the stranger think we don't already know the rules of the game
we're playing,

(4) why is the stranger reading us the rules,

(5) why those particular rules, and

(6) what kind of reaction does the stranger expect from the club members?

(7) Perhaps the stranger didn't realize there were almost 30 variants and
that people prefer sticking to their own variant - without having to listen
to anonymous strangers reading them the rules to some other variant?

Tom

G

Guest

Guest

Tom Sloper said:

> Because you didn't state your reason for posting the 1924 Code of Laws, I
> suggested a more current set of rules, and gave reasons for doing so.

1.) I feel the 1924 Code deserves a second look, as a vital piece of
America's mah-jongg tradition, in that it formalized the Golden Age game of
the 1920s.
2.) I feel the 1924 Code is important as an authoritative official ruleset
that defines the American game, with key simularities and differences from
the game we know as "Chinese Classical," and it remains an intriguing basis
for contemporary play.
3.) This newsgroup is rather sleepy and I thought you guys might appreciate
the contribution.

> A mask-wearing stranger walks into a game clubhouse and announces, "here
> are the rules of the game you play." What's the point of doing that?

Except that I didn't do that. I posted the 1924 rules without comment. You
proceeded to attack my effort.

> (1) Why the mask (2) who is the stranger,

OK, I use a pen name. Get over it. This is usenet, for crying out loud. It
is perfectly legal. This is rec.games.mahjong, not rec.privacy and I don't
wish to rehash a old debate.

> (3) why does the stranger think we don't already know the rules of the
> game we're playing,

I never said any such thing. This is the logical fallacy of petitio
principii, otherwise known as begging the question.

> (4) why is the stranger reading us the rules, (5) why those particular
> rules, and (6) what kind of reaction does > the stranger expect from the
> club members?

I've explained this before. I've been more than generous in responding to
you, while you have been censorious and inquisitional from the start.

> (7) Perhaps the stranger didn't realize there were almost 30 variants and
> that people prefer sticking to their own variant without having to listen
> to anonymous strangers reading them the rules to some other variant?

Tom, all I did was post a 1924 rule set and you insist on questioning my
motives. You are being terribly rude, considering I spent some valuable time
scanning and proofing a public domain text. I present a gift intended to
help a moribund newsgroup and you react with ill-mannered suspicion about my
use of a pseudonym.

Simon Davosi

--
American Code Of Laws For Mah-Jongg: http://tinyurl.com/445ld

G

Guest

Guest

"Simon Davosi" wrote:
> 1.) I feel the 1924 Code deserves a second look, as a vital piece of
> America's mah-jongg tradition, in that it formalized the Golden Age game
> of the 1920s.

I have come to see that it is indeed worthwhile to have the original
document (the 1924 American Code of Laws) available to the mah-jongg
populace. I haven't checked your document against my 1924 sources. In your
March 31, 2005 11:22 PM post you said you'd "created" the text based on the
versions in Hartman and Work. This means it's probably very suitable as a
guide for playing, and you are to be commended for bringing it to the
attention of folks who hadn't seen it previously.

However, as a historical document, it is, shall we say, "perhaps not quite
ideal" -- depending on how much editorializing you did in creating it from
Hartman and Work's books. I only say "perhaps." Without doing a thorough
analysis, I can't say one way or the other. No disparagement intended - I'm
only pointing out a fact. As a guide for playing, it's probably great; but
as a historical document, maybe not exactly great. I don't know.

> 2.) I feel the 1924 Code is important as an authoritative official ruleset
> that defines the American game, with key simularities and differences from
> the game we know as "Chinese Classical,"

I still fail to see _key differences_ between CC and "the American game."
But for me to continue discussing that with you is fruitless. I agree that
it's worthwhile to have an authoritative CC description besides Millington.
Mission accomplished.

> 3.) This newsgroup is rather sleepy and I thought you guys might
> appreciate the contribution.

I'm fairly certain the group has been entertained by our exchange. Your
purpose in this regard has surely been accomplished successfully. (^_^)

> Tom, all I did was post a 1924 rule set and you insist on questioning my
> motives.

Motives are everything.

> and you react with ill-mannered suspicion about my use of a pseudonym.

You misunderstand my motives - and motives are important. My most recent
post was not intended to berate you for being disguised, but only to explain
the way I've been reacting to you. I personally think it's reasonable (if
perhaps not admirable) to act suspicious when dealing with people wearing
disguises. Perhaps this is what the future holds for us, now that the
internet has started reshaping our society - and perhaps I need to adapt
better, and faster.

Tom

G

Guest

Guest

In article <4255966c\$0\$30514\$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Simon Davosi <mahjong@nospam.xx> wrote:

>scanning and proofing a public domain text. I present a gift intended to

Why, incidentally, is the American Code public domain?

G

Guest

Guest

>>scanning and proofing a public domain text. I present a gift intended to
>
> Why, incidentally, is the American Code public domain?

It was published in 1924 and I can't find evidence that it was ever renewed.
The magazine that sponsored the rules has vanished into the dust, as has the
John H. Smith publishing house. and Hasbro (which owns Parker Brothers) does
not include the 1924 code in its collection of rulesets. If you look up
Mah-jongg, you get an old copy of the NMJL set.

Once the old "Mah-jongg" trademark expired, I don't think there was any
business reason left to keep the rights to the old game. Alas, mahjong has
been a truly marginal part of American life since the stock market crashed
in 1929.

Bits and pieces of the American Code group's work have already been online
elsewhere, including Sloperama and the Jim May Mahjong Museum site
(mahjongmuseum.com). I think I'm the first to post the actual text of the
Code online, perhaps the first person ever to reissue it since 1924.

Simon Davosi

--
American Code Of Laws For Mah-Jongg: http://tinyurl.com/445ld

G

Guest

Guest

Tom Sloper said:

> However, as a historical document, it is, shall we say, "perhaps not
quite
> ideal" -- depending on how much editorializing you did in creating it from
> Hartman and Work's books.

Whoops, I meant "created" in the sense of "I scanned it, ran it through OCR
and then created a text document." I'm pretty sure it matches the Laws as
printed, except maybe in a few typographical area that I didn't catch. I
read the document over a few times since I posted it here and nothing stood
out.

It is certainly more succinct than Millington's rules for Chinese Classical.

Simon Davosi

--
American Code Of Laws For Mah-Jongg: http://tinyurl.com/445ld