Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (
More info?)
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Cofa Tsui wrote:
> (As I could not reply fast enough, pardon me for the cut and paste...)
>
> Let me start with a quote from Morten Andersen:
>> ... 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
> verifications or discussions. Previous examples are about the discarding 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.
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 response, let me first start with sub-article 10.1(5).
>
> 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
> contradiction is there.)
> 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
> contradictory to sub. 10.1.5).
>
> 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.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram