TEXT: American Code Of Laws For Mah-Jongg

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

In article <p5ydnUJd4NUyXc3fRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Tom Sloper <tomsterSPAM@sloperamaSPAM.com> wrote:
>>"Simon Davosi" <mahjongg@rules.co> wrote
>>> Millington lists these special hands from CC as missing in AC: Wriggling
>>> Snake,

>Not really a CC hand (added after the 1920s by Millington)...

??
Wriggling Snake exists in English books from 1924.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

"Julian Bradfield" <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Wriggling Snake exists in English books from 1924.

Is that right? Do you know of one offhand I can check? And if so, I wonder
why it's not listed in the Code? If you're saying it's listed in one or more
books printed in England, maybe the news just never made it over here...

Tom (wrong again as usual!) (^_^)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

In article <iPudnfklX_rA58zfRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
Tom Sloper <tomsterSPAM@sloperamaSPAM.com> wrote:
>"Julian Bradfield" <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Wriggling Snake exists in English books from 1924.
>Is that right? Do you know of one offhand I can check? And if so, I wonder

Hm. I may have to withdraw that statement. It's mentioned in the
Queen's Club Rules, but is actually there another name for Nine Gates.
The book I first looked at is in the office, and I shan't be there for
a couple of days, so I'll look again when I am and see whether the
same applies there.

On the topic of limits, Chiang Lee's book says, of thirteen wonders,
that "some European players" claim that a pair must be obtained to one
of the thirteen, but that this is not sound Mah-Jong, because thirteen
wonders is not a normal Mah-Jong hand anyway, so needs no pair. Thus
one gets the limit as soon as one has the thirteen tiles.
Have you ever heard of anybody playing this way?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

"Julian Bradfield" <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote
>
> On the topic of limits, Chiang Lee's book says, of thirteen wonders,
> that "some European players" claim that a pair must be obtained to one
> of the thirteen, but that this is not sound Mah-Jong, because thirteen
> wonders is not a normal Mah-Jong hand anyway, so needs no pair. Thus
> one gets the limit as soon as one has the thirteen tiles.
> Have you ever heard of anybody playing this way?

The only way I've heard of this hand being made is that it must have
fourteen tiles (as all hands must be) - and that the 14th tile should be a
duplicate of one of the other 13. The only variations on that I've heard of
until now are in regards to whether the duplicate can be had before the last
call (or it should be a 13-way call, waiting only for the duplicate).

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

DW wrote:
> Julian Bradfield wrote:
> > In article <M7ednYQEpujUVNPfRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
> > Tom Sloper <tomsterSPAM@sloperamaSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> >>help figuring out how to score the darned thing... (^_^) CC scoring
is the
> >>most complicated scoring in all of mah-jongg.
> >
> >
> > Complexity is in the eye of the beholder.
> > One reason I have no interest in modern variants, notably CO, is
that
> > I can't face learning how to score them (and therefore, I can't
face
> > learning enough to work out what a good hand is).
> >
> I would agree with this
> I haven't found a local group to play mj with, and when I have
persuaded
> the family to play, most of the time, and arguments, have been about
the
> scores. I accept mj could really be played with any rules that a
group
> mutually accept, but it would be nice to play ca game that had wider
> commonality.
>
> DW

Speaking of complexity and "can't face learning ...", I'd point you all
to an article in the Dec. 2004 issue of the IEEE Computer magazine.
The article is called "Interface Quotas and Internet-Derived Value" by
Bob Colwell. It basically proposes that we all have a limit on how
much "stuff" we can learn and retain, when we reach our limit, we
cannot learn new tricks.

Anyway, back to MJ, if DW wants to learn a simple (easy scoring) form
of MJ, then there is nothing easier than HKOS. I think you and your
family will find HKOS to be a very simple and friendly game, much
easier to score than CC and CO. And there is a large community of HKOS
playersif you want to play with others. Good luck.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

<d_lau@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1112716978.647090.22760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Anyway, back
to MJ, if DW wants to learn a simple (easy scoring) form
> of MJ, then there is nothing easier than HKOS. I think you and your
> family will find HKOS to be a very simple and friendly game, much
> easier to score than CC and CO. And there is a large community of HKOS
> playersif you want to play with others. Good luck.
>

HKOS and CC are both nifty games. With CC, you can go out with a low-scoring
hand and pre-empt your opponent who may be collecting a limit hand. You can
do this in Japanese, so long as you either call reach or tsumo with a
concealed hand. HKOS, like the one-double game in the American Code, is
stacked against chicken hands. The nice thing about HKOS is that it retained
the flowers and seasons. And that you can actually find humans who play it.

Simon Davosi

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes:

>>> Wriggling Snake exists in English books from 1924.
> Hm. I may have to withdraw that statement. It's mentioned in the
> Queen's Club Rules, but is actually there another name for Nine Gates.
> The book I first looked at is in the office, and I shan't be there for
> a couple of days, so I'll look again when I am and see whether the
> same applies there.

Nope, I was right the first time.
The Wriggling Snake, as defined by Millington, appears in:
E.G. Reeve, "Advanced Mah Jong", published by the author (1924).

This is a book of some obscurity. Neither the British Library nor the
Bodleian nor Cambridge possesses a copy!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

"Julian Bradfield" <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote
>
> Nope, I was right the first time.
> The Wriggling Snake, as defined by Millington, appears in:
> E.G. Reeve, "Advanced Mah Jong", published by the author (1924).

Wow, that's some good detective work, Julian!

> This is a book of some obscurity. Neither the British Library nor the
> Bodleian nor Cambridge possesses a copy!

Nor do I. (^_^)'

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

In article <bumdnUtXmdzIjcnfRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
Tom Sloper <tomsterSPAM@sloperamaSPAM.com> wrote:
>> The Wriggling Snake, as defined by Millington, appears in:
>> E.G. Reeve, "Advanced Mah Jong", published by the author (1924).
>Wow, that's some good detective work, Julian!

More serendipity than detective work. All I did was pick up the book
lying on my desk (where it has been ever since I bought it some months
or years ago, I forget) and check the table of contents for "Wriggling Snake"!
On a cursory look through, it seems to have some interesting things to
say. I'll add it to my list of books to prepare a summary of...but
don't hold your breath.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

Simon Davosi wrote:
> <d_lau@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1112716978.647090.22760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...>
> > Anyway, back to MJ, if DW wants to learn a simple (easy scoring)
form
> > of MJ, then there is nothing easier than HKOS. I think you and
your
> > family will find HKOS to be a very simple and friendly game, much
> > easier to score than CC and CO. And there is a large community of
HKOS
> > playersif you want to play with others. Good luck.
> >
>
> HKOS and CC are both nifty games. With CC, you can go out with a
low-scoring
> hand and pre-empt your opponent who may be collecting a limit hand.
You can
> do this in Japanese, so long as you either call reach or tsumo with a

> concealed hand. HKOS, like the one-double game in the American Code,
is
> stacked against chicken hands. The nice thing about HKOS is that it
retained
> the flowers and seasons. And that you can actually find humans who
play it.
>
> Simon Davosi

The original complaint was about the complexity of the CC scoring
system and the difficulty in finding players, so I was just trying to
point DW to a simpler scoring game.

I am curious what you mean by "HKOS is ... stacked against chicken
hands.", can you clarify please. Thank you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

<d_lau@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1112892231.971620.117770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The original complaint was about the complexity of the CC scoring
> system and the difficulty in finding players, so I was just trying to
> point DW to a simpler scoring game.

My point was that CC is not necessarily complex, since CO has 81 special
hands and Japanese Modern has reach, dora, chombo, yaku, etc.

(Oh, BTW, the next time I try to get a local table game going, I will try
for HKOS since it is simple and plenty of people around me already know it.)

> I am curious what you mean by "HKOS is ... stacked against chicken
> hands.", can you clarify please. Thank you.

What I meant was that in HKOS, the baseline is one fan, meaning the chicken
hand counts as nothing. It is still a great game, of course, although it
involves different sorts of strategies.

Simon Davosi

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (More info?)

Simon Davosi wrote:
> <d_lau@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1112892231.971620.117770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > I am curious what you mean by "HKOS is ... stacked against chicken
> > hands.", can you clarify please. Thank you.
>
> What I meant was that in HKOS, the baseline is one fan, meaning the
chicken
> hand counts as nothing. It is still a great game, of course, although
it
> involves different sorts of strategies.

Hmmm... We must be playing two different kinds of HKOS. The version of
HKOS that I learned and play, the baseline is the chicken hand -- i.e.,
simply completing the 14-tile in any combination. The fahns are added
on top of the baseline. That's why in my mind, there is nothing
"stacked against chicken hands" with the original HKOS. Since I
learned this style of HKOS from people from HK (and I've played it this
way when I was in HK), I'd assume that that is the popular definition
of HKOS (at least with the HK people/players). Maybe you learned to
play "HOKS" on Yahoo!, where some players like to set minimum fahn
limits, that's why you think the game is stacked against chicken hands?
If you want to learn HKOS, you should really look into the fantastic
program from Nine Dragons -- and as an added bonus, you can now also
play CO with a new "patch".