Archived from groups: rec.games.mahjong (
More info?)
"Julian Bradfield" <jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e6cmzwixyqj.fsf@palau.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> d_lau@my-deja.com writes:
>
>
>> In a friendly game, it is a non-issue. But in tournament play, I can
>> see how allowing Player B to call "pung" and proceed to make a "kong"
>> can be a problem if Player C is not allowed to claim a win after Player
>> B has laid out a "kong".
>
> It should be a non-issue in tournament play as well, because the rules
> should cover the situation. In most rules player C *is* allowed to
> claim a win then, because player B has not yet discarded
> or player-to-the-right-of-B has not yet drawn
> or player-to-the-right-of-B has not yet discarded,
> as the case may be.
I agree that it shouldn't be an issue as long as the rules are clear.
Previously, Dee said:
Player C, who can win on the discarded tile, chose NOT to say anything
(note, this is not "giving up" his chance to win, but for whatever
reason, he decides not to say anything at this time).
In the old days when rules are not in writting, this practice (not saying
anything) is really a cause of problem. With written rules, this same
practice can be defined (deemed) as having given up the right to claim the
discard. (Similar to Art. 23.4.)
I see that the "old" practice (allowing a player to change from a pong claim
to a kong claim) doesn't do any harm because by the time B is given way (by
C, obviously) to proceed to pong, C has already given up his right to the
discard and cannot reverse his decision. Let's look at another example:
1. A discards a tile.
2. (D can win on that tile, but chooses to keep silent instead.)
3. After a reasonable pause of time, B takes the discard to form a chow.
4. C draws a tile and discards a tile *identical* to the discard of A.
5. B pongs it!
From the above you can see, at steps 4 and 5, D is not allowed to win on the
identical tile discarded by C. This explains why however B handles the
discard will not do any harm to D because his priority right has already
been given up by himself.
>
> It's actually quite hard to think how one could reasonably formulate a
> rule that *would* forbid player C claiming a win at this point.
> I suppose it would have to be "a discard is live up to the point at
> which a claimant lays down the claimed set", but I've never seen such
> a rule. (I haven't checked the Chinese Official rules,
> since Babelfish can't really cope with them
> But if the rules somehow do forbid this, but yet allow player B to
> change their mind about their declaration, that's just tough.
>
> Or am I completely missing the point? (Not unlikely!)
>
Art. 23.4 of IMJ Rules provides the solution but, since it don't rely on a
timer, it uses "a reasonable pause of time" to stipulate the time frame the
discard remains available. Obviously, how long a "pause" is reasonable is
still arguable. I think "until the claimed set is laid" is a good
alternative.
In CMCR, art. 7.6 (page 19) requires that a pong must be claimed within 3
seconds. So I guess, after 3 seconds of the discard, player C will not be
allowed to pong anymore. Art. 7.1 also specifically states that "pong" and
"kong" are NOT interchangeable.
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram