Giant Italian Mahjong TilesUDINE, May, 10th - Players of the mahjong club at Udine, Italy, presented themselves with gigantic mahjong tiles during the 2012 Far East Film Festival. Playing with the extraordinatiy tiles was welcomed by lots of spectators.
Foto © FIMJ Read more…
Latest News
- Paris Open 2012 for Simon Bounkéo Fongue
- Axel Eschenburg wins German Riichi Open
- ‘Four Wins of Mrs. Hudson’ - the solution
- Four Wins of Mrs. Hudson
- Programme of the European Championship Riichi Mahjong 2013
- EC Riichi 2013: ten hanchan plus a team competition
- Two miniatures, two solutions
- Sherlock Miniature #2: Negative Fan
- Sherlock Miniature #1: ‘Mrs. Hudson’s New Fan’
- Alfonso Madruga Amazes at Berlicum
Follow Mahjong News on Facebook!
Related Articles
| generality of rules (II) |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Norbert Luckhardt |
| Monday, 26 July 2010 13:35 |
| 3. "Pong... ah, I mean Ron": there is a rule, which generally forbids the change of calls. This is an important rule! If it would not be in place, everybody would be able to change every call, which may lead to a lot of fuss in the progress of the game. Especially with "Pung... Ron" being allowed, why would "Ron... ah no... just Pung" be forbidden? In this example (even if they should not do so) players might be tempted to show their hands after the first call... how much time should be allowed between the calls? why should we bother to have Pung calls within three seconds after a discard, when they could be changed afterwards? or why could "Chi... no wait... sorry - nothing... let's go on" be illegal, if other changes would be allowed? To get rid of the rule "no changes of calls" would imply many possible hinderings for the swiftness of the game or again imply a complex structure of what's allowed to change in what time and what might not be changed etc. (but by the way: the proper penalty for the given situation in Ian's post is that the offending player has to just play his pung and discard - the first call is valid, the second call is void - no need for a dead hand here) I don't see how we could loosen the rules behind those scenarios without either making them very much more complex or creating possibilities to really hinder the game or damage others. That's why I say: it's not the rules, which are to be changed, but (to a certain extent) the attitude of the players - and that's why I keep stressing the principles of "don't sue the principle" and of self arbitration at the table I agree with Ian that "It is the duty of every player to create a pleasant play experience for fellow players." I disagree that this means helping each other whenever possible. Contrary I think helping is even unfair, because people will not get the same amount of help at different tables (be it for the abilities or attitudes of the fellow players) - but the results of your game play in a tournament should rely on yourself, and not on the fact with whom you sit at a particular table and how able, attentive or inclined your fellow players are to help you |
| Last Updated on Monday, 26 July 2010 14:06 |
This is a comment on "Unpleasant, mean spirited, perverse – is this a game that people will wish to play? "
Mahjong Picture
