Reachmahjong.com

Setokuma likes discarder-pays-all on ron and he also likes furiten. I wonder: what are his feelings on atozuke?

Why is the discarder of the \"last\" tile considered \"responsible\" for a player winning? If a player has 3 or 4 melds from the same other player and wins on self-draw, why not have the player off which the melds were made pay? Like if I give you craks for your chin\'itsu or terminals for your chanta or something.

For players in love with \"ron\", are there house rules which double or triple the value of a \"ron\" as opposed to the corresponding \"tsumo\"?

Those two exact things are what make Reach such a game of skill.

Without them there is almost no incentive for defensive play or hand reading, just as Setokuma says. Getting rid of them makes the game much more simplistic and removes depth.

Surely anyone can see that?

It also makes sense that you should get penalized more for giving the winning tile than for pon or chi tiles. In Reach most hands (in skilled games) are kept closed, so the pon and chi issue is irrelevant anyway.


Doesn\'t surprise me that an A-leaguer likes the two key things that make Reach what it is. I don\'t think you\'d be able to find a single pro who doesn\'t.



P.S. if you don\'t like them then surely Reach is the absolute last version of mahjong you\'d want to be playing. Why not play MCR or Hong Kong?

P.P.S the reason the player who discarded the last tile is considered responsible.... is because he IS. He was the one who let the other guy win! Also, good players often know when they have taken this risk- so they should pay when it goes wrong.

Uh... ato-zuke isn\'t that rule at all. Heck, ato-zuke isn\'t actually a rule, as such. It\'s just gaining your yaku by the tile you win on. (for instance, you\'re waiting on haku and something else but you need the haku to go out)

And I agree with HotelFSR... the furiten and \"discarder pays all\" are the main reasons that I like Reach more than MCR rules.

Robert wrote:Setokuma likes discarder-pays-all on ron and he also likes furiten. I wonder: what are his feelings on atozuke?

Dunno, but I\'ll tell you mine.

Given 3 called sets like 789789444I\'d like to know that a person is more likely actively trying to score 789 with the possibility that they may already have their yaku with a tanki wait rather than the obligation of having to break their hand to satisfy some house rule if they are making the triple straight. If not, it\'s like you\'re banning chan-kan (say a 6 in a 6-9 wait) or haitei removing both elements of the game and the skill required to question any possible outcome.

Riichi isn\'t riichi if you take out any rule that annoys someone. You will eventually end up with only toi-toi as a valid yaku or some other denatured game.

Robert wrote:For players in love with "ron", are there house rules which double or triple the value of a "ron" as opposed to the corresponding "tsumo"?

In Reach/Riichi, "tsumo" only doubles the score if it\'s completely concealed, and even then the Base Points (fu) are usually lower, so it\'s not exactly double. Most of the games besides Riichi (CO, Taiwanese, etc.) triple the score if it\'s self-drawn (tsumo). That\'s one think I like about Riichi, the bonus is not in simply multiplying the score itself for a self-draw, it\'s the fact that you put all of your opponents negative the same amount that you take from them.

Of course that is true in all forms of Mahjong, but it\'s considered enough in Riichi to split the score because of that advantage. In the other forms the full score is tripled, which a lot of people think is way too much.

Robert wrote:Why is the discarder of the "last" tile considered "responsible" for a player winning? If a player has 3 or 4 melds from the same other player and wins on self-draw, why not have the player off which the melds were made pay?

It exist a rule like that in case of feeding a "Big Three Dragons" or "Big Four Winds".

For common cases, sharing the payement beetween "feeding players" will give a headache while scoring a hand.
Making pay only the "last discarder" gives a strategic aspect:
It\'s ok to discard a dangerous tile as long it\'s not the winning one. So, you have to think "He is already waiting? Did I have still time?" and not "What would it cost to pay 1/5 of his hand?".

And, yes, the discarder of the "last" tile IS more "responsible" than the discared of the "first" tile.

Robert wrote:For players in love with "ron", are there house rules which double or triple the value of a "ron" as opposed to the corresponding "tsumo"?

For a concealed[/d] "tsumo", you get 1 double.
For a concealed[/d] "ron", you get 10 fu (barely equivalent to a third of a double).

Unlike some other rules, at riichi mahjong a "tsumo" does not simply multiply the hand value. You have other conditions to fullfit in order to get the reward, and you can get a similiar (but lower) reward by "ron".

Riichi mahjong\'s "Menzen tsumo" is very different from other rules\' "lucky tsumo".

I can think of one more reason for discarder-pays-all (which also applies to Pao): It makes it considerably harder for two or three players to collude in cash games. Without it, you could easily have two or even three players conspiring to intentionally deal into each other\'s hands. With discarder-pays-all, if a conspiring player wins by ron from another conspiring player, the non-conspiring player(s) are unaffected.