Liberating the Chicken
- Thomas Shen
- 11 jan. 2019
- 9 min läsning
Uppdaterat: 22 jan. 2019
by Thomas Shen, 2019-01-11, major overhaul 2019-01-20
[This is a major overhaul of the original blog]
[At the end of this article you will find the concrete rule suggestion ‘Challenge Counters’ for handling Chicken Hands in Zung Jung 中庸 mahjong]
The scoreless (or score deficient) Chicken Hand has been cackling and causing trouble and has resulted in work arounds in the development of mahjong, so it seems. Of what I can tell, the Chicken Hand has only really become an issue when the modern version of the mahjong game transformed from gambling to tournament play. If a player only managed a Chicken Hand while gambling, nothing really happened except not having to pay anyone else any money. In a tournament though, a Chicken Hand would also take the score leader one step closer to victory, with a zero price-tag. Thus it could be misused in offensive play in a detrimental way. But before I give my suggestion to remedy this, let us muse on this issue of the Chicken hand.
The major work around in various modern versions of mahjong has been to demand a mahjong hand worth a minimum amount of points, of some sort, in order for the player to go out. This is not much of a deal for the experienced player, though for the beginner it amounts to a threshold. But there is also a more fundamental flaw in this extra rule: Since the mahjong hand is in itself the most major and basic pattern of all patterns, ruling it out as a legitimate prerequisite for going out feels just wrong. In American mahjong, this process has even gone so far, that the basic mahjong pattern has actually gone extinct. Additionally, the minimum point solution creates its own drawbacks by creating modes of play that feel different than the original game.
There is also what some players see as the misuse of using the Chicken Hand defensively, when players could quickly kill of potentially higher value hands. Players understandably see this as defensive sabotage. Alan Kwan, as far as I can tell, has for the most part, solved this when he put together his Zung Jung 中庸 point system, which was is used in the WSOM mahjong tournament. Alan Kwan incorporated the defensive Chicken Hand as part of the balance, and thus did not need the minimum point requirement of a hand to make play balanced. He created a distinct moat between poor hands and good hands, and modelled the repetoir of hands so that it would, in the long run, be unstrategic to aim only for quick wins, but also unstrategic to zealously only aim for very high point hands, letting them become victim to the low-value and chicken hands. In the long run, winners in the Zung Jung system are those who aim for the moderate good hands when opportunity arises.
I said "for the most part". It's true that those who constantly throw chicken hands can not and do not win the matches, "but", according to Alan Kwan, "in some occasions they bring someone down", which should be remedied if possible.
See this video below from The Wall Street Journal article "Mahjong Strategists Cluck Over ‘Chicken Hand’ Rule". The full article can be read at archive(dot)org: "Mahjong Strategists Cluck Over ‘Chicken Hand’ Rule".
So as I see it, Zung Jung has for the most part but not totally fixed the misuse of the Chicken Hand in defensive play. The chicken hand is part of the balance and part of the game. But is there a way to reduce the number of chicken hands played? I suggest that a player playing Chicken Hand gets marked and pays for it. The more the player is marked, the more he pays for a Chicken Hand. He can also unmark himself by playing a good hand.
Then we have the misuse of Chicken Hand in offensive play. It is not hard to see that if a player scores high near the end of a match, he or she would be able to sabotage the game by going out with a series of Chicken Hands until the match was won, thus stealing any fair chance for the other players to make a come-back.
So is there any way to fix this, all the while being true to the spirit of the game?
Well, if we take inspiration from tennis, with what I think has the most ingenious point systems among sports, we see that, until the last ball is played, there is always a chance for a player to make a come-back. Another feature in tennis is that in order to win a game or set, a tennis player needs to win not just one ball, but two balls in a row, to win the game, and win not just one game, but two games in a row to win the set, guaranteeing a consistency of quality. Until that happens, the game actually delays going forward, giving the opposing player the opportunity to prove he or she is better. Is there a way to translate this into the mahjong game?
When it comes to delaying the game, there are versions of mahjong where the game actually does delay rotating forward, for example if the hand ends in a draw, or if a player playing East wins the hand, in which case the same directions of the players are repeated in the next hand.
So, if we would do likewise if a player makes a Chicken Hand after a high value hand is played, that player could at least not use it for speeding up the game, for the sake of just getting the game over with. So, in order for the presumed score leader to advance the game, he or she will need to continue scoring points, guaranteeing a consistency of quality. Until then, another player will have the opportunity to actually take a shot in catching up.
First, I entertained a Chicken Limit that the players would need to relate to in game play after higher hands would be won. It would had been like a soft point minimum, under which winners would have to pay. This idea wouldn't work, since a limit makes higher point hands more probable, and the points become therefore inflated. Alan Kwan had the following in his signature in rec.games.mahjong:
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定， 小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。 要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。" "The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
So I scrapped the Chicken Limit, but retained a payment for utilizing the Chicken Hand. It does create a virtual limit at 5 points, which I hope does not inflate the hand values too much. The challenge for the players, both winner and losers after a high value hand, is to continue to win non-zero hands again, in order for the game to proceed further, which in turn gives the losers the breathing space to try to catch up, giving more opportunities and a certain leverage for a come-back. (In this situation, the winner, but even the loser, can 'play chicken' if he/she has a bad hand, but he/she will of course have to calculate if utilizing the chicken hand is worth it).
Here are the formal Challenge rules I suggest, and can be tried out. The rules are for the purpose of evading both offensive and defensive chicken hands. It involves challenge counters, and is applied to the Zung Jung 中庸 mahjong system. Chicken hands and big hands produce the counters, which in turn demands payment for chicken hands, and the delay of rotation of directions. More counters mean higher chicken hand payments and longer delays of rotation.
Here is my suggested rules for a better control of chicken hands, laid on top of the Zung Jung system, developed by Alan Kwan. (I have used the index symbol '☛' as a symbol of consequence. I hope its use is not too unorthodox):
Challenge Counters for Zung Jung 中庸 mahjong
Challenge Counters:
Challenge Counters (CC) in the bank, for placement on the table and with the players.
The correspondence between the number of CC:s on the table and the points of a winning hand is 1 CC for every 40 points of the hand. (Thus a hand worth 20 points gives zero CC on the table, a hand worth 50 points gives 1 CC on the table, and a hand worth 150 points gives 3 CC on the table).
The correspondence between the number of CC:s with the winning player and the points of a winning hand is 1 CC for every 5 points of the hand. (Thus a hand worth 10 points corresponds to 2 CC with a player, and a hand worth 0 points corresponds to 0 CC with a player).
Chicken Payment is 5 points to every player, for every CC. This is on top the other point transactions.
Chicken Hand is a zero point hand, meaning, it is worth 0 points, not 1 point.
During point transactions:
Chicken Hand is won ☛ 1 CC added to the winner and 1 CC added to the table. After this, the winner pays Chicken Payment corresponding to the total number of CC:s present with the winner and on the table.
After point transactions:
Non-zero hand won ☛ 1 CC removed from the table before next round.
Non-zero hand won ☛ The number of CC:s with the winning player corresponding to the winner’s hand are removed from the winner before the next round.
The number of CC:s on the table corresponds to a value less than the winning hand ☛ If so, add CC:s to the table until they correspond with the value of the winning hand.
Next hand:
At least one CC is present on the table ☛ Do not rotate directions in the next hand.
Nothing else is changed in the Zung Jung 中庸 system.
Example with defensive chicken hands: Assume there is a player that mostly plays chicken hands. He/she has already played two chicken hands, but no other hands 40 or higher. Thus he/she has two CC:s. Next time this player plays a chicken hand, he/she and the table will receive a CC each, and thus the player will pay a chicken payment corresponding to four CC:s, that is, 20 points to every player. Since a zero point hand was played, all CC:s remain with the player and table. The players will repeat their directions in the next hand.
Example with offensive chicken hands: Assume that the previous hand was 130 points won by a player who usually does not play chicken hands, thus there are three CC:s present, all on the table. If a chicken hand is played in the next hand by this player, there will be one CC with the winner, and four CC:s on the table. Thus, the price for playing a chicken hand by this player will be paying a chicken payment of 25 points to every player, and the directions of the players will not rotate in the next hand, which means the other players will get one extra shot at getting a good hand. The player will have to decide if playing a Chicken Hand is worth it. He might think so if he believes another player is making a huge hand.
❧
Would anyone want to try this? What would it mean strategically? Does the game take on any interesting flavors?
Finally we can liberate the Chicken Hand and let it cackle all it wants 🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓!!
It's a bit like how the free range chicken eggs cost more than other eggs! 'Free range' Chicken Hands are now 'legitimate', but only if the hand holder pays for it. We have paid for your freedom!! 🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓 🐔 🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓
❧
Developed by Thomas Shen for the Zung Jung 中庸 system, 2019-10-13, with a major overhaul 2019-10-20.
The Zung Jung 中庸 system is developed by Alan Kwan.
Edits:
[2019-01-12: some editing done in sentence structure. Rules pending]
[2019-01-13: a ready rule system for the Chicken Hand is suggested]
[2019-01-13: changed chicken fee from being equal to the chicken limit, to being 3 times the chicken limit]
[2019-01-13: again changed chicken fee of being 1, 2, or 3 times the chicken limit]
[2019-01-14: changed "The chicken fee paid to each player is 1, 2, or 3 times the chicken limit. (I do not know quite yet which of these factors is optimal)." to "The chicken fee paid to each player is the chicken limit + 10.". Made text and ideas clearer.]
[2019-01-15: changed "The chicken fee paid to each player is the chicken limit + 10." to "… Double the hand value. Triple the chicken limit. The difference between the two …" Also changed title of rules from "Chicken Transactions" to "Chicken Limit", moved and added pictures, and some other text editing.]
[2019-01-19: gave various options for the chicken fee amount, from harsh to lenient. also some clearer expressions.]
[2019-01-20 a major overhaul, and a lot of rewrites. the blog is more correct and much better]
[2019-01-21 added the problem of defensive chicken hands, and the problem of a limit. thus removed chicken limit, retained counters and a chicken payment]
[2019-01-22] changed correspondence factor between points of hand and number of challenge counters held by a player. changed the factor from 40 to 5].
Comments