Monday, April 17, 2017

A Small Deception

Greetings and salutations from Bubbe, giving you a little strategy tip.


We've all been in that situation where we're waiting for a single tile to complete a hand. No matter how many jokers we have in our hand, we can't use one for a pair. We either have to pick that last tile or call for it when it's thrown.


Often that final tile is a Flower. Singles and Pairs hands often require a pair of Flowers. In this year's card, there are also many different hands that look like


FF XXXX YYYY ZZZZ 

where the kongs are in Dragons, or Consective Numbers, or even 2017 and 7's in opposite suits...but they all need that essential pair of Flowers. 


I had such a situation the other day. I was playing the Like Numbers hand: pair of Flowers, two kongs of a number and the opposite dragon. All my kongs were set: three craks, three dots, and green dragons. I had made an exposure of the three dots--but with only one exposure, no one knew exactly what I was playing. In fact, there were all kinds of hands I could have been playing: something in Consecutive Runs, 13579 or 369, even one of the Quint hands.


At this moment, with only one Flower of the necessary pair, I happened to pick up a joker.


If I were to throw out the joker, it would be obvious that I was looking for something to complete a pair. Look over this year's card. In the majority of cases where a kong is exposed but a joker is thrown, a player is waiting for a Flower to complete their hand.


This is where the deception comes in. Rather than discard the joker and let everyone know how close I was, and what I needed, I threw out one of the three craks. 


Some people would say, "You gave up a jokerless hand?" Yes, I did. It was a calculated risk. It's true that I had a chance of picking a Flower--there were seven other ones somewhere in the tiles--but I didn't want to preclude the chance of being thrown one, and figured that no one would ever do that if they saw me throwing jokers. It was smarter to pass up the chance of a jokerless win in order to increase the chance of actually being thrown my necessary tile.


This is part of Bubbe's wisdom, accumulated along the way. There are other useful tips in my book, Searching for Bubbe Fischer. It's along the lines of "You can't mahj second"--if you know you may be throwing someone else's mahj tile, you'd be wise to break up your own hand. I often hear people rationalizing, "I was close, I wanted to take that chance." It's their prerogative, it's their right, to take that chance--but they should know that in choosing to protect their hand, they might be giving the entire game (and double payment) away to someone else. I gave away the possibility of a jokerless hand, because I'd rather increase my chance of actually winning, than protect a jokerless hand that won't win.


Of course, I did end up picking the Flower and getting everyone to pay double because of that. True, I would have been paid four times (a dollar per player) had I been jokerless, but I made my decision.  I didn't want anyone to know just how close I was to winning. I'd make the same choice again...and recommend that, in most circumstances, you do the same.


My one caveat is to make sure that no one else will need the tile you're throwing. For instance, if I were playing the Consecutive Runs hand:


FFFF 1111 2222 DD


and had all my tiles except the second dragon, with one of the numbers exposed, I would rather throw one of the second number than the very valuable Flower. People would probably assume I was playing a Like Numbers hand, instead, or some other combination--it's unlikely that they would assume that I needed a dragon in the same suit, especially after I threw out a consecutive number.


A little strategic deception is often necessary, in order to keep up our chance of winning!


Always happy to hear your questions and comments. You can email me at bubbefischer@gmail.com


Talk to you soon!


Bubbe Fischer







2 comments:

  1. I'm a fairly new player and this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the tip.

    ReplyDelete