another gameplay question

[or2az]

I like your choice of a better than the but I decided to go with the .
Wanted to keep all options open, including toi-toi.
I do see that East might be collecting dots but like you said, it's early, and I did have an 8000pt lead.

[or2az]

Need to refresh my memory on the following situation.
One of the ladies in my group called RIICHI and had in her hand, needing a
for the win.
She had a temporary brain freeze and overlooked a for the win when discarded by her opposite player.
She unfroze when the next player discarded another which she believed was her winner.
I negated that, saying that DURING RIICHI, YOU CAN NOT CLAIM A WIN ON A TILE THAT YOU PASSED UP FOR A WIN IN THE SAME TURN.
Two turns later, she called RON on a discarded .
I stated this WAS VALID.
Am I correct in all of this?

Also, would the second have been a good RON if there was no Riichi?

[Shirluban]

Once someone declares riichi and let pass a winning tile, they can no longer claim any tile for a win (i.e. until the hand is over).
When not in riichi, they can't ron on the same turn they let pass a winning tile (i.e. until their next draw).
This applies also to "winning" tiles not giving any yaku. And the restriction is on any tile, not only the missed one.
In any case, the player can still win by self-draw.

So she couldn't ron the , and neither the two turns later.
Without riichi, the second would still have been a no-go; however, the (or another or ) two turns later would be fine.

[Referee]

Shirluban is correct. Remember this: There are not furiten tiles, there are furiten hands. If you are furiten on one of your "waits", you are furiten on all of them.

And I put quotation marks around "waits" because a no-yaku wait still counts as a wait. If you don't claim a wait, you are furiten until your next draw (this can take several go-arounds if there are calls skipping your turn). If you don't claim a wait during riichi, you are furiten for the rest of the hand.

Furiten applies only to claims. If you draw your winning tile, it's a valid tsumo even if you are furiten.

[or2az]

Understood. Furiten vs temporary furiten.
I assume this is also meant to prevent one from targeting a certain player in riichi and making you wait a turn for targeting a certain player when not in riichi.
Now comes the fun part of explaining it to the ladies.
Thanks guys.

[or2az]

After reading your replies again, and more research, I need a bit more clarification regarding " FURITEN with no-yaku waits, before I attempt to explain this part of it.
1)
If my opposite player discards a , which I can't claim for a win (no yaku), and the next discard is a , I can not RON due to temporary FURITEN.
Is this correct?

2)
If my opposite player discards a , which I can't claim for a win (no yaku), and the next player upgrades his open to a kong, I can not RON (chankan, robbing a kong) due to temporary furiten.
Is this correct?
I did not realize that both of these situations are considered passing up a win since, in actuality, I could not win with the tile I passed up.
(I also can't ever recall these occurring in the video games and being prevented from winning)
Help!

[Referee]

Both cases correct.

[or2az]

Very interesting.
I suppose this NO YAKU-PASSING UP A WAIT-TEMPORARY FURITEN situation is not a common occurrence but now that my groups are starting to go for tenpai late in a hand when a draw seems imminent, it could happen.
Explaining that you are not actually passing up a wait for a WIN that puts you in FURITEN, but in reality, are passing up a wait for a COMPLETE HAND, will test me, but they will see the difference.
I found this in Barts Guide. It will help.

received_3667875846587789.jpeg (17.6 KiB) Viewed 22661 times

Thanks again for all the help.

[or2az]

FROM BARTS GUIDE

Screenshot_20231026-135801_Xodo Docs_1.jpg (110.8 KiB) Viewed 16087 times

I need a refresher on this since it basically never occurs, until yesterday.
If I have and showing on the table and I happen to have in my hand a , am I still tenpai (for a share of the 3000 bonus), even though there are no left available.

From what I am reading above, I seems that I am not tenpai because all the are in my hand and not spread around the table.
I was not aware there was a difference.

How about if it was one of the other 3 players who had the in their hand instead of me? Would they be tenpai?

[Barticle]

Hey Steve. Yes, it's fairly uncommon, but it's one of many areas where your club/group needs to understand or decide the rule specifics just in case it arises. This one comes down to whether or not you consider what's visible on the table (since another player doesn't know what's closed in your hand). If you included the table tiles, your hand might suddenly and unfairly become Noten when an opponent calls/discards and you wouldn't be able to prove whether your hand was Tenpai before that happened.

To give a prominent English example, the Euro MJ Association (EMA) gives the following definition for Tenpai:

A player’s hand is tenpai or waiting if the hand needs only one more tile to complete a winning hand. A player is still considered tenpai if all his waiting tiles are visible among the discards and declared sets. A player is not considered tenpai if he is waiting only for a tile of which he already has 4.[...]

[or2az]

Screenshot_20231028-125406_Chrome_1.jpg (48.15 KiB) Viewed 16065 times

OK. Got it. I think.
Let me summarize.
In the example above, I am NOT tenpai because I am waiting for a tile of which I already have all 4 of them.
But,
My opponents would be tenpai because they are waiting for a tile where all 4 of them are visible among the declared sets.

Correct?

Note: when it says "a tile of which he already has 4",
does it matter if 3 of them are visible on the table
and the 4th one is in my hand?

[Barticle]

Yup, you got it.

The tiles you have - your entire hand - would include the closed/concealed section and any open/exposed sets made by calling.

Of course, the fewer tiles you have locked in open sets, the more potential you have to redevelop your hand structure on your next turns.

[Referee]

Yes, this is one more case of rule-point you need to establish beforehand. It's a very uncommon situation, though, but you seem to have gotten the examples under the rulesets explained.

A situation like Barticle explained a couple posts above mine, where you could get punished unfairly if you count all visible tiles is like this. You're tenpai waiting only on . None are visible in the table. Then another player draws a tile and... KAN! And he shows the four (this is a case where Chankan doesn't apply, because that's only when they add a fourth tile to an already revealed set, not when they are revealing all of them at once). Hand goes exhaustive draw and then when you claim tenpai you can be called noten, and need to pay the noten-riichi chonbo penalty, which is 0% fair, and that's with a generous estimate of the percentage.

If you go with the all-visible tiles count, you also need to establish what happens when the tile you're waiting for is the dora indicator (and be aware the case above can now happen on any kan if you're using kan-dora and it reveals a [potentially] case tile). The rulesets mentioned before don't say about the dora indicators.

[or2az]

Screenshot_20231031-102718_Chrome_1.jpg (40.35 KiB) Viewed 16005 times

Screenshot_20231031-103522_Chrome_1.jpg (29 KiB) Viewed 16005 times

Not quite sure I understand the penalty part. (NOTEN-RIICHI)
Using your example, if I call RIICHI, waiting on the , and later someone calls KAN and exposes a closed kong , I can prove that I was tenpai BEFORE the Kan was called just by the sideways tile I discarded when calling riichi.
Or, I could just let the opposition know right then (since I can't win the hand now anyway) that I was waiting for that tile in the kong.
But, if I am considered tenpai, as established above, if all 4 of my waiting tiles are visible in the other (not mine) discarded/exposed sets on the table, which they are when the kong is called, I shouldn't have to prove anything,
or pay a penalty.

Screenshot_20231102-174623_Google_1.jpg (151.65 KiB) Viewed 15983 times