Cowardly or Cunning? A Chat about the Chicken Hand
A recent comment on the site had me thinking about the place the chicken hand has in Zung Jung. A perennial topic of discussion in almost all forms of Mahjong, Zung Jung is unique in that it allows for the chicken hand. For those unfamiliar with the term, it is the slightly derogatory name for a patternless winning hand. It is a hand that has 4 sets and a pair without any other scoring elements present. When allowed, it usually earns the minimum number of points possible. For example, in ZJ it scores as a 1-point hand. For those new to the game, you might be thinking “It meets the criteria for a winning hand, what’s the big deal?” To answer that we’ll briefly look at both the history and the opinions surrounding this divisive hand.
Mahjong, in general, is a game of of making patterns, the more difficult the more high-paying. Therefore, making the rarer, higher-scoring patterns is considered by most “more fun” than the lower-scoring, easier-to-make patterns. So much so, that games such as Riichi, Hong Kong style, and MCR include a point minimum to be able to declare a winning hand. It’s not enough to have your 4 sets and 1 pair, you must also have enough scoring elements to meet the set minimum to be able to go out.
The major opinion undergirding this is the idea that the chicken hand ruins people’s fun. It ruins all of their hard work when they are close to having a more beautiful, elegant, rarer hand. The other player should have to try harder to stop these larger hands. “it shouldn’t be so easy!” they say. Even in Zung Jung during the years that the World Series of Mahjong was held, people were upset that the chicken hand was initially allowed. Eventually, even the WSOM relented and instituted a 5-point minimum to go out. An article even appeared in the Wall Street Journal with many bemoaning the chicken hand.
Alan Kwan defends its inclusion in Zung Jung. It is a strategic choice to use the chicken hand. One can fold their hand and stop others from finishing larger hands, once one has deduced the other players’ strategies. It also respects the concept that 4 sets and a pair is a winning hand. The chicken hand fulfills the base criteria to go out, so you should be able to go out with it. Furthermore, it only scores 1 point. It is extremely unlikely to be able to win every hand in a standard 16-hand game of ZJ before at least one person scores with a higher-scoring hand. Scoring even one of the 10 Patterns to Learn First would dwarf the points won from even 15 hands won with a chicken hand.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way, to be honest. The 5-point minimum used commonly in Zung Jung tournament play is not so burdensome as to drastically change one’s ability to fold their hand strategically. And I do thoroughly enjoy completing a monster hand. However, I do like saying that the chicken hand is allowed. I think it makes it easier to teach the game and make it more accessible. I also think it is a powerful learning tool and motivator for a newbie to win a few games with chicken hands and then get crushed by a large-scoring hand. It immediately highlights the need to learn the patterns of ZJ in order to win. And finally, it makes the game internally consistent. It’s cruel to say ‘here is what a winning hand is…but… you need more stuff, too.’
But what do you think about the chicken hand? A clever strategy or a tool of the craven? Tell us in the comments down below!
David Wu
Interesting article. I will say upfront that I am for the inclusion of the chicken hand, and I don’t understand players who complain about their big hands getting erased by chicken hands, especially given that even chicken hand players who completely ignore patterns will on average, “accidentally” make some pattern such as Value Honor or One Kong from a third to half of the time. Then the 5-point minimum players can’t complain, and it essentially becomes a coin toss as to whether the big hand can win unimpeded.
From my experience the allowability of chicken hands drastically changes the meta game in certain patterns. Since the 5 point “Trivial Patterns” of All Sequences, Concealed Hand, and No Terminals are the most consistent, they get “pushed” under a 5-point minimum. In particular, this makes it so that making an open triplet of 1, 9, or a guest wind is highly disadvantageous, since it invalidates all three of the Trivial Patterns, and is the most likely way to end up in a chicken hand. But this goes against the ideals of classical and simple mahjong rules. For one, triplets of terminals and honors score much more points than sequences, and also, purely efficiency-wise, it is correct to call pung on terminals and honors in the large majority of cases, while there are more cases (compared to terminals and honors) where it is correct to pass a pung call on 2-8 middle tiles. Adding the 5-point minimum makes it the opposite, so that for example, you’re better off passing a pung call on a pair of guest winds and trying for All Sequences or Concealed Hand, which by Classical standards is very unnatural.
Anyways, another effect due to the Trivial Patterns is that Three Similar Sequences is a safer pattern to go for, since you can fall back on All Sequences or No Terminals if for example, someone kongs one of your needed tiles, but patterns like All Triplets become riskier to go for, since you really could be stuck without a pattern after you open your hand but don’t draw well. Take this hand for example: B-11359 C-4588 D-16 NN. Assuming North is not your seat wind, playing without a minimum it is natural to call pung on any of the 3 pairs, and either try for All Triplets if you draw pairs or win the quick chicken hand if you don’t, but with a 5-point minimum you will be very mad if instead of drawing pairs you get B4 and C36 and cannot scramble a pattern to go out, kongs notwithstanding.
Finally, with hands aiming for Lesser Terminals such as Pung[NNN] B-234 C-27 D-1289 RG, without a minimum keeping B4 as backup is good in case say, someone kongs B1, but with a 5-point minimum keeping B4 does you no good, so you may as well brazenly throw it out and be totally dead in the water if someone does actually kong B1. Similar decision arise when deciding to bluff One Suit, etc. Of course, if North was a Value Honor or a kong the minimum limit would not affect your decision, but having possible decisions around big patterns being conditional on the existence of small patterns is in my opinion very strange.
In summary, adding a 5-point minimum disrupts the balance between the several core patterns, and to some extent the system of patterns as a whole. (Sorry I went on a long ramble again).
admin
This is an excellent analysis! (and by no means a ramble). I agree that the 5-point minimum distorts from Chinese Classical inspirations in ZJ and the game is worse off for it. You’d have to rebalance the point values of most of the core patterns to make up for the changes in probability and difficulty in forming the pattern that stem from the overemphasis on inside tiles due to a 5-point minimum. Furthermore, it detracts from going for the main 25-40 point patterns that, as you mention, are the core of the game.
In my playing experience, I also haven’t had the experience of not seeing one of my hands come to fruition due to a chicken hand that, if a 5-point minimum had been in place, that could have easily been taken out by a 5-point hand. I think it does a middling job at protecting someone going for a big hand, as the proponents of a 5-point minimum say it should. I’ve found many times I teach people ZJ who come from other styles reflexively want me to put a minimum in without even playing enough hands to get a feel for the game. They don’t give it enough time to see that a minimum doesn’t really do all that much. They seek a solution to a problem that is more in their head than actually at the table.
Yen
Is there anyone can elaborate me if the Terminals of One’s & Nine’s should not be played in a Hand to win/score any points or doubles in the chinese mahjong game