Gladys Grad, the Grand Master of American Mah Jongg, included me in what turned out to be a very lively email discussion regarding a question that had been posed to her. I promised Gladys that I would post the question on my blog and now I am asking for your opinions on this. Can’t wait to hear from you!
Hi, How would you rule in this situation? Player A is set for Mahj, waiting for a 5 Bam. Player A has two 5 Bams in her hand and a Joker. Player A wants to self-pick her Mahj. A 5 Bam is thrown. Instead of calling Mahj, Player A calls for the 5 Bam and exposes it with one 5 Bam, a Joker, and the 5 Bam picked up from the table. With that action it is the beginning of Player A’s turn. Now….Player A takes the remaining 5 Bam from her hand and exchanges it with the exposed Joker on her rack and calls Mahj. Is it a self-picked Mahj??? Does it matter that the exchange happens in her own hand? I know if she exchanges a tile from another player’s hand to get the Joker then it would be a self-picked Mahj. Does the same rule exist when it is her own hand? Thanks for your opinion. P.S. Player A CHOSE not to call Mahj (just as some players would possibly throw the Joker to try for a Jokerless hand). Interesting dilemma….what do you guys think?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Mah Jongg and Me 
Since she called a tile and made the exchange during the same turn, I do not think that would be a self made Mah Jongg. If she had waited for her next turn and then replaced it, that would be self made.
LikeLike
I will be curious to see what Tom Sloper says. I read his website’s answers related to the question several times, and this issue isn’t directly addressed. Yes, you can redeem for any exposed joker, so technically, it’s a self-pick, because the exchange completed “A”‘s hand ….but it seems pretty unethical/unsportsmanlike to me. I mean, wouldn’t we all have been doing this for years, as often as we could, when the situation presented itself? Is it just that we’re not as clever at finding loopholes as “A”? Should I be concerned about the type of player I’m going to find at Gladys’ tournament? 😉
LikeLike
Gladys runs a great tournament and I don’t think you should be concerned with the type of player that attends her wonderful events. I don’t think that is a fair assessment at all.
Ann
LikeLike
I agree she did not make it herself since she had to call a tile to make the turn complete.
LikeLike
Here’s a zen clarification for Carolyn, wife8 and anyone else who thinks that the very act of calling for a tile makes “A”‘s win a non self-pick, from Tom’s site (FAQ 19BO):
“Q: When someone calls a discard and redeems a joker and wins, which tile gave her mah-jongg?
A: Which domino rang the bell? The first one you pushed, or the last one that actually made the bell go ding? If only one tile can be said to have completed the hand, then it has to be the one that actually physically touched the bell — not the one that initiated the cascade. Once you know which tile filled the last remaining place in the hand, you know who should pay double”
In other words, the exchange (and getting that final joker “back”) is what caused “A” to win. If she had called for the 5 bam and exposed a pung, and then exchanged for a joker on ANY OTHER EXPOSURE (including the ones on her rack), it definitely would have been a “self-pick” win. The issue, in my mind (and Gladys’ and Ann’s) is whether it was right for her to…disingenuously, I feel…use the joker for the pung exposure and then turn right around and exchange for it.
LikeLike
Aha! Tom and Ruth Unger (president of NMJL) agree that it’s not a self-pick:
“The issue is that she exposed the joker and then said she was redeeming it, both in the same turn – that’s trying to pull a fast one (taking advantage of an apparent loophole). The official ruling (official though not in writing) is that that constituted rearranging her tiles….” ergo, not a self-pick. That “A” is a sneaky one, I’d keep an eye on her!
LikeLike
WOW let’s talk dilemma here. My first thoughts about player A are devious and cunning. Of course, you can exchange a tile in your hand for a joker you have exposed, but in this case, I would think the 5 bam that the other player threw is the tile that gave her mahj and therefore not a self pick.
LikeLike
I agree that it is not a self pick. It is, however, a clever way to subtly cause fellow players to never want to join you at a Mah Jongg table again and to spread the word that a win is more important to A than integrity, friendship and fun. Interesting question. I hopefully am assuming that Player A had no such intentions and that she, (and the rest of us) will consider the feelings of our friends in similarly enticing situations.
LikeLike
Barbie – well said! Thank you!!
Ann
LikeLike
Although my analysis wasn’t the correct logic, I knew there was something about the whole scenario that wasn’t kosher. I’m glad that Ruth Unger and Tom agree it was not a self pick. Thankfully, the players in my group aren’t that devious. But it’s always good to learn something new and get the proper ruling. Thanks.
LikeLike
Totally agree. I am glad it was hypothetical…
LikeLike
The OMs (my Mah Jongg group) had a hard time with this and I think it is because – just as is the case with your group – none of us are devious or thinking about how to burn someone to win the game. We play a fun social game and that is our only intent.
Ann
LikeLike
Does anyone else find it simply mind-boggling the myriad of ways that MJ players have come up with to “game” the system? Glad that the consistently NMJL comes down on the side of reason & ethics, but it saddens me that these questions even come up…
LikeLike
I agree with you!
Ann
LikeLike