Mahjong: less luck, more skill?
Edwin Phua
offering money prizes at mahjong tournaments, which was followed by
some interesting points made by commenters (commentators?). In
particular, I was interested in the point raised by Tina Christensen
on the restrictions on mahjong tournaments because of legal
definitions of the game. Mahjong is categorised as a combination game
which involves both skill and chance, and because of the chance (i.e.
luck) element, money prizes are prohibited from being offered in
tournaments.
Some other games were mentioned as exempted from the Danish ruling on
combination games; these are contract bridge and backgammon, and they
have certain arguments as to why they are less luck-based games and
more skill-based. So, what kind of arguments can we muster for
mahjong? Are there any big differences between the various competitive
variants (i.e. MCR, riichi [both European and Japanese rules], ZJ [for
WSoM]) that would make exemption difficult?
Best regards,
Edwin
Singapore
Chris Schumann
> So, what kind of arguments can we muster for
> mahjong? Are there any big differences between the various competitive
> variants (i.e. MCR, riichi [both European and Japanese rules], ZJ [for
> WSoM]) that would make exemption difficult?
Hi Edwin,
As Tina hinted, any ruling would be valid only for one legal
jurisdiction. Here in the U.S., each state determines which games are
those of luck (craps, slot machines, and bingo are universally games
of chance) and those of skill. Everyone agrees chess is purely a skill
game. Some states find that blackjack and poker are games of skill. I
haven't found any U.S. laws about "combination" games as Tina (or
perhaps someone else) mentioned that they have in Europe, but I have
only looked at the laws of a couple of states.
I think that any jurisdiction that finds that some chance games are
games of skill will be easy to convince that competitive mahjong is a
game of skill, especially with MCR, and probably riichi as well. The
various European championships have several of the same players
consistently in the top ten (or whatever number you choose) places.
That cannot be pure luck. Or rather, it could be, but odds are
exceedingly against it, just as they are in other, already-recognized
games of skill.
I'd imagine the riichi leagues will also show that good players stay
at the top, and they have records going back for years.
The only issue with ZJ/WSoM is its short history, but its rules have
no more nor less luck than MCR. I view kan-dora and ura-dora as adding
an undesirable amount of luck to riichi scoring, but not to changing
who wins any hand.
My two cents,
Chris
Julian Bradfield
> Some other games were mentioned as exempted from the Danish ruling on
> combination games; these are contract bridge and backgammon, and they
> have certain arguments as to why they are less luck-based games and
> more skill-based. So, what kind of arguments can we muster for
> mahjong?
For bridge, an important point is that all competitive bridge is
duplicate bridge, which removes the element of chance in assessing one
player against another.
It would be interesting to get legal advice as to whether duplicate
mah-jong (i.e. all tables get the same wall in each hand) would be
allowable.
Of course, these legislators who witter about chance and skill don't
understand it. With sufficiently skilfull players, chess is a game of
pure chance, as it depends only on who wins the toss. (The fact that
there have not been, and will probably never be, players skilfull
enough is, of course, irrelevant;-)
