(Update: Discussion closed. See concluding column by the editor)

Ian Fraser reflects upon the European Championship Riichi Mahjong. A great event, that's for sure. Yet - returned home, he finds himself with a niggling dissatisfaction.

The EC Riichi 2010 was a thoroughly well organised tournament and, for the vast majority of the time and of the games played a most enjoyable experience, being conducted in a friendly and sporting manner between all the participants..

Even so, I find myself with a niggling dissatisfaction.    Compared with the 2008 Riichi tournament, did I notice something of a shift towards ‘entrapment’ of opponents via some ‘fundamentalist’ interpretation of the rules, and/or the tournament referees’ instructions?    

Here are three real life examples from the weekend:

1.  At the start of a hand Player One notices that Player Two (who is scoring) has not collected his thirteenth tile.   He says nothing about this at the time, but two turns later, pounces to claim a Chombo immediately that Player Two claims a tile for chi - quite openly stating that he had noticed the infringement from the outset of the hand.

2.  A relatively inexperienced tournament player agrees to score.    The player makes Mangan, agreed by all as Mangan, duly recorded by the scorer.    Before hardly another tile is touched, certainly before a wall is built or the deal begun, the player recalls that he was East and should have recorded 12,000 not 8,000.   “Too late – it’s written down now.”

3.  A player calls Pon, takes the tile and notices that his hand is now complete and wishes to modify the call to Ron.     Referee is called, pronounces the player’s hand to be dead and issues a metaphorical “yellow card”.

For my money, example one is just plain unpleasant, and I simply don’t buy any notion of hiding behind the tournament referee’s instruction ‘not to comment’, even though we all fully understand the rationale for the basic proposition.     Example two is mean spirited, and item three (even though so ruled by the referee) is both perverse and unnecessary.   Just who has been disadvantaged, I pray, in any of these instances?   This is not a plea to play the game to “just some of the rules.”    Penalties and sanctions for significant errors are part and parcel of every game and sport.  In mahjong they are appropriate when any action breaches a principle of equity to all players.   Perhaps someone would care to defend these instances against that standard?

Unpleasant, mean spirited, perverse – is this a game that people will wish to play?   I warn exponents of these forms of behaviour that if you behave like this (presumably in order to win?) then pretty soon you will have no one left to beat - except perhaps a few fellow sticklers and charlatans.   But then maybe, if it’s ingrained in your character, the warning will not make any difference.

The mahjong community is a small one.   Before it risks alienating elements within itself, (and I am thinking in particular of less experienced players) I recommend that it provide a welcoming, encouraging and supportive environment that will help to induct newcomers, and encourage them to return, helping to grow the community.

I am not blaming Ben or Kaji in any instance – rather I am assuming they were either doing what they were asked to do, or what their cultural experiences suggested to them they ought to do as referees – but each one of these instances leaves a pretty unpleasant taste in the mouth.    As a non MCR player, I am being led to believe that MCR is played in this ‘catch as catch can’ fashion and that we are merely seeing that attitude bleed over into the Riichi variant.  SO  “Dear EMA, at the very least for Riichi events, please let us put a stop to it immediately, before it is too late.   It is not so important to operate this way ‘because the Japanese do’ – even if they do, which I doubt.     We are not exactly playing in million dollar prize events here.

Personally, I am old enough and ugly enough to take all this behaviour in my stride, and, for the most part, content myself merely by holding a pretty low opinion of exponents of these and similar practices.   But I have seen enough people discouraged from playing bridge in a competitive environment by - shall we call it – overzealous prosecution of the rule book, to recognise the warning signs.   Note that bridge has significantly more adherents (in the Western Hemisphere at least) and, arguably, can afford to hack off a few hundred people (though you wouldn’t think so, as each competitive gathering becomes smaller, and the average age of the participants rises).

How about this as an offer of new Rules One, Two, Three and Four?

“It is the duty of every player to create a pleasant play experience for fellow players.  This includes helping others whenever possible to avoid procedural penalty, and actively offering assistance to ensure that full benefit is obtained from hand patterns constructed and scoring due.  If in doubt, just help out!”

Ian Fraser is a riichi mahjong teacher in the United Kingdom. He participated in both the EC Riichi 2008 and 2010. In the UK, he was a co-organiser of the UK Riichi Invitational and the first UK Riichi Open, and he is one of the initiators of the UKMA (UK Mahjong Association).