EMA cooperates with million dollar mahjong event in Macau
- Details
- Created on Sunday, 17 August 2008 01:29
- Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 18:00
- Written by Martin Rep
MACAU/EDEWECHT - Otto Myslivec, the winner of this year's Sisi Cup - the combined championships of Hungry and Austria - has received a free airline ticket to Macau, China's own Las Vegas. In Macau, hotel accommodations will be paid for Mr. Myslivec. And, last but not least, he will get a free 5,000 USD entree ticket for the World Series of Mahjong 2008. For this money event, a total of 1 millon US dollar will be availabe as prize money.The Third Hungarian Open Championship and the Third Austrian Championship are both events with a MERS qualification. That means that they are organized with approval, and even a special qualification, of the European Mahjong Association. This organisation strongly opposes playing mahjong for money. EMA president Mr. Uwe Martens points out that the decision was taken by the Hungarian and Austrian mahjong associations.
'Healthy mahjong'
EMA promotes the Mahjong Competition Rules, also known as the new Chinese official rules, the 'healthy mahjong', which has three basic principles:
- no smoking
- no drinking
- no gambling.
'No partnership'
Mr. Uwe Martens, president of the European Mahjong Association, sees no real problem. "EMA doesn't cooperate with money games. That's why we don't have any partnership with WSoM. The decision to accept the offer from WSoM to get a free seat and accomodation for Macau is only up to Austria and Hungary - it is not the decision of EMA. They decide what their trophies will be.
"I think this can be accepted, because it is a single event, there is no additional registration fee for the players, and it is covered by the decision of the last EMA General Assembly: that countries can decide on their own if they want to have 'trophies' that are worth more than ust some pennies."
Before the Hungarian championship, which was held at Dunaújváros, one week before the Austrian Open, organizer Mr. András Boda was worried a bit about the atmosphere which, he feared, might be affected by the large prize. But afterward, he seemed very happy. Re-assured, he told Mahjong News: 'It went like an evening in a well-balanced family... The referee was called - quietly - maybe twice to minor cases... There was no shouting, there were no red faces, no agression and no back talks."
Website of the World Series of Mahjong
Diary of Otto Myslivec in Macau
The chances of that happening are slim to none. At least slimmer than say, forcing non-alcoholic venues...
When DMJL was approached by Spielbank Hannover in 2011 about providing know-how and material for a Mah-Jongg tournament with money prizes the board discussed, if a cooperation seemed possible and worthwhile - the publicly available board minutes from March 2011 reflected on this (originally in German - inofficially translated [and commented] here): Apart from earnings for the association a cooperation promises a possible contact to the responsible regulatory authority [to gain higher legal certainty about DMJL's self-organised non-gambling tournaments] and obviously the development of contact to a potential sponsor, namely the Spielbank herself. The board decided unanimously that a cooperation was desirable.
To draw a line between the paid-for support of legal gambling and DMJL's very own activities, the board also decided (also unanimously), that DMJL would only act as a service provider for the said tournament, but would not want to benefit from publicity in the course of gambling activities, so that it would not be (even mistakenly) seen as an organiser of such. More over the board stressed the importance of an adequate distinction (in rules, exposition of differing procedures etc.) between events of gambling and mind sport.
There was not a minute of discussion within the board, before Uwe Pelzer terminated the cooperation with the Spielbank/RP5 - no information about his findings, no questions, no suggestions, he just acted on his own. So, Frauke, the board was neither unable nor unwilling to find an answer to the question, if this said (and before unanimously supported) cooperation should've been terminated - it was simply not asked.