I want to be upfront: I did not win the 2004 Greater Tri-County Charity Mahjong Open. I will state this at the beginning so that we can move past it and get to what actually matters, which is the analysis. Anyone can win a tournament. Not everyone can extract lessons from one.

Tournament Overview

The 2004 GTCCMO was held on Saturday, January 31st at the Ridgemont Hills Community Center. This was the fourth annual iteration of the event, organized by the Greater Tri-County Mahjong Society (of which I am a charter member). There were 28 players entered. The format was four rounds of four games each, with cumulative scoring.

I will note, for the record, that I was one of the original organizers of this tournament, and that several decisions regarding the format, scoring system, and table assignments were made by the organizing committee (which includes me, technically, although my involvement this year was limited due to scheduling conflicts in the weeks leading up to the event). I mention this only because there has been some… discussion… about these decisions, and I want it on the record that I was not the final decision-maker on the matters that turned out to be problematic.

Round 1: A Solid Start

My first table was, on paper, favorable. I was seated against Diane Kowalski (a capable player but one who tends toward conservative play), Howard Chen (who I know from the Wednesday circle and whose tendencies I've studied extensively), and a woman named Peg whose last name I did not catch.

Game 1: I opened with a strong 2468 hand that came together by the 11th draw. Clean mahjong, 25 points. Howard congratulated me. Diane said nothing. Peg asked if anyone had a cough drop.

Game 2: Here's where things started to go sideways. I was dealt what I believed was a promising like-number hand, but the tiles I needed were being held aggressively by Howard. I made the decision to pivot to a consecutive run, but by the time I committed, I had already discarded two tiles that would have been useful. I went down without a hand. This is a learning moment: I need to be faster in my decision tree.

Games 3 and 4: Mixed results. I won Game 3 on a self-draw that, honestly, felt like it came a little early in the hand (I hadn't finished arranging my rack, which I believe contributed to a brief exchange with Diane about whether I had "called" my tile. I had. She disagreed. We moved on.) Game 4 was a loss. Howard completed a winds-dragons hand that I simply did not see coming. Well played.

Round 2: The Turning Point

Round 2 is where the tournament, for me, became difficult. And I want to be fair here: some of this was my play, and some of this was—how do I put this—table conditions that were not ideal.

The lighting in the Ridgemont Hills Community Center is, frankly, inadequate for competitive mahjong. The overhead fluorescents produce a glare on the tiles that makes it difficult to distinguish between certain colors, particularly the green and blue bamboo tiles under certain angles. I raised this concern with the organizing committee prior to the tournament and was told it would be "looked into." It was not looked into.

In Game 6, I miscalled a tile. I stated "six-dot" when, in fact, the tile I was claiming was a seven-dot. Under tournament rules, this constitutes a false claim, and my hand was declared dead. I will accept the ruling, but I will also note that the tile in question was a seven-dot that, under the lighting conditions described above, was genuinely difficult to distinguish from a six-dot. I asked the table judge to verify and she confirmed the tile was indeed a seven-dot. She did not comment on the lighting. I did not press the issue.

I should also mention that my table in Round 2 included Mildred Ostrowsky, who I will describe as a "competitive" player. Mildred is 82 years old and has been playing mahjong since, by her own account, the Eisenhower administration. She is, by any objective measure, a strong player. However, there are aspects of her game that I believe warrant scrutiny. Specifically, the speed with which she racks her tiles and the way she positions her hand near the wall during draws. I am not alleging anything. I am describing observations.

I finished Round 2 with a net negative score. This put me in a difficult position heading into the afternoon session.

Rounds 3 and 4: Playing Catch-Up

Rounds 3 and 4 are, unfortunately, a blur. When you're behind in a cumulative scoring tournament, you're forced to play more aggressively than you would like. I took risks that, in a vacuum, I would not consider. Some paid off. Most didn't.

In Game 10, I called a kong that exposed my hand too early and allowed the rest of the table to play defensively. In Game 12, I completed a solid mahjong on a quints-consecutive hybrid that I'm actually proud of—it's a hand that required reading the table correctly and executing a pivot in the middle game that worked beautifully. I've saved the hand for my records.

By the end of Round 4, I had accumulated enough points to finish… let me check my notes… 14th out of 28 players. Right in the middle of the pack. For a tournament where I was one of the organizers and one of the more experienced players at the event, this is a result that I find unsatisfactory.

What I'd Do Differently

  • Faster decisions in the Charleston. I spent too long deliberating in several games, which compressed the time I had for mid-game strategy.
  • Better joker management. I exposed jokers too early in two hands, which left me vulnerable when the table turned defensive.
  • Lighting. I will insist on better lighting at next year's event, even if it means relocating the tournament. This is non-negotiable.
  • Pre-tournament rest. I did not sleep well the night before. This is not an excuse. It's a factor. I will manage it better.

Congratulations to the Winner

The tournament was won by Mildred Ostrowsky, who finished with a commanding lead. I will congratulate Mildred, because that's the appropriate thing to do. As for the specifics of her play—the speed of her racking, the positioning of her hands during draws—I have nothing further to add at this time.

I will, however, be reviewing the tournament rules regarding player conduct for next year's event, with an eye toward greater specificity and clearer enforcement mechanisms.

— Bob Loblaw, Attorney at Tiles