I have been wanting to write this post for some time. I've mentioned the joker issue in passing at the Wednesday circle and in emails with several players, and the response has been, in my experience, one of two things: either people agree with me and are surprised this hasn't been addressed, or people look at me like I've brought up something overly technical and change the subject.

It is not overly technical. It is fundamental. And I believe the continued absence of clear guidance on this issue is doing a disservice to players at all levels.

The Issue

Section 4(B) of the NMJL rules governs joker usage. Specifically, it addresses when and how jokers may be used as substitutes within exposed sets (pungs, kongs, and quints). The language in the current rulebook reads, to paraphrase: "A joker may be used to represent any tile in an exposed set."

On its face, this seems clear. And for most common scenarios, it is. If you have two 4-dots and a joker, you may expose that combination as a pung of 4-dots. Standard. Uncontroversial.

But what the rule does NOT address—and this is where the controversy lies—is the question of joker substitution in a scenario where the original tile subsequently appears in the discard pile.

Let me construct a hypothetical:

Player A has exposed a pung that includes one joker (representing, say, a 7-crak). Later in the hand, a 7-crak is discarded by Player B. May Player A now call that 7-crak, exchange it for the joker in their exposed set, and use the reclaimed joker elsewhere?

The rules, as written, do not clearly prohibit this. They describe how jokers may be used in exposed sets. They describe the process for claiming discards. But they do not explicitly address the interaction between these two mechanisms in the specific scenario I've described.

Now, in most casual play, this scenario either doesn't arise or is handled by table convention. "We just don't do that" or "Everyone knows you can't" is the typical response. But "everyone knows" is not a rule. And in tournament play, where precision matters, the absence of a clear ruling creates problems.

The Two Positions

As I see it, there are two reasonable interpretations:

Position A (Restrictive): Once a joker has been committed to an exposed set, it remains committed for the duration of the hand. This is the "spirit of the rule" interpretation. It prevents players from treating exposed sets as flexible holding zones that can be reorganized as the hand develops.

Position B (Permissive): The rules do not explicitly prohibit the exchange, and in the absence of explicit prohibition, the action should be permitted. This is the "letter of the rule" interpretation, and it is the position I—perhaps surprisingly—find more compelling.

I say "perhaps surprisingly" because people who know me know that I tend toward the restrictive interpretation on most rules questions. I believe in clear boundaries. I believe that ambiguity should, where possible, be resolved in favor of limiting player options rather than expanding them. But in this specific case, I believe Position B is correct, for the following reasons:

  1. The rules elsewhere in the document permit tile exchanges in exposed sets under specific conditions. The existence of ANY exchange mechanism suggests that exposed sets are not, by definition, frozen.
  2. The joker, by its nature, is a substitute. If it is being replaced by the actual tile it was substituting for, the logical structure of the exposed set has not changed. The set still contains the same tiles. Only the representation has changed.
  3. Prohibiting the exchange creates a perverse incentive: if I know that a joker committed to an exposed set cannot be reclaimed, I will be less likely to expose sets early, which slows the game and reduces the amount of information available to all players. A game with less information is a worse game.

What I'm Asking For

I am not asking the community to adopt my interpretation. I am asking the Rules Committee to issue a formal clarification. State the rule clearly, one way or the other. If the exchange is prohibited, say so and explain why. If it is permitted, say so and establish the conditions under which it may occur.

I have, in fact, drafted a formal petition to the Rules Committee requesting such clarification. I circulated the petition among members of the Greater Tri-County Mahjong Society and received, to date, four signatures in support (out of eleven members). The remaining members either declined to sign or did not respond to my emails. I am not discouraged by this. Petitions take time.

I should also note that I discussed this issue at length with a colleague of mine who practices in a different area of law but who shares my interest in mahjong jurisprudence (his term, not mine, but I've adopted it). He raised several points that I had not considered, and our discussion further solidified my belief that the issue warrants attention.

A Broader Point About Rules

Mahjong, like any competitive activity, requires a robust rule framework. The rules should be clear, comprehensive, and consistently applied. Where ambiguity exists, there should be a mechanism for resolution. The current system—where players are expected to "figure it out" or defer to "how it's always been done"—is, in my assessment, inadequate for the modern game.

American mahjong is growing. New players are coming into the game from different backgrounds, with different assumptions. They don't know "how it's always been done." They need written rules that they can read, understand, and apply. If the rules are ambiguous, they need a place to get answers.

I believe that place should exist, and I believe it should be the Rules Committee of the NMJL. Until it does, players like me are going to keep raising these issues. Not because we're trying to cause problems. Because we care about the game and we believe it deserves better.

— Bob Loblaw, Attorney at Tiles