World Mahjong Championship 2012

In October 2012, I and a few other Singaporeans participated in the World Mahjong Championship (WMC), held in Qianjiang, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.

For me, it was my second time participating in a WMC; the first was in 2010. The World Mahjong Championship is a special event for me: it represents the highest level of mahjong competitive play, and it is a gathering of the most enthusiastic and knowledgeable mahjong players from around the world. Of course, this WMC uses only one of many mahjong variants, i.e. Mahjong Competition Rules (MCR), and thus only attracts the adherents of MCR, a small fraction of all the many mahjong players in the world. MCR, however, is a variant that was specifically designed for international competitive play, and there is no other ruleset/variant that is used regularly for international competition.

Into the World of Mahjong
As it was my second WMC, I naturally hoped for better results. I attained a rank of just 133 out of 208 competitors in 2010, and my goal this time around was to better that. It was not going to be an easy task, as we were facing some of the best players China has to offer, and there are a lot of good MCR players in China! Besides players from China, WMC 2012 attracted players from many other countries: Japan, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and Sweden.

From China itself, teams represented various provinces and regions: Beijing, Anhui, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Shaanxi (陕西), Shandong, Shanxi (山西), Sichuan, Xinjiang, and Yunnan. Some of the players came from regions that did not have full teams and thus competed in trans-regional teams (e.g. a mixed Tianjin–Beijing team) or as individuals (e.g. a competitor from Guangxi). Amongst these are some very well-known (in Chinese circles), veteran players such as Jiao Linghua (WMC 2010 champion and 5th China Majiang Open champion), Duan Tingxiu, Zhang Fengying, Zhang Bingcheng, as well as young but strong players such as Song Panjing, Zhang Zhangfeng, and Hu Zhiwei.

Because of the recent political spat over Diaoyudao/Senkaku Islands, some of the Japanese competitors faced problems in attending the WMC, and so pulled out of the competition altogether. On the European side, several top players opted to stay home, and there were fewer European competitors than originally anticipated (e.g. none from Belgium, Hungary, Switzerland, the UK; and rather few from the Metropolitan France, Italy, and the Netherlands, considering their large mahjong associations). Despite these developments, it was still a most exciting and intriguing mix of competitors. I think the Europeans and Chinese were also quite curious about us Singaporeans, since this was the first time so many took part in an MCR competition.

The World Mahjong Championship and the World Mahjong Culture Exchange Congress that preceded it were held in Qianjiang, a district in Chongqing Municipality. The Chinese organisers decided on this venue in order to help promote tourism in Qianjiang. So, on 24th October 2012, the majority of our team from Singapore flew to Chongqing Jiangbei Airport, where we met up with some of the Chinese organising team and volunteers, and some of the Chinese competitors (from Xi'an, Shaanxi), and then proceeded to take the long bus journey to Qianjiang some 400km away. Four of us had decided to attend the World Mahjong Culture Exchange Congress and the accompanying referee training; the other two members of our team would only come two days later for the actual competition. Arriving early gave us a little time to get used to the environs and the food (typical Sichuan cuisine which was fiery hot!), as well as get to know some of the other participants and to learn more about mahjong.

The World Mahjong Culture Exchange Congress turned out to be very interesting. Unfortunately, the main bulk of the congress (presentations and talks) was conducted only in Mandarin Chinese, and most of the non-Chinese participants were left scratching their heads since the Chinese-to-English translation was not really adequate. Thus, when it came to the discussion on the rules of MCR, I was roped in to help with Chinese-to-English translation. It turns out that being bilingual (as most Singaporeans are) is quite useful in such situations. My team-mates and I continued to act as impromptu translators for the European and the Chinese participants throughout the course of the WMC.

At the WMC, we met Sheila Hansen, a fellow Singaporean residing in Denmark. She had been living in Denmark for over 15 years and had married a Dane. She picked up MCR at the local mahjong club in Copenhagen, and came to represent Denmark for WMC 2012. So, we were quite surprised when the Chinese organisers checked with us about our seven competitors; we were actually only six players flying in from Singapore. Of course, I belatedly realised that Sheila was coming with the Danish contingent but the Chinese organisers had counted Sheila as Singaporean (going by her nationality as given during application for the competition)! In fact, this confusion over nationality/representation of country plagued a few other competitors: there was a German player of Russian origin, and another Danish competitor is actually Brazilian by nationality. This was eventually sorted out (all the competitors represented the countries that they were supposed to represent, nationality aside), but in the meanwhile we joked about Sheila being counted as Singaporean in order for us to win a prize in the country category. (The combined results of the top four players in each country counts toward the country score, so if Sheila placed within the top four Singaporeans, she could have helped lift our results.)

In any case, it was really great meeting Sheila. She still visits Singapore every now and then, and in order to play MCR in Singapore, she had to teach some of her friends MCR. Well, we asked Sheila to introduce her friends to our MCR club here in Singapore so that we could get more members!

The Tournament
The World Mahjong Championship this year featured a total of 188 competitors, hailing from twelve different countries. Prizes were awarded in three categories: individual, team of four players, and country (top four players). There were 45 teams (thus totalling 180 players, leaving 8 competitors not in teams), and eight countries eligible for the country prize (2 countries did not send enough competitors to qualify).

The competition itself comprised a pre-determined round-robin of eight games, and two final games using a Danish system of player-matching. In the first eight games, players were assigned to one of four sections, where players within each section would never meet, and at each table, a player would meet an opponent from each of the other sections. So, the Chinese players were placed in two sections fully (Sections 1 and 3), and the remaining were placed in the last section. The bulk of the Europeans (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands) were placed in Section 2, while the Japanese, the rest of the Europeans (Italy, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and a misplaced German of Russian origin), us Singaporeans were placed in Section 4 with the few Chinese. This sort of table arrangement meant that a Japanese competitor always plays against two Chinese and one European opponents; a European competitor in Section 2 always plays against two Chinese opponents and another opponent (Chinese, Japanese, Singapore, European), and thus possibly against three Chinese opponents; a European competitor in Section 4 always plays against two Chinese opponents and another European opponent; while we Singaporeans always play against two Chinese and one European opponents.

In the final two games, because of the Danish system employed, players are matched according to their rankings in the competition (based on their table points, then competition points obtained during the first eight, and first nine, games). The Danish system means that competitors may meet opponents they had played before (something the Swiss system, a related tournament system, avoids). This results in some exciting matches amongst the strongest players.

The ten games for the WMC took place over three days. Three glorious days of intense and competitive mahjong. We played from 8.30 in the morning all the way to 7.30 in the evening for the first two days of competition, covering the eight games of the round-robin. The final two games took place in the morning of the third day, and we finally knew how well we performed. I did better than targetted (actually, just a modest goal of finishing within the top half of the field), with an eventual rank of 19th, but at the same time, I was disappointed I did not do well enough to place within the top 16. I was so very close, having even the chance to reach 5th! Still, for a sophomore outing at a proper MCR tournament, I was already very pleased with my improvement. My team-mates all did relatively well, considering that this was their first ever MCR tournament, but some felt they fell below their own expectations.

Then, it was time to socialise more, to get to know our opponents as friends, then to celebrate the conclusion of the tournament with a banquet and some merry-making!

After the Tournament
It was difficult to leave Qianjiang after such a wonderful experience, of mahjong playing and competing, of learning new things, of making new friends. Of course, now that we had all experienced the pleasure of competing at the highest level possible, our appetites for more competitions have been whetted. For my team-mates, this was their first competition, and WMC 2012 has stoked their desire for more competition, the same way WMC 2010 got me hooked on competitive mahjong.

So, 2012 is now coming to a close, and we are looking forward to 2013. It has been a rather good year for me and for my fellow MCR aficionados: we set up an MCR club, and we got to compete in the WMC. So, we aim to play in more MCR competitions in 2013 and beyond. There is no WMC in 2013, but there are still going to be competitions with strong players to meet.


Full results for the competition can be found here: WMC 2012 results.

Our Singapore team at WMC 2012.
(Photo credit: Lee Kau Fu.)

The opening ceremony at Zhuoshui Town within Qianjiang.
(Photo credit: Justine Tay.)

Sheila Hansen (centre), our fellow Singaporean!
(Photo credit: Sheila Hansen.)

Justine and YS in practice with some French players.

The bustling tournament hall, before the start of Game 9.

Two of Kau Fu's opponents. André Balagourou from France (left), highest-ranked European in WMC 2012, and Duan Yanbin from China (right), WMC 2012 champion.
(Photo credit: Lee Kau Fu.)

A private practice game with two of China's young experts. Li Wenlong (left) and Hu Zhiwei (right) are both members of a Beijing club, Fangzhuang Julebu 方庄俱乐部, and part of the winning team in the 5th China Majiang Open in 2011.

Myself (second from right) in action, with Danish opponent Jesper Willemoes Hansen (second from left).
(Photo credit: Sheila Hansen.)

A Need for Standardisation of Rules for Mahjong Tournaments in Singapore

I had started a series of articles on Singapore Style mahjong last year in an effort to document properly all the rules (well-known and obscure) of Singapore Style rules so that I can draft a more coherent set of rules for use in tournaments (see post on Tournaments and Singapore Style Mahjong Rules). This is necessary for me as a referee and technical advisor to community centres (CCs) organising mahjong tournaments, but this project is also a one-man show, and I hold no special authority other than the fact that I have done all my research on mahjong, as can be seen on this blog.

Anyway, a few incidents recently prompted some reflection on the state of mahjong tournaments in Singapore and the definition of Singapore Style mahjong: a few tournaments my students/associates (and I) participated in, a tournament where I served as referee and technical advisor, and ogiuemaniax's question (addressed here in Relative lack of low-value scoring elements in Singapore Style mahjong?).

Mahjong Tournaments in Singapore
Mahjong has an awkward position in Singapore: it is simultaneously reviled as an instrument for gambling and a social evil, and lauded as a tool to help active ageing. Up until recently, playing of mahjong was considered illegal (although apparently, it is not; even the police cannot really do anything about people playing mahjong, unless there is evidence of illegal gambling, or if the activity caused too many noise and disturbance), and playing of mahjong in public was outright disallowed. Mahjong tournaments, even if they were harmless and not associated with gambling, were also disallowed in public organisations such as the People's Association (PA) (see this ST report from 2008). Things have changed quite a bit since, and there are many mahjong tournaments being organised these days, and mostly by the CCs under the PA. Even so, the staging of mahjong tournaments is regulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs via the police, and permission has to be sought for such events.

So, while mahjong tournaments are becoming more common, the most important thing has not: the creation and adoption of a standardised mahjong ruleset. In Singapore, unfortunately, there is little interest in more standardised rulesets such as Mahjong Competition Rules (MCR), Zung Jung, or Japanese riichi. MCR, Zung Jung, and riichi of course also represent rather different variants of mahjong which Singaporeans are not familiar with, but they do have properly codified practices. Very well, Singaporeans may well ignore such standardised rulesets since they are foreign, but should they at least then look towards a standardised version of their favoured local rule variant, that is, Singapore Style Mahjong? From the looks of it, as experienced at various tournaments organised by different CCs, by NTUC U Live, and by private clubs, the answer seems to be a pathetic 'no'.

Rules? What Rules?
First off, some mahjong tournament organisers do not even bother to draft out proper rules, print them out and let the participants know beforehand of the rules to be used at the tournaments. Participants come to the tournament, clutching their own understanding of the rules and hope to be able to do well enough in an uncertain environment. Needless to say, without clear direction from the organisers, players often just arbitrate amongst themselves, leading to some rather divergent settlements. This is not exactly fair to participants who are sometimes disadvantaged by such arbitrary and non-standard decisions.

Worse, the rules at the tournament turn out to be quite different from the commonly used ones, so players have to adjust their strategies and styles of play on the spot. For example, at the recently staged mahjong tournament at Kampong Ubi CC (by the way, they called it a 'Friendly Mahjong Match'), the rules turned out to be quite different from expected. The notable differences were: no animals were used (!!); there was no one-double minimum, the flowerless pinghu value was adjusted from 4 doubles to only 3.5 doubles (actually, 10× the base stake; this is an ineffective adjustment anyway, for without animal tiles, this kind of pinghu is too easily achieved, so the value is highly inflated). Basically, these rules now resembled a hybrid form of Hong Kong Style and Singapore Style mahjong. Strangely, despite chicken hands (i.e. 0-double hands) being allowed, there was no properly allocated rate for 0-double wins. If the base stake was supposed to be 0.5/1, then the 1-double payment should be 1/2 and so on. But since a 0.5 chip was not feasible, the organisers decided to round up the value to 1, and so a 0-double win earned 1/1, which is hardly different from a 1-double win at 1/2. There goes any justification to even try for a 1-double win! This is patently a poorly thought-out solution because it closed the difference between 0 double and 1 double to almost nothing. A more logical solution would be to change the base stake to 1/2 (i.e. 0-double wins score 1/2) and double from there (i.e. 1-double wins score 2/4 and so on).

These changes were not minor and essentially changed the dynamics of the game so much that it was hardly fair to more seasoned players of the Singapore Style rules. In fact, this ruleset can hardly be called Singapore Style anymore! The worse thing was, had players known of such rules before registering for the tournament, they may have changed their minds and not joined it at all. My students and associates had tried asking for a copy of the rules, but were fobbed off with replies like 'oh, they will explain the rules on the day of the competition'. Evidently, they did not enjoy playing at the competition at all, and some have sworn off ever participating at this CC's tournaments.

Contrary to its aims of bringing people together, this mahjong tournament had annoyed veteran players with its seemingly idiosyncratic rules. Such atypical rules were explained as 'to cater for older players to make it easier' (I presume the organisers meant older novice players) but which at the same time confuses the veteran older players. Kampong Ubi CC's ruleset simply deviated too much from the more commonly used rules, as played by most people and as used in most other CCs.

I can only conclude that the organisers did not really know the rules very well, lacked experience in running such tournaments, and assumed too much of their participants (that they will be old[er] and are novices that require rules that make the game easier to play). With so many tournaments being organised by CCs nowadays, there are players who go around participating such tournaments as often as they can. Such players are not novices and hardly naive, and so, such non-standardised and arbitrary rules just make things difficult for them and are discouraging in nature.

Badly Written Rules
Some other CCs were not so poorly organised as to not have any rules and regulations to distribute to registrants for their tournaments. However, their efforts are often not good enough. For example, their rules (whether in English, Chinese, or a typically Singaporean mix of both) can contain many strange terms, Chinese characters, and bizarre explanations (see pictures below).

Fig. 1. An example of very poor copy-editing: where one important character is written as two different characters.

Figure 1 (above) shows the poor copy-editing that is found in printed rules and regulations for tournaments. In just one section, we can find examples of two different Han characters that supposed to be the same! Of course, in my view, neither 胡 nor 糊 are correct; the correct character that represents a winning/complete hand is actually 和 (and this is correctly used in PRC Chinese and Japanese publications on mahjong). But the point is, why do these people who organise tournaments and write/edit rules and regulations not spend more effort to ensure that basic things the name of a game element is written correctly and consistently? I do not even want to touch on the English names and the mixing of the Chinese and English text in the explanation for the scoring element.

Fig.2 An example of poor knowledge and/or research. How can such a common, basic word in the Chinese mahjong terminology be wrong?

Figure 2 (above) shows the lack of research and fact-checking that should be done for official documents (even if these are just for social events). It just shows a lack of knowledge, professionalism, and commitment to the cause. There is an abundance of mahjong materials in both English and Chinese available in our public libraries as well as on the Internet! There is no excuse to omit the basic research. What is even more unforgivable in this context is that the mistake in Figure 2 came from a set of rules and regulations prepared by a youth committee. So, even less of an excuse for not even giving Google a go! By the way, 冈 gāng is not even pronounced the same as 杠 gàng (the correct character), as was the case for the confusion between 胡/糊/(湖)/和 (all pronounced as hú) as in Figure 1.

In another incident, I was helping out at a mahjong tournament at the invitation of the organising committee. But this invitation came about just three weeks before the event itself, and the organising committee had prepared a set of rules and regulations taken from another CC. Now, this set of rules and regulations seem to act as a common reference document as it seems that several CCs used the same for their own tournaments, but unfortunately, this original document had myriad errors, unconventional spellings, and wrong choice of Han characters (for example, 供 gòng instead of 杠 gàng), and poorly written explanations for the scoring elements. As referee, I had to adhere to a set of rules that I felt comfortable with (i.e. logical, consistent, and balanced) but the disseminated rules had so many errors and problems in them. Since the rules and regulations had already been released for dissemination, i.e. people who registered for the tournament received the already printed rules and regulations document, I was unable to revise the document totally. So, I ended up going through the entire set of rules during the rules briefing before the start of the tournament and answered all participants' questions individually. Even then, some participants came up to us (i.e. me and members of the organising committee) and berated us for giving them such a confusing and poorly written set of rules and regulations. What was I to say? I had no control over this particular matter.

The Need for Standardisation
All these recent incidents merely highlighted the need for a consistent and coherent set of Singapore Style rules that are stable and not change from tournament to tournament. Now that mahjong tournaments are becoming more common in Singapore, a pool of competitive players is growing, and there is a growing expectation that the rules conform to a common understanding of what constitutes Singapore Style mahjong. Whether there is true standardisation (and regulation by a governing body) remains to be seen, but a generally identical set of rules that recurs at the various CCs would be most welcome.

I now help two different CCs run mahjong tournaments and so they use my rules, and in a little way, I have helped create a little standardisation. It would be indeed presumptuous of me to suggest that CCs use my set of rules (which, by the way, is still a work in progress), but at the very least, they can use it as a form of reference to improve their own rules and regulations. I would welcome a form of forum amongst clubs that can thrash out all the rules to create a unified set of rules for use by all participating clubs: that would be the ideal platform for standardisation. But that would remain an improbable hope for now.

Relative Lack of Low-Value Scoring Elements in Singapore Style Mahjong?

I have just received an interesting comment/question from ogiuemaniax, who writes:

I am someone who primarily plays Japanese mahjong, but over the past year or so I've become increasingly interested in other forms of mahjong, if only to see what variety exists out there. In this time, I've had the chance to play Singapore-style online, whether against computers or human opponents (on Viwawa if you know that site), and I just wanted to ask someone more familiar with the game to see if my observations are at all accurate.

Coming from Japanese-style, I find the most significant difference to not be so much the lack of riichi or even the animal tiles (though they do contribute to a different experience), but the relative lack of low fan/tai hands. Things like tanyao (all simples) and iipeikou (two of the same sequence) don't exist in Singapore mahjong, and so I feel like the hands are more inflexible, that they don't flow into each other quite as easily.

As a result, it seems like you have to decide from the very beginning where you want your hand to go and that, unless you draw a relevant bonus tile, you have to stick to your path much more diligently, whether that's an all sequences hand or starting out with two honor tiles and planning around getting the third or aiming for a half flush.

I see that there is the possibiliy of increasing the tai minimum in order to make the game more challenging, but my opinion (based on my limited experience) is that high tai requirements are not suitable for Singapore Mahjong because of the relatively small amount of available hands. Unlike MCR especially where there are so many hands that you can realistically stack many of them together to meet more difficult fan requirements, I feel like anything more than a 2 tai minimum in Singapore Mahjong may make the game overly stiff and unwieldy, though whether the minimum is better at 1 or 2 is something I'm undecided on.

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. I don't pretend to be an expert in even my own preferred mahjong, so I'm looking forward to a response.

A most interesting comment, with some interesting points to discuss! Below, I have laid out my thoughts and views in response to ogiuemaniax's comment. By no means are these points conclusive and definitive; there is a lot of scope for discussion.

1. Significant differences between Japanese riichi majan and Singapore Style mahjong.
I find it actually difficult to articulate the significant difference because Japanese riichi majan and Singapore Style mahjong are so different but yet still quite similar. I will try to discuss this point from a historical perspective.

Essentially, Japanese riichi majan and Singapore Style mahjong evolved from what is known as Chinese Classical, but in different ways. Both variants actually retain many features of Chinese Classical; we can compare this to variants such as American mah jongg (almost no resemblance to any other variant of mahjong anymore!), MCR, and Taiwanese. However, I view Singapore Style to be more conservative, and this includes the retention of most, if not all, of the traditional scoring elements found in Chinese Classical, whereas Japanese riichi majan innovated many new scoring elements (examples ogiuemaniax brought up include tanyao and iipeikou). Many of the newer styles of mahjong (e.g. Shanghainese, Hong Kong New Style, MCR, Zung Jung) have similar/identical innovations pertaining to new scoring elements. Singapore Style and Hong Kong Old Style, by contrast, use few, if any, new scoring elements beyond those inherited from Chinese Classical.

Because there are many more ways to obtain higher scores through hand manipulation, rather than through sheer luck (say, through the drawing of bonus tiles), Japanese riichi majan, MCR, Zung Jung have all developed to emphasise hand-construction and to de-emphasise luck. This is the reason, perhaps, why Japanese riichi majan use no flowers. Contrastingly, Singapore Style mahjong added four more bonus tiles. This makes obtaining the minimum of one double (one tai) relatively easier, and drawing more useful bonus tiles is not that difficult. In terms of play, a Singapore Style player can expect to win a lot of hands with one double, two doubles, three doubles, just using the bonus tiles alone.

So, if you were to ask me, the significant difference between Japanese riichi majan and Singapore Style mahjong is then not truly about the relative lack of low-value scoring elements, but the presence or absence of bonus tiles that fulfil the role of obligatory scoring element (i.e. the equivalent of yaku, not han). Since there are no bonus tiles that easily allow any player to meet the minimum requirement to win in Japanese riichi majan, the player is forced to use any of the available yaku to compete for the win. By necessity, a lot more yaku had been developed to allow the player more opportunities to complete the hand.

2. Flexibility and hand development
Well, it is true that without bonus tiles, the hand development in Singapore Style mahjong usually takes only one of three paths: All Chows (pinghu), All Pungs, and Mixed Suit/Half Flush. But this is not really very different from Japanese riichi majan. I doubt it is easy to 'flow' from an opened hand with a pung of Seat Wind back into something else other than All Pungs and/or Half Flush anyway. People tend to think of Japanese riichi majan as 'flexible' but only if the hand remains concealed (which then allow the completion of obligatorily concealed scoring elements such as riichi, pinfu, menzen, iipeikou etc. and some optionally concealed scoring elements). Singapore Style mahjong is as flexible as most other variants; opening up a hand always create a loss of flexibility. It is less of a hindrance in Singapore Style mahjong though, since bonus tiles usually shoulder the requirement for more doubles for high-scoring wins.

3. Scoring system dictates the strategy
Sometimes, it is rather difficult to compare different styles of mahjong. The very differences in the scoring system will create different conditions that then constrain the kinds of strategies usable. Singapore Style mahjong does not require the kind of flexibility demanded in Japanese riichi majan. If a player who is used to a style of play best suited for Japanese riichi majan play that way in Singapore Style mahjong, then he may not be able to do well. Since there is no restriction on concealment for pinghu in Singapore Style, players will readily open their hands to take chows to quickly advance their hands towards completion (moreso if such players have not drawn any bonus tiles and wish to aim for a 4-double pinghu win). The presence of bonus tiles affects the strategies of players in Singapore Style and cannot be discounted.

4. Minimum and maximum
Actually, as typically played in Singapore, a minimum of one double and a maximum of five doubles is 'standard' (well, 'standard' means 'very common' here) after decades of game evolution and equilibrium. The scoring system (with all the associated bao penalties etc.) have stabilised to be most balanced under the conditions of a minimum of one double and a maximum of five doubles.

If there is no minimum (thus allowing Chicken Hands), then there is not enough challenge for players; to meet a minimum of one double, players must know how to construct a pinghu hand correctly in the absence of a valid bonus tile. If the minimum is raised to two doubles, players cannot pre-empt dangerous players late-game with a cheap one-double pinghu hand; therefore any minimum above one double is typically unpopular with the more experienced and expert players.

The maximum of five doubles fits nicely with limiting the role of luck (especially for luck-based limit hands like Heavenly Win, Eight Flowers etc.), and at the same time making the role of bao penalties relevant and interesting. If the limit is too high, say, at 8 doubles, then a baoda penalty, where a player becomes penalised for discarding a tile allowing a dangerous player to go from 7 to 8 doubles (i.e. to reach the Limit; based on the exposed bonus tiles and Honour tile melds on the tables) becomes all too rare and thus pointless. It is common to see 4 doubles on the table, so a baoda penalty is quite likely in such situations; much less common to see 7 doubles on the table.


ogiuemaniax, I hope this answers your query in some part. Feel free to carry on this discussion with your comments.

MCR Club in Singapore

I am happy to announce the formation of a mahjong club focusing on MCR play! This new club is actually an interest group hosted by Nee Soon South Community Club, but it will be open to all interested players. I am the organiser for this club and will thus programme and coordinate the activities of this club.

This interest group is intended to provide a venue for mahjong enthusiasts to play in a serious, competitive manner. The choice of rule variant is MCR as MCR is the main variant used for international competition. So, this MCR club will cater to both very competitive players who intend to participate in international tournaments (as I did in 2010, at the World Mahjong Championships in Utrecht, the Netherlands), as well as more casual players who just want to play a good (but mentally challenging) game of mahjong.

The club will meet about twice a month for play sessions, mainly on Saturday evenings, and on the occasional Sunday afternoon. Play sessions will comprise 2-hour games, and players will be moved around to play against different opponents for each game. A small fee will be charged per game. Spectating is free though.

All interested mahjong enthusiasts are welcome! To play, proficiency in MCR is required. Newcomers to MCR can download a PDF copy here (China Majiang Net) or here (European Mahjong Association version).

Our very first session is on 16th June 2012, at 5.30pm. Nee Soon South Community Club is located very near to Khatib MRT Station.

Enquiries are welcome! Please leave a comment here with your contact details.