Since you asked....

Here's Bubbe's opinion about the "Table Rule" about throwing to three exposures:

Greetings and salutations!

Letters, Bubbe gets letters….well, email, anyway. Suddenly the hot topic is “table rules,” particularly when it comes to the bettor’s share.

The first thing you need to know---and actually, ALL you need to know---about a table rule is, that’s what it is. It’s a rule that you and your friends have created for yourselves. I’ve seen quite a few:

·       *  everyone throws tiles they don’t want into a “last mush,” before the game starts

·        *  players can trade a joker back into an exposure to get a tile they need (e.g. Flower, Wind, Soap)

·        *  players call for a tile to complete NEWS or a year combination, although it’s not their final tile

·         * jokers can be used for anything—including singles and pairs

You name it, if players want to change the rules, they will---and that’s fine, at their own table, as long as everyone agrees to it. But in order to play a game with the rest of the world, at a tournament or with any new group of people, you must use the standard National Mah Jongg League (NMJL) rules.

Once you incorporate table rules, just among your friends, you have crossed into unchartered territory. You’re beyond the scope of NMJL rules, and there’s no point in appealing to the League, Tom Sloper or even some nobody like ME to find out “the proper ruling.” You and your friends are sheriffs of your own frontier town—you make the laws. You must remember that all table rules require unanimous agreement.

But….just so you know what goes on with other players, I’ll share the first of the two questions:

My New York correspondents have a table rule that says, if a player throws the winning tile to a hand with three exposures, she must “pay for the table.” The principle, I believe, is that the player is taking a very big risk, and therefore must bear responsibility for her actions. Unfortunately, these ladies never fully defined the rule for every situation, so it became very complicated when a bettor got involved. 

For argument’s sake, let’s call the hand FFFF 1111 2222 DD—worth 25 cents—and say that it was NOT jokerless. I’ve assigned names to all the parties: Lulu, Pat, Dee and Trixie were playing, and Betty was the bettor (of course!). Lulu threw the winning tile, a Soap, to Trixie, who already had three exposures. 

If there had been no bettor, then according to their table rules, Lulu would have owed a dollar to Trixie. She would have “paid for the table”—her double share of 50 cents, plus 25 cents each to cover Pat and Dee’s debts.

The controversial situation was presented to me: Betty had chosen Lulu. Since NMJL rules say “bettor wins or loses same as player bet on,” Trixie expected that Betty should ALSO pay her a full dollar. 

Obviously, there are several ways to look at it. 

·         You can say, like Trixie, that the NMJL rule is stronger than a mere table rule, and that “loses” equates with “pays”: whatever Lulu pays, Betty pays. Trixie gets two full dollars, one each from Betty and Trixie. 

·         You can keep your table rule about Lulu “paying for the table,” and interpret the NMJL bettor rule separately. Betty didn’t play a role in Lulu’s risk-taking, so she “loses” only the official amount owed. The bettor follows NMJL rules and loses the same as the player she bet on—double (50 cents), while Lulu is still obligated by the table rule to pay a dollar for herself, Pat and Dee. Trixie gets a dollar from Lulu and 50 cents from Betty.

·         You can say that the table rule is stronger than the NMJL rule, and therefore, Lulu must cover all of the losses: her 50 cents for throwing, 25 cents each for Pat and Dee, and Betty’s 50 cents as bettor. Trixie gets a dollar and 50 cents from Lulu.

·         You can double-back the table rule, and include the NMJL rule: Lulu threw the very hot tile and owes a full dollar. Because she was bet on, and NMJL says bettor loses same as player, Betty loses a dollar as well. But doubling back, Lulu is still obligated to pay for all debts, including Betty’s fine, so Lulu must pay the full two dollars to Trixie.

I have no vested interest in the outcome of this debate. It’s up to the ladies to agree how they want to settle this. I did remind them, however, that they should consider all angles of this situation, so that if and when it comes up again, they are ready:

·        *  What if Betty had chosen Pat or Dee? Would Lulu be responsible for paying Trixie a dollar and twenty five cents—her own, Pat and Dee’s fees, plus the bettor’s…or would Betty be responsible for paying her own quarter?

·        * What if Betty had chosen the Wall? Would you decide it the same way as above?

·        * What if Betty had chosen Trixie? The bettor wins same as player bet on--$1 each. Is Lulu obligated to “pay all fines for the table”--$1 to Trixie and $1 to Betty—or should she only cover $1 to Trixie and 50 cents to Betty, and have Pat and Dee throw in a quarter, each, to Betty?

I don’t know how they resolved the situation—that’s their business—but does anyone have a strong feeling about any of the above choices? Email me at bubbefischer@gmail.com with questions, comments or stories of other table rules you’ve come across.

Bubbe Fischer