The purpose of this page is to discuss the exact details of the game of mah-jongg that varied so much. All those mah-jongg "wars" that raged in the 1920s were over minor details of the Chinese Classical game alone!

Milton C. Work, in his 1924 book, wrote a chapter entitled "The Moot Questions of Mah-Jongg." (Pages 77-109.) The entire chapter outlines the sort of fine points and details that provided the ammunition for the mah-jongg "wars."

For the time being, here is a [perhaps partial] list of them:

• THE MIXED-HAND GAME

• THE CLEARED-HAND GAME

• THE ONE-DOUBLE GAME

• THE TWO-DOUBLE GAME

• FLOWERS

• BOUQUETS

• PAYMENT TO ALL vs. PAYMENT TO WINNER ONLY

• 10 POINTS vs. 20 POINTS

• WHICH TILES MAY BE PAIRED TO OBTAIN AN ALL-COUNT HAND

• WHETHER CERTAIN THINGS INVALIDATE A NO-COUNT HAND

• DEAD WALL

• WHETHER THE LAST TILE SHOULD BE DISCARDED OR NOT

• LIMITS

• DISCARDS: FACE-DOWN OR FACE-UP

• FOUR WAYS TO HANDLE PREVAILING WIND

• WASHING THE TILES

• THE THIRTEEN MUMMIES

• DICE vs. WIND TILES

• NAMING THE DISCARDS

• WHICH TILE SHOULD REPLACE FLOWERS

• FALSE MAH-JONGG

• RETENTION OF THE EAST SEAT

• HANDLING OF CONFLICTING CLAIMS FOR A PUNG

CONCLUSION:

These are all minor details of the game. One table may take different sides regarding any or several of the above, and still be playing what we call "Chinese Classical" mah-jongg. None of the above says "drop the triplet-counting and just count the doubles." The authors in the 1920s who talked about different "kinds" of mah-jongg were still all talking about CC.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time at the moment to scan the entire chapter of Work's book, nor to describe each of the above controversies in detail sufficient to satisfy all readers. Perhaps in time.

Please use your browser's BACK button to return to the previous page.