MAH JONGG TIE (ARTICLE 281)

In real-world play, most moments that feel “simultaneous” are not truly simultaneous at all. They are better understood as concurrent interests—situations when players respond at slightly different speeds, process information, or wait for another player’s action before committing. Naming these moments accurately matters because the rules are designed to resolve priority, not synchronicity. Framing these situations as concurrent interests allows players to apply the rules as intended, distinguish routine moments from edge cases, and reduce confusion during play.

In Mah Jongg Made Easy, the word simultaneous appears once, and only in the context of competing claims on the same discard: “If there is a simultaneous call for either exposure or Mah Jongg, the player next in turn gets preference.” This sentence governs how a single tile is awarded when more than one player wants it. Within that system, mah jongg always takes precedence over exposure, and when the purpose of the call is the same, the player next in turn has priority. This rule resolves concurrent interests; it does not address ties.

A new ruling, based on an NMJL letter dated November 19, 2025, addresses a situation when two players declare mah jongg simultaneously, but not on the same tile. One player declares on the last discard, while another declares on a drawn tile from the wall. Because these declarations result from different sources, the League considers them co-existing wins, not a priority conflict. In this rare case, both wins are honored. Since the League does not define a payout structure for tied mah jongg, groups must decide in advance how scoring or payment will be handled. This distinction is not an extension of simultaneous-call priority rules but a separate edge case in which priority does not apply.

In everyday play, what players encounter far more often are concurrent interests, not true simultaneity. In those situations, the established rules remain unchanged: mah jongg overrides exposure, and when multiple players want the same discard for the same reason, the player next in turn has preference. Treating concurrency as the norm—and reserving “ties” for this narrow, well-defined exception—keeps both gameplay and teaching clear and consistent.