May 26,2004 

Robert A. Luciano 

President, Sierra Design Group 

300 Sierra Manor Drive 

Reno, NV 895 11 

Re: Sierra Design "Mystery Bingo" Game Classification Opinion 

Dear Mr. Luciano: 

This letter is in further response to the letter of April 7,2004, from Joseph 

Webster, Esq., on behalf of Sierra Design, requesting our advice on whether certain 

specified changes to the manner of play of "Mystery Bingo" would affect our 

determination that the game qualifies as Class I1 gaming under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act. Mr. Webster's letter of April 29,2004, provided additional information 

and justification for the proposed changes. 'l'lwullu' 

We provided an advisory classification opinion letter regarding "Mystery Bingo" 

on September 26,2003. In a letter dated April 2,2004, we agreed to changes in the 

"Mystery Bingo" prize structure. In a subsequent letter dated May 7,2004, we agreed 

that a change restoring the free space in the middle of the card and providing three balls 

in the first release rather than four balls would not affect our determination that the game 

was Class 11. We also informed you that we were still reviewing the other proposed 

change. Having concluded that review, we believe that the second change proposed in 

Mr. Webster's letter of April 7,2004, would significantly impact our classification 

determination. This change would place "Mystery Bingo" outside the parameters of 

Class 11, as that term is defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and NIGC 

regulations. 

Change proposal 

The proposed change provides that the electronic draw and release of all the balls 

necessary for consolation prizes will be accomplished in the same set of the balls drawn 

and released to award the winning prize. This means that the game would always be 

completed after two sets of balls were drawn and released unless the winning player or a 

consolation prize winner slept the bingo. 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St NW, Suite 9100. Wash~ngton. DC 20005 Tel- 202 632 7003 Fax 202 632 7066 WWW.NlGC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland. OR: Sacramento. CA, Phoen~x, AZ, St Paul. MN,Tulsa, OK 
Sierra Design "Mystery Bingo" game Classification Opinion 

May 26,2004 

Page 2 of 2 

In the "Mystery Bingo" version we reviewed for the September 26,2003, 

advisory opinion letter, the first winning pattern is achieved following the electronic draw 

and release of two sets of balls. The first set contains three balls, following the change 

approved in our letter of April 2,2004. The second set contains only the number of balls 

necessary for a player to obtain the winning pattern. Following the release of the second 

set, a winning player daubs and claims the prize and the game ends for that player. If the 

player sleeps the bingo, a third set of balls is electronically drawn and released. This set 

consists of the balls necessary to achieve the next straight-line winning bingo pattern. A 

player achieving this pattern daubs and claims the win. Unless that player sleeps the 

bingo, the game ends for that winning player, and so on. Consolation prizes are awarded 

in some but not all Mystery Bingo games.1 These prizes are awarded based on the play 

of bingo using subsequent electronically drawn sets of balls. Prizes are given to players 

who obtain and successfully daub the straight-line bingo pattern after the winning player 

obtains and successfully daubs the pattern. 

Discussion 

In the September 26,2003, advisory opinion letter, I pointed to the importance of 

the second statutory criterion within the IGRA bingo definition providing that bingo is a 

game "in which the holder of the card covers such numbers or designations when objects, 

" 'W similarly numbered or designated are drawn or electronically determined.. .." 25 U.S.C. 

2703(7)(A). We interpret this requirement to mean that the winning cardholder must 

cover at the point the winning ball is released. Permitting other prizes to be awarded 

based on balls drawn in the same set but after the ball that completes the winning pattern 

is drawn and released would not be in keeping with that requirement. Releasing balls in 

excess of the game winning ball compromises one of the fundamental characteristics of 

bingo.* The winning player would not be covering "when" the balls were drawn and 

released but "after" other balls were released. We recognize that under the proposed 

change, this electronic draw and release of additional balls in the same set is nearly 

instantaneous with the electronic draw and release of the winning ball, given the fast rate 

of play of the game, so our interpretation is not strictly based on time measurement. 

Rather, it is the fact that in bingo a player wins at the winning ball, and the player must 

1 The specific provisions for award of consolation prizes in "Mystery Bingo" is considered confidential 

proprietary information at the request of Sierra Design Group and is not discussed in detail in this opinion. 

In the MegaMania game, balls were released in sets of three until a winner daubed and declared. A player 

could win in a specific set with any of the three balls drawn, and the game paid ties. Release of a specific 

number of balls-three at a time-was a design feature. In the proposed change for Mystery Bingo, the 

number of balls to be released in the second set would be unpredictable, enhancing the possibility that other 

players will win, and the so-called "winner" may not be the fust person to cover. The release of additional 

balls past the number required to win the game was not addressed specifically in the MegaMania opinions. 

See U.S. v 103 Electronic Gambling Devices, 223 F.23d 1091 (9" Cir. 2000) and U.S. v 162 MegaMania 

Gambling Devices, 231F.3d 713 (10' Cir. 2000). 

hkl .' 
Sierra Design "Mystery Bingo" game Classification Opinion 

May 26,2004 

Page 3 of 3 

daub and claim the prize at that point, not later after other balls are electronically drawn 

and relea~ed.~ 

We also do not think that playing the "Mystery Bingo" game under the change 

proposed meets the third statutory criterion that bingo is a game "won by the first person 

covering a previously designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such 

cards.. .." In "Mystery Bingo" the common pattern for all prizes is a straight line 

covering five spaces on the bingo card. If played as proposed, it is likely that in many 

games a player who will only win a consolation prize will "daub" before the actual 

winner daubs. Under "Mystery Bingo" rules, the first player to actually "daub" or 

"cover" the game-winning pattern would not necessarily be declared the winner. 

IGRA provides that "other games similar to bingo" may also be Class I1 gaming, 

but does not define that term. Under recently adopted NIGC regulations, the term was 

defined as "any game played in the same location of bingo (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 

8 2703(7)(A)(i)) constituting a variant on the game of bingo provided that such game is 

not house banked and permits players to compete against each other." 25 C.F.R. 

§ 502.9. 

Pending further regulatory guidance, we are not prepared to conclude that the 

w modification proposed for "Mystery Bingo" falls within the permissible Class I1 variants 

of bingo. These are games that do not necessarily meet each of the elements specified in 

the statutory definition of bingo.4 As noted in the September 26,2003, advisory opinion 

however, some aspects of bingo are so important to the play of the game that they must 

be present even in the play of a game said to be "an other game similar to bingo."5 The 

proposed change to "Mystery Bingo" compromises two of the three statutory elements of 

IGRA's definition for bingo. When played as proposed, the game would not meet the 

second statutory criterion, that the "holder of the card covers when.. . numbers are 

In another advisory game opinion issued on September 22,2003, we did concluded that a game awarding 

interim prizes enroute to the gaming-ending (winning) bingo pattern could award the interim prize(s) in the 

same set of electronically determined balls which yielded the game-ending (winning) pattern. The 

difference is that the secondary prize-winning pattern at issue in Mystery Bingo comes after, not before, the 

game-ending (winning) pattern based on balls drawn in the same set. 

In comments to the new definition, the adopting Commissioners indicated their view that " 'other games 

similar to bingo' constitute a 'variant' on the game and do not necessarily meet each of the elements 

specified in the statutory definition of bingo." This leaves open the possibility that some of the statutory 

elements of bingo are so essential that departure from them means the game cannot even be "similar" to 

bingo. See 67 Fed. Reg. 41 171. 

The September 26,2003, advisory opinion stated "We find that covering numbers as they are called is an 

essential ingredient to the play of the game of bingo or a variant of that game. We conclude that a game 

offered as class I1 bingo or a "game similar to bingo" must provide a "daub" or ""cover" requirement for all 

players after the bingo numbers are announced and not just for winning players." See page 13 of 22. This 

lkwjlr requirement was also addressed in NIGC Bulletin 03-03 that discussed games with "pre-drawn numbers." 
Sierra Design "Mystery Bingo" game Classification Opinion 

May 26,2004 

Page 4 of 4 

drawn or electronically determined," and would not meet the third statutory element that 

the game must be "won by the first person covering, a pre-designated arrangement of 

numbers . . .on such cards." See 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(A). By avoiding both the "cover 

when" and "first person win" requirements, the proposed change for the "Mystery Bingo" 

game does not provide the participation and competition requirements inherent to the 

game of bingo. Games not meeting these requirements cannot be considered Class 11, 

and are therefore Class 111. (See 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(8).) Accordingly, we do not find that 

"Mystery Bingo" qualifies as "an other game similar to bingo" as the term is defined for 

purposes of Class I1 gaming under IGRA. 

Conclusion 

Mystery bingo, if played in the manner described in the change proposal 

discussed above, would not be a Class I1 game. The "Mystery Bingo" version 

determined to be Class I1 is the version described in the advisory opinion letter of 

September 26,2003, as modified by the letters approving changes dated April 2,2004, 

and May 7,2004. The revised description was provided as an attachment to the May 7, 

2004, letter. 

Sincerely, 

d 

Penny J. Coleman 

Acting General Counsel 

Copy to: 

Joseph Webster, Esq.