Another first for me today at the Planet Hollywood game was that two deaf friends joined the game at the same time, on opposite sides of the table. They were frequently signing to each other between hands, though I never noticed it during hands.
All poker rooms that I know of have an "English only" rule. However, some say the rule is in effect only when a hand is in progress, others say it is in effect for everybody at the table all the time. There are cogent arguments to be made either way, and I don't have a strong opinion about one being clearly preferable to the other, as long as it is enforced consistently.
But whichever way the rule is to be enforced in a particular place, the question is this: Should American Sign Language--or any other form of sign language (other spoken languages have their signing parallels, and deaf friends/siblings, I'm told, often concoct their own)--be considered a non-English language the same way that, say, Japanese would be?
It seems to me that it surely must be, for logical consistency, though the rules seem always to be written in terms of what language is spoken during the game, so there might be a loophole that a table lawyer could argue about.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
What's your sign?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
This is an interesting issue. ASL is certainly a language. The intent of the English-only rule is to prevent collusion and cheating. From some sessions where the rule was poorly enforced, I know the feeling of frustration and concern that can arise when players are talking in another language during play.
However, ASL is used by people because of a disability. Poker rules are already interpreted to accommodate certain disabilities. For example, a blind person might have a card reader whisper their hole cards and the board to them, despite the "one player to a hand" rule. In the case of ASL, permitting it to be used between hands, but not during play, seems a reasonable compromise between accommodation of player comfort and protecting the integrity of the game.
A lawyer wouldn't need any loopholes. The Americans w/ Disabilities Act would provide for this. English Only clearly would be considered discriminatory to the deaf or hard of hearing. BTW, IANAL, and am often incorrect, so take that as you may...
Post a Comment