So if we agree that the rules aren't great and are primarily structured that way because they're easier to enforce than ideal rules, it seems like the only thing we disagree on is how much judgement people are allowed to use regarding strictness of enforcement of suboptimal rules.

To go back to a previous comment you made, this is exactly where the "I want to choose who to enforce it against" comes in. If the entire table is Chinese and two people speak Cantonese, it's almost certain that they're expecting a fraction of the table to understand them, and it's unlikely they mean any harm. If the entire table is Chinese and two people speak French, they're probably not expecting anyone to understand them, and they probably mean harm. They could be wrong on either way (if I were at the table they would be wrong both ways) but combined with their level of play, it's not Setec Astronomy level codebreaking to figure out their motivations.

I will make a boast - that if I were to watch a videotape of two people talking at the table with the sound turned OFF, I would be able to get a pretty good handle on whether they care if people understand or not. Like speaking of pirogis, Worm's sigh/eyeroll when Mike uncharacteristically checks his ace would be a good example of someone who - if on camera - wouldn't realize he betrayed his intentions.

I'm not arguing that the rules should change; I'll freely admit that I can't think of a better rule. But I also think that it does more harm than good to constantly chastise talkative players, who are generally worse than their quiet counterparts, in marginal situations.

And maybe the house has a rule about the rules. That's fine too. If the dealer strictly enforces the rule and says he'll get fired for anything but the strictest enforcement, I disagree with the house rule but respect that. But as it is, at least in most places I've played, discretion is given to the players and dealers and I think both players and dealers should use it wisely.

No I believe the rule is the optimal rule for a suboptimal situation. Since we can't be fiat of rule make everyone understand everyone we must deal with the situation and I can see no better rule than English Only (or the local language if it is other than English) during the play of a hand.

Nor is our disagreement about how much judgment people are allowed to use in the enforcement of the rule. Our disagreement is about who gets to use that judgment. But more so you have not argued about strictness of the enforcement of a rule, who have argued for players to have the option to completely waive a rule.


Enforcement of the rule is not about whether they mean any harm. 99% of the time that some chucklehead says something against the rules .... they don;t mean any harm. They are to0 dense to understand why what they are saying s a problem, or sometimes they understand but just can't help themselves. They didn't mean any harm. Should the dealer not correct the behavior just because they meant no harm?

I will give you this if a full table of foreign language speakers come in and say we wish to have a private game and in our private game we want to speak a foreign language .... and we understand that since the dealer doesn't speak our language the dealer is unable to police the game to protect us .... then I would be okay with opening a private game for them... I would not let it be a game that others could come into and I would only do it when it didn;t interfere with the business needs of the poker room.

But that is not the same as running a public game and letting them make an adhoc decision to do the same thing.

Again motivation is not my concern. When one guy looks at another guy in the hand with a 3rd player all-in and says "Check it down?" That guy is usually incredulous when I tell him he can't do that....... Thats why he does it on the open because he thinks its fine to do..... So to with the foreign language speakers .... they will say things not because they are trying to cheat but because they think there is nothing wrong with the things they are saying.

but can you tell when the guy turn to his wife sitting behind him and says I would have had top two pair if I hadn't folded? Do you think that may be a problem if someone still in the hand understands what he said?

players should be constantly chastised. They should be advised of the rule and then they should comply. If once in a while they slip up and do it again... something should be said to get them back on the track they were on when complying. If I have to constantly chastise them ... then they are choosing to ignore the rule and they should be asked to leave ..... so constant chastisement should never be needed.

I'll just respond to this portion instead of quoting everything, but my response will include replies to nonquoted sections.

---

What do you mean by "a problem"? Problems have degrees. Some solutions are worse than the problems they solve.

Is it possible for someone who says, "I would have had two pair" to cause a problem? Absolutely, but rarely. What about the person who tanks on the turn, folds, and then groans when his draw would have hit on the river? Yep, that too.

People who mumble and you can't tell if they said "fifteen" or "fifty"? People who pump fake calling? People so fat that the dealer can't pitch cards to their neighbors? All of those I agree/concede can cause problems, but to different degrees.

All of these have draconian solutions which could solve the problems. But the solutions are probably as undesirable as the problems they cause.

The casino is viewed as a fun, recreational place, where people take a break from getting chastised and nitpicked. And of course everyone has to follow major rules because rules are how we get along, but there are other rules that don't bring about the apocalypse if broken.

I don't find English only during a hand to be a draconian rule. If I were to go play in a non English speaking locale I would have no issue with a rule that said I couldn't speak englisg during a hand. Yes I might slip up occasionally and being reminded of the rule would get me to try to comply.

"English only during a hand" is only the first half of the rule. The second half is the "or else" part.