"Dopesick" tries harder than it needs to

This probably doesn’t sink to the level of “crime,” but 1) it is cheating, 2) John Ramos did talk about it on The Blotter Presents a couple years back, and 3) let’s eeease into today’s topics with a relatively low-impact transgression — namely David Owen’s “The Great Bridge Boycott” for The New Yorker. If you’ve forgotten what led up to this kerfuffle, Owen’s previous overview of the Italian “Fantunes” bridge pair accused of Houston Astros-ing in bridge tourneys is linked within the current piece, which itself details protest forfeits by various teams in response to the inclusion of one of the accused, Fulvio Fantoni. Here’s a process-y bit that might make the piece worth your while even if, like me, you still struggle to understand the logistics of the game:

Good poker players watch for “tells”—such as tics, twitches, and nervous gestures—from the other players at the table. Bridge players do the same, but within narrow limits. If one of my opponents hesitates before making a bid or playing a card, I’m allowed to draw inferences; if my partner does, I’m not. Perhaps the oldest form of cheating in bridge is “coffeehousing,” which consists of attempting to fool an opponent through deceptive timing, misleading movements, and the like—forms of bluffing that are standard and unpenalized in poker. The ideal bridge player would always play at the same tempo and with the same inscrutable facial expression.

Owen shows up in our links from time to time, and I wish he’d do more longform on crime and cons; he has a brisk writing style that lends itself perfectly to complicated schemes and long background histories. (I suspect High School hasn’t aged well but was a fascinating piece of work when I read it back in the day.) — SDB