Mags Treanor
Coffeehousing is one of those wonderful Scrabble words that sounds as though it ought to involve cappuccinos, biscuits and perhaps a pleasant chat about vowel management. It doesn’t.
Apparently it’s psychological warfare. Or maybe it isn’t. That’s the problem. It’s amazing what my brain decides to obsess over. There are wars going on. Artificial intelligence appears to be rewriting civilisation while I’m still trying to work out why predictive text insists on correcting perfectly good Irish expressions into complete nonsense. And on top of all that…
I’m beginning to obsess about coffeehousing. Until recently, I didn’t even know it was a word. The first time I heard it was at a Scrabble tournament. A group of experienced players were talking about someone who was “always coffeehousing.” I smiled politely and nodded, hoping desperately nobody would ask me what they meant. Later, I discovered something rather odd. Everybody seemed to know exactly what coffeehousing was. Until you asked them to define it. Then the certainty disappeared.
“It’s when…”
“Well…”
“I know it when I see it.”
Do you? Because the more I thought about it, the less sure I became. Recently, I happened to read about former World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik being sanctioned by FIDE’s Ethics & Disciplinary Commission. It wasn’t for anything he did over the chessboard. It concerned repeated public accusations against other players away from it. What interested me wasn’t the case itself. It was the principle. Chess wasn’t simply asking: Did someone break the rules? It was asking something much more interesting: what sort of behaviour do we want in our community? And I found myself wondering whether Scrabble has quietly been wrestling with exactly the same question for years.
Coffeehousing, as tournament players generally use the term, describes behaviour that might distract, unsettle or psychologically influence an opponent during a game. Notice the word might. That’s where everything becomes wonderfully complicated. Take one example from the Causeway Challenge in Bangkok. It was the final day. King of the Hill. I’d already beaten the same opponent twice and we were about to sit down for another game. She looked at me and said,
“I need the prize money more than you do.”
I remember simply staring at her. Not because I necessarily believed her. For all I know, she may genuinely have needed the money more than I did. What surprised me was the timing. Why say it then? Why just before the game? To me, it certainly didn’t feel like conversation. It wasn’t about Scrabble. It wasn’t about the weather. It felt like an attempt to alter my emotional state before the first tile had even been drawn. Whether that was her intention… only she knows. But here’s the interesting part: almost immediately I stopped thinking about Scrabble. Instead of looking at my opening rack, my brain was suddenly busy elsewhere.
Did she really just say that? Why would she say that? Was she trying to make me feel guilty? Was it deliberate? For those few moments, I wasn’t analysing words. I was analysing a person.
And that’s where I found myself thinking about Daniel Kahneman, co-author of Thinking, Fast and Slow (if you haven’t read it, I highly recommend).
One of Kahneman’s central ideas is that attention is a limited resource. We like to think we can focus on several things at once, but in reality our attention is constantly being pulled from one place to another. When something unexpected demands our attention, something else inevitably receives less of it. Tournament Scrabble is an almost perfect example.
At any given moment you’re scanning for bingos, looking for hooks, tracking unseen tiles, planning your next move, watching the clock and trying to either open or close the board depending on who is in the lead. Your mind is already working flat out. Then somebody says something completely unrelated to the game.
Or hums while you’re thinking.
Or sighs dramatically.
Or repeatedly tells you how terrible their rack is.
Your brain doesn’t have a separate compartment labelled Ignore this. It automatically starts processing the interruption. For a few seconds, you’re no longer playing Scrabble. You’re wondering what they meant. Were they serious? Were they joking? Were they trying to put you off? Those few seconds may be all it takes to miss the best move on the board. Whether the behaviour was intentional is almost beside the point. The effect has already happened. Perhaps that’s what coffeehousing is really trying to exploit. Not your emotions. Your attention.
And of course Scrabble isn’t unique. In fact, while I was writing this article, I came across a BBC report about football supporters in Mexico trying to keep England players awake the night before a World Cup match with music and fireworks outside their hotel. Nobody would call that coffeehousing, but the psychology is remarkably similar. If you can occupy your opponent’s attention, interrupt their sleep or simply make them think about something other than the game, you’ve already gained a psychological advantage before the first whistle, or, in our case, before the first tile has even been drawn.
There are so many examples in Scrabble.
A player told me they went to the bathroom before a game, leaving their scoresheet and belongings at the table ready for the upcoming game. When they returned, everything had been moved neatly to the opposite side of the table and their opponent occupied the space they had clearly reserved. Nothing had been stolen. Nothing had been damaged. Nothing illegal had happened. The opponent involved had, shall we say, acquired something of a reputation over the years for tiny little behaviours that some players found unsettling. Was moving the opponents things to the other side of the table one of them?
Perhaps. Or perhaps they simply preferred sitting on the other side. Then there’s the player who quietly hums while you’re trying to think. Is that coffeehousing? Or are they simply humming? How would we ever know? That’s the fascinating thing about coffeehousing. It seems to exist somewhere between intent and impact. The player knows what they intended. The opponent only experiences the impact. And those two things aren’t always the same.
Interestingly, WESPA never actually defines coffeehousing. In fact, if you go looking for the word in the rulebook, you won’t find it. Instead, the rules ask players to uphold what they describe as “equitable, courteous, fair and honest play.” I rather like that.
Because perhaps coffeehousing isn’t really a rules problem. Perhaps it’s an ethics problem. Tournament directors cannot read minds. They can’t know whether a sigh was genuine frustration or carefully rehearsed theatre. They can’t know whether humming is simply somebody’s way of concentrating or a deliberate attempt to occupy somebody else’s attention. They can’t know whether a comment is innocent conversation or calculated manipulation. All they can judge is behaviour. And whether that behaviour is creating a fair playing environment. Every competitive sport wrestles with this. Psychologists often use the broader term gamesmanship. The aim isn’t necessarily to cheat. It’s to gain an advantage while staying within the rules. We all know how football players exaggerate fouls. Cricket has sledging. Poker has table talk. Even chess, the game we tend to think of as the purest battle of intellect, has spent decades debating behaviour that falls somewhere between perfectly acceptable and ethically questionable. Perhaps Scrabble shouldn’t be surprised that it has its own version. Which leads me to the question I keep coming back to.
If distracting your opponent helps you win… is it simply good strategy? Or is it poor sportsmanship? I’m genuinely not sure. Perhaps that’s why coffeehousing is such an interesting subject. Because there isn’t an obvious answer. Of course, all of this left me with a rather uncomfortable thought.
What if I coffeehouse?
Not deliberately. But accidentally. How often have I looked down at a rack containing two Vs, a Q and enough consonants to make me feel that this rack was surely meant for my opponent, and muttered, “Sweet Divine Mother of Christ…” Not for effect. Not as theatre. Simply because, at that particular moment, it seemed an entirely reasonable theological response. If my opponent hears that and thinks I’m trying to tell them something, whose responsibility is that? Mine? Theirs? Both? The more I thought about it, the more I realised that all of us probably affect our opponents from time to time without ever intending to. The occasional sigh. A laugh. A muttered comment. A raised eyebrow. That’s just being human.
For me, the difference comes when it becomes a pattern. When a player repeatedly seems to create little disturbances around the board. Each one, taken on its own, is almost impossible to object to. Together, however, they create an atmosphere. And that’s another reason I find coffeehousing so interesting. Scrabble is a surprisingly small world. A tournament might attract five hundred players from thirty different countries. But our community is tiny. People remember. Not just spectacular games. Not just tournament wins. They remember generosity. They remember kindness. They remember the player who congratulated them after a close loss. And, fairly or unfairly, they remember the players who are said to coffeehouse.
You hear it quietly over coffee.
“Oh… you’re playing that person.”
“Just be aware.”
Or simply, “You’ll see.”
No formal complaint. No warning. No penalty. Just a reputation.
In many ways, that’s probably more powerful than any punishment a rulebook could impose.
Which brings me back to the beginning. When I first heard the word, I assumed coffeehousing was about breaking rules. Now I think it’s about something else entirely. It’s about culture. It’s about the kind of community we want Scrabble to be. Should tournament Scrabble be a place where every legal psychological tactic is considered fair game? Or should there be an unwritten understanding that our job is to beat one another with better words, better strategy and better board vision, and not by occupying a little corner of our opponent’s mind that ought to be free to think about Scrabble? I honestly don’t know. I’m not even sure the answer belongs in the rulebook. Perhaps it belongs in conversations like this.
So here are some questions I’ve been asking myself:
Would I still say this if we weren’t in the middle of a game?
Am I communicating…or influencing?
If somebody did exactly the same thing to me, would I think it was fair?
And perhaps the biggest question of all.
When I walk away from the table, what do I want my opponent to remember?
We spend years chasing our ratings. And that’s inevitable.
But Scrabble is a remarkably small community and reputations travel astonishingly quickly.
That said, I’d hate this article to give the impression that tournament Scrabble is full of psychological warfare. Quite the opposite. While I was writing this, I also read Thomas Tuchel’s response after England supporters had been targeted by fireworks and music outside their hotel before the World Cup match. Rather than fuelling the controversy, he simply said that the Mexican fans had been “friendly and respectful.” I found that refreshing.
It reminded me of my own experience in Bangkok. One player’s comment about prize money stayed with me because it was unusual. The overwhelming majority of players I met, were generous, fair and genuinely gracious when their opponents played well. That’s probably why the occasional example of coffeehousing stands out so much. It isn’t the norm.
Long after people have forgotten our rating, they’ll remember something else. Our reputation. Which makes me wonder if perhaps rating is the legacy we chase, wheras reputation is the legacy we leave.
Enjoyed this? Get the next edition.
Subscribe and I’ll email you a link each time a new edition is published.