How stupid of me, and I thought that when they said there was a charge for sharing a sandwich they actually meant they would charge me for sharing the sandwich. Silly me. Jack, how did you know that I did manage to talk my way out of the 2 tickets I was stopped for in my life? And as far as the IRS goes, that's what we have accountants for, isn't it? Nothing ventured nothing gained...

I try to go to the Carnegie Deli every time I'm in New York, which works out to several times a year. They have the best pastrami reuben I've ever had in my life (I don't think the corned beef is nearly as good). The cheese they use is delicious. Yes, it is expensive, but I love it. I tried the Stage Deli once and thought it was nothing special. The last time I was at the Carnegie the menu said that there was a charge of $5 for sharing.

Hey Curious, I'm with you! One bite does not a sharing charge make. Heck, TWO bites doesn't either. If more people did what you did -- stiff the waitress who stiffed you -- this nonsense would stop.

That bite thing sounds rediculous! How much does this sandwich cost anyway? It sounds like the way to get your server's attention is to take a bite of someone else's food.

Keep in mind-Curious only took a bite but she DID NOT get a sandwich of her own. It is not out of the norm for restaurants to charge a sharing fee if the patron does not order a main course. Curious, did you order a meal at Peter Luger's? The waitress does not have time to count the # of bites one takes. At what point does it then become a plate charge??? 3 bites? 10 bites? Just pay the $5 and eat half of the sandwich that you're drooling all over and head back to weight watchers.

Thanks for the great replies. Didn't mean to get another battle going. Same thing happened on another thread. Y'all confirmed my beliefs that Carnegie is a trap. I think the sharing cost is stupid. You're paying enough for one sandwich. What happens if one person gets a reuben, for example, and the other person gets a pastrami and you switch halves. Is that considered sharing? I think I'll stick with the old standby of Katz's and 2nd Avenue. Thanks!

Of course I ordered a meal at Peter Luger's and at the Carnegie Deli as well - I ordered soup. It was lunchtime and I wouldn't even eat half of one of their sandwiches for lunch. If I actually did share a meal, for instance a pasta appetizer as I have a few times, I would fully expect to pay a sharing charge. Just because I'm not a glutton and didn't order an enormous sandwich doesn't mean I was trying to pull a fast one. x, what do you think, I just sat there watching my husband eat, hoping to sneak a few bites when the waitresses back was turned to get out of paying the sharing charge? That's funny.

No x, it is you and a few others who are stupid. For those of you in the dark, a sharing charge is applied when people want to split a dish at a restaurant. The restaurant divides the food in half, and places each half on a separate dish, then gives each dish to the customers sharing. Other than the Carnegie Deli, I have NEVER heard of a restaurant charging a customer a sharing charge for tasting another persons food. My husband and I almost always take a taste of each others dinner when we order differently. If some of you think it's just fine and dandy for a restaurant to do this by all means, keep standing up for their stupid policy and go to the Carnegie Deli. You're probably more typical of the type of person who would appreciate a restaurant that herds people in and throws a giant sandwich down in front of them than I am anyway. Go and enjoy your massive sandwiches at Carnegie.

Now Curious, don't confuse me with that other 'x'. I know what a sharing charge is, thank you, and now that I've heard your side of the story (again) I've changed my mind. To charge a $5 'sharing charge' for one bite of a sandwich is ludicrous. Stiffing the waitress was a good move.

Curious, I'm really curious. Why would you suggest that I might be a part owner when I'm one of the first people to post and say The Carnegie Deli wasn't worth it? But I still feel stiffing a waitress for doing the job she is supposed to do is not the answer to a problem. If two of us each ordered a sandwich and we each took "a bite" of each others and the waitress then charged us, the answer is very easy. I would not leave until I had asked the manager if that was their policy and make a formal complaint. If the manager said it was their policy then I certainly wouldn't stiff the waitress. You really want a waitress to lose her job because she follows orders? I agree it is an outrageous policy, but I can't believe it is the waitresses making that policy. Do you also stiff the waitress when the food is bad? Seems like everything is the waitress's fault.

Oh, please, stop bickering over this nonsense. What do you care if that waitress got stiffed or not. If she was a good waitress she would have been able to the handle the situation diplomatically enough that she would have still been left a tip.

No wonder we are a nation of lard butts if these sandwiches are that big.

OK, Former Waitress, I'll bite. Your boss has told you that you have to charge the sharing fee if a customer takes a bit of the other's sandwich. Now tell us how you diplomatically handle that situation so that you don't lose the tip? I'm really curious.

I've never understood the allure of these kind of places. Serve more food than a normal person could possibly eat, charge $18 for a sandwich and charge a sharing charge to prevent a reasonable couple from trying to avoid wasting food. It's stupid, wasteful and above all else touristy as evidenced by the shrieks and laughter and picture taking that occurs when one of these monstrosities is put infront of the lady from Iowa.

Why settle for stiffing the waitress? In a case like that I would have gone right to the "dine and dash" scenario!

The day I go to dinner with my spouse and can't have a taste of the other order is the day that I would have a fit as well. It clearly was the waitress who decided CM had comitted the "big sin" so it is she who deserves to be stiffed in return. CM
never requested to "share" the sandwich and no extra utensils/plates were provided. I think I might have protested the charges on my credit card as well and got the whole bill erased. How does a restaurant justify a $4-5 charge for sharing----it takes that much to wash a plate or an extra knife?? Perhaps we have to pay the chef to cut a sandwich in two. Give me a break! Carnegie Deli was never a favorite of mine anyway. I can't understand people who go to places that they know will be rude, overpriced and antagonizing. Is Carnegie Deli on Fodor's Rant and Rave??? If so, have you posted, CM? Give em hell. Bad for your hearts, people.

I eat at Carnegie when I am in the area. My husband and I always split the sandwich. What we do is order one sandwich, and 2 extra slices of bread. So, they charge $4 more, but we get 2 full sandwiches. Not so terrible. But, I still prefer Katz' Deli over all of them. They don't care if you share, bite, nibble, cuddle, or do the hoochie koochie on the table. Or at least they don't when it is Billy Crystal & Meg Ryan (look for their table).

I'll answer your question Patrick. A smart waitress wouldn't have noticed the bite and might have kidded the couple that "she didn't even charge them the sharing charge for that bite" when she handed them the bill. They probably would have all had a chuckle over it and left her a good tip. A smart waitress wouldn't have written down the sharing charge. But then again, a smart waitress wouldn't still be waitressing at the ripe old age most of those at Carnegie are, simply because they would have realized long ago that the policy of the restaurant is directly affecting their tips and gotten a job somewhere with policies that don't piss off the customers. Clear enough for you?

OK, "alsoaformer", I guess you win. That does sound like a nice way to handle it. But if Carnegie Deli is as firm on this policy as it sounds like they are and if she did this often (and it sounds like it must be a 'many times per day' occurrence), I suppose she'd soon lose her job. And I must agree with you, if she's smart she'd be happy to lose her job at such a place.
I guess the bottom line to all of this is -- "Folks, if you're not into overpriced and oversized food and don't want to get charged for even tasting each other's food, then stay far away from Carnegie Deli!!"

The point here is not whether the charge for sharing is right or wrong, or where the line should be drawn - that could be debated for days. The point is that they have a rule, which is clearly posted, and curious broke the rule. the waitress should not have been stiffed because it's probably not a policy she instituted. Does anyone read the "Ethicist" column in the NY Times magazine? This would actually be an interesting question for him, I think.