A particular problem of traditional Rational Choice Theory is that it cannot explain
equilibrium selection in simple coordination games. In this paper we analyze and discuss
the solution concept for common coordination problems as incorporated in the theory of
Team Reasoning (TR). Special consideration is given to TR's concept of opportunistic
choice and to the resulting restrictions in using private information. We report results
from a laboratory experiment in which teams were given a chance to coordinate on a particular pattern of behavior in a sequence of HiLo games. A modification of the
stage game offered opportunities to improve on the team goal through changing this
accustomed pattern of behavior. Our observations throw considerable doubt on the
idea of opportunistic team reasoning as a guide to coordination. Contrary to what TR
would predict, individuals tend to stick to accustomed behavioral patterns. Moreover,
we find that individual decisions are at least partly determined by private information not accessible to all members of a team. Alternative theories of choice, in particular cognitive hierarchy theory may be more suitable to explain the observed pattern of behavior.