The etiquette of being served first

[Fat Guy]

I noticed that on another thread -- a discussion of a poor meal at Lespinasse that I missed (the thread, not the meal, though I missed that too) on account of being out of town -- there was a discussion of the etiquette of waiting for the other people at your table to be served before eating.

This is a subject I've researched and written about, so I wanted to share my findings because there seemed to be some confusion regarding the "official" etiquette of such situations.

I can provide quotations and citations if necessary, but the short version is that every etiquette book I have and every etiquette authority I have interviewed says that when hot food is served in a non-simultaneous manner, it is expected that people will eat it when served. This is the case in both Europe and North America -- there is no difference in the etiquette as far as I know.

[Dave the Cook]

This confirms that there's a lot of rude people hanging around here. But I guess we already knew that.

[Ron Johnson]

Some citations would be helpful for the "I told you so" moment that I anticipate having with a friend's wife this weekend in light of this post. Thank you.

[tommy]

ut-oh. this is going to get good.

people in my family and my friends don't read books. we wait until everyone is served unless told to proceed by the person who's foodless.

[hollywood]

we wait until everyone is served unless told to proceed by the person who's foodless.

Everybody has to look at the foodless person...until he gets the message and does the right thing.

[cabrales]

It was incumbent upon the diners to collectively determine whether they wanted to adhere to formal etiquette and wait, or to adopt the practical solution of starting before the absent diner's return.

It was a French restaurant. French protocol, I believe, would have had you eating the food while it was hot.

It's a real burden to the kitchen if someone leaves the table at an inopportune moment, but it's the restaurant's responsibility, in a restaurant of this class, to see that the food is served when everyone is there ready to eat. I don't know when the diner left the table or why the servers were caught off guard and the service failure is apart from my comments on when diners should begin eating. There's no question in my mind that you eat when the food is served to you. If there's a delay in one dish, you eat as it arrives ...

I disagree that it would have been rude to start eating once you ageed to let the waiters place the food on the table ...

(Breach #6) I couldn't agree with Bux more. Yes, the kitchen and dining room teams at Lespinasse should have coordinated the placement of the dish with the female guest's departure. Note that in the US the practice, even at a restaurant at that level, is more mixed than at three or two-stars in France, say.

Moving on, once the dishes were set in front of the diners, it is not considered rude at an haute cuisine French restaurant of modern times to begin eating. While I have not encountered this problem frequently (given that I dine alone much of the time and separately that restuarants usually delay the placement of the dishes), I have experienced it at three-star levels and below on a very few occasions. The way I handled it at a three-star was to smile gently, looking at the waiter when the dish was presented (to signal I am reacting to the dining room team's error). Then I said in French something akin to: "Pardon me. I hope you don't mind that I begin without my dining companion. I'd like to sample the dish at the temperature the chef [note the reference to the chef] intended. I'm sure my dining companion wouldn't mind." This makes clear you recognized the restaurant's mistake, and you understand there is an argument you should have waited -- and yet you don't have to wait! The best of all possible worlds. In fact, the restaurant will then pay attention even more to your meal and you (leaving aside your dining companion, for now) will either be at least as well off, or even better off, than if the dish had not been presented in the dining companion's absence.

I agree with Steven. In addition to the points made in the Lespinasse thread, I note that the diners who remained at the table could begin taking in the hot dish and then *make a verbal apology* (to the extent they felt sorry) to the missing diner. Surely, if there is impoliteness involved, it would be impoliteness towards the missing diner, and could be addressed other than by waiting -- by an apology or dialogue.

Taking another example -- every diner is at the table, but some are served a hot dish first. It would be good etiquette on the part of the other diners to insist on the dish recipients starting first. However, on occasions when my dining companions have not offered that up and I see a temperature-sensitive (whether hot or cold) dish, I would mention that I was sorry for my impatience, but wanted to sample the dish at the temperature intended by the chef. I would ask whether my companions minded. (Note that, for a male dining companion in a date setting not to suggest I begin first is a negative in my book. Obviously, an even larger negative would be choosing a poor restaurant. Note the restaurant does not have to be expensive; but if it's inexpensive or expensive, it should have good qualities to its cuisine. An invitation to an eggnog latte at Starbucks can be as appealing as an inivitation to champagne.)

Edited December 9, 2002 by cabrales (log)

[Stone]

It's funny because this scenario seems to come up often. Usually, one person at the table quotes the rule "you know, if it's a hot dish being served, you don't have to wait for everyone to get their food before eating." Yet most people wait anyway because there's something inherently rude about eating when others (especially if there's only one other) haven't been served.

[ngatti]

That may be so. I'll take you at your word and defer to your greater knowledge...BUT...In every Kitchen I've worked in, the food does not leave the kitchen if a diner is missing and if the diner gets up after plating, the waitstaff will about face the course and bring it back to the kitchen.

FG, I didn't get too involved in the side thread that developed over this. The above explanation being my only experience with this. Bux had a good couple of points that agreed with you, but lizziee also had some on the con side of the argument.

So while you are correct, restaurant service etiquette, within my experience (limited to NYC kitchens that I have worked in) says that a table should not be served if a diner is missing. Good waitstaff have a way of letting you know that a course is about to be served: "Sir the course will be out momentarily." There must be many ways to signal the arrival of the next course thereby mitigating the possibility of food served out of order

Nick.

[tommy]

i've never heard anyone say "yes, i mind. don't start." not a very good barometer for judging a date!

[Wilfrid]

(W)hen hot food is served in a non-simultaneous manner, it is expected that people will eat it when served.

Pedantically, we are talking about the food being served in a simultaneous manner, but with someone absent.

Since your conclusion bears no resemblance to the way most people on the other thread, English and American, seemed to have been brought up, a citation would be interesting. I think even Bux was proposing something new rather than claiming that etiquette is already as you state.

Does one infer that no excuse, explanation or apology is required when the absent diner returns to find the rest of the table wiping their plates?

[hollywood]

Does one infer that no excuse, explanation or apology is required when the absent diner returns to find the rest of the table wiping their plates?

Check, please!

[tommy]

should we make the distinction now before it gets too confusing btwn the 2 disparate issues:

1) food is brought out for everyone except 1 person.

2) food is brought out for everyone and 1 person isn't present.

[hollywood]

should we make the distinction now before it gets too confusing btwn the 2 disparate issues:

1) food is brought out for everyone except 1 person.

2) food is brought out for everyone and 1 person isn't present.

Scenario 1), everyone stares at the unlucky diner waiting for the go ahead.

Scenario 2), everyone stares at the missing culprits chair, then at each other waiting to see who's gonna go first. What the hell, he'd want us to.

Edited December 9, 2002 by hollywood (log)

[Wilfrid]

Well-spotted, Thomas. I now think Fat Bloke was addressing 1) - and I agree that one expects the un-served person to say "Go ahead and start". The situation at Lespinasse was 2).

[cabrales]

Frankly, I believe there is an argument that in many instances it could be the departing diner's partial fault for not having timed her visit to the restroom appropriately. At French two- and three-stars, there's generally likely to be at least a short time gap between the removal of a dish and the arrival of the next dish (even for slow-ish eaters). A diner interested in going to the restroom should immediately leave after a dish is finished, and hurry back. Women diners might want to consider not spending excessive amounts of time on retouching their make-up/hair, etc., or making two short breaks instead of one extended one.

Edited December 9, 2002 by cabrales (log)

[Wilfrid]

That's all true, but I'm interested in what is correct etiquette in the States if the food shows up when a diner is absent. Fat Bloke surprises me, if he was indeed addressing that situation.

[tommy]

Frankly, I believe there is an argument that in many instances it could be the departing diner's partial fault for not having timed her visit to the restroom appropriately. At French two- and three-stars, there's generally likely to be at least a short time gap between the removal of a dish and the arrival of the next dish (even for slow-ish eaters).

where does "blame" play a role here?

additionally, even at many no-star restaurants in the US there's generally likely to be at least a short time gap between the removal of a dish and the arrival of the next dish.

[ngatti]

"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers."

Nick

[hollywood]

"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers."

Nick  

Is this a new dish? I thought revenge was best served cold?

[cabrales]

For me, the bottom line is that diners have to be accountable for their own decisions when they are confronted with a problem (e.g., food having been served despite the absence of a fellow diner). Each potential course of action has its pros and its cons. Having chosen (and I agree it would be best if the restaurant did not place the diners in the position of having to choose in this context), one cannot blame the restaurant for results that were at least in part due to one's choices (one can blame the restaurant for having been forced to choose).

In the Lespinasse case, with all empathy to Wilfrid and ngatti, they got the benefits of an appreciative returning missing diner. They suffered the consequences of colder cuisine. I sympathize, but I note there were other potential outcomes.

[Wilfrid]

But as Tommy says, what's blame got to do with it? The question is, once in that situation, what is the polite thing to do?

[Ron Johnson]

"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers."

Nick  

The quote actually is:

"If tyranny is to prevail, first kill all the lawyers."

There is no mention of waiting if hot food is served at the execution.

[Liza]

Unless one can page the missing diner to inquire as to their preference, my guess would be the polite thing would be to do exactly as you did and wait.

[cabrales]

Blame is perhaps a loaded term. Somebody has to accept responsibility for an adverse outcome, or perhaps at least one has to deduce who acted on what over the course of the serving and sampling of the dish and who did not act on what. I got the sense from the Lespinasse thread that negative inferences were drawn about the restaurants based on the cold food. I merely note that the cold food was a result of, among other things, (1) the restaurant having brought the dishes while a diner was away, (2) the restaurant having placed the cloche only on the missing diner's plates, (3) the restaurant having not replaced all plates with hot dishes, AND (4) the remaining diners' choice to await the return of the missing diner.

[Wilfrid]

Okay, say it's absolutely not the restaurant's fault in any way whatsoever. The diners are entirely to blame. Now, the question is: is it generally considered good etiquette in the States to wait for the absent diner to return or not?

I wish Fat Bloke would look in again, since he raised the subject, because I am no longer sure whether his first post addressed this situation, or the situation where all diners are present, but the food arrives non-simultaneously.

Edited December 9, 2002 by Wilfrid (log)