110713 Tue May 14 19:57:41 -0700 2002 17 7 Chicago Area 0 598069 Hi, I have a question for you all - what do you think about the "we do not seat incomplete parties" rule that many places have? On the one hand, I appreciate that if someone can't get their butt in on time, then let them wait, but on the other hand, I find that I don't buy drinks if I'm waiting for someone to join me, because I hate having to walk through a restaurant with full hands and generally I'm going to want wine with dinner. But I often will get a drink if I'm seated and waiting for a friend. So by not seating me, they lose out on liquor sales. Do other people buy drinks if they have to wait at the bar? This is prompted by a long wait for a 5th of a party of 5, during which we didn't know it was a case of "we don't seat incomplete parties" and thought they were just confused about whether we were going to be 4 or 5 and didn't have the right sized table or something. Later we found out it was due to our friend being late. (I was so annoyed by the lack of communication, during which at least once they told us to follow them and then sent us back to the bar, that I didn't order ANYTHING to drink at the meal). Harumph. Lee. Tue May 14 19:57:41 -0700 2002 0 leek 1 598071 You ask, "Do other people buy drinks if they have to wait at the bar?" Short answer: Yes (but I don't understand the policy of not seating incomplete parties, particularly if the party is 80% there, as yours was) Tue May 14 20:24:49 -0700 2002 598069 0 David Hammond 2 598074 Because, of course, that 80% would probably order a couple of apps while waiting! Tue May 14 21:40:44 -0700 2002 598071 0 galleygirl 3 598089 I worked at a busy restaurant with this policy. If there were three people waiting for a fourth, they would likely be sat, because they were taking up the same size table with or without. But a four waiting for two more wouldn't be sat because that would take a different size. More often than you'd think, the other people never show up, and then you've lost a seating of another big party, or of a table you've pushed together with others. If you seat them at a smaller table and then the other two do show up, moving them is a disruptive hassle. They probably should have sat you as a four waiting for a fifth, unless their four top tables can't hold five. It's possible that they didn't because they simply need a consisent policy (probably what's going on with the empty place that wouldn't seat an incomplete too). If some people get sat with incomplete parties and some don't, you can bet someone's gonna take it personally and cause a big problem for you. If you treat everyone with the same policy, people might get irritated, but they can't say they're being singled out for unfair treatment. Wed May 15 10:24:50 -0700 2002 598074 0 A Okrent 1 598073 I do understand the point of view of the restaurant if you're waiting in line at a place that doesn't take reservations like Frontera or The Berghoff--they like to keep the tables moving along--that's one of the reasons they don't take reservations. If I have a reservation and I'm there on time and, it's obvious there are tables available I expect to be seated. Last month I had a really delicious dinner at Thyme but I won't go back because they insisted we wait to be seated (in a room that was nearly empty) until the third person arrived. No, we didn't have a drink at the bar, and yes we would have had one if we'd been seated. Tue May 14 20:48:03 -0700 2002 598069 0 JoanB 1 598130 Let's say a restaurant has 10 tables with 5 avail 8.00 reservations to book. Say 4 of those tables turn from earlier reservations, but one early table is laggard and hangs around til 8.15. It is good policy to seat the complete parties first at the open tables and make the incomplete party wait at the bar until the rest of their party arrives. This only applies when a restaurant is fully booked, otherwise an incomplete party should be seated at their leisure. Wed May 15 15:25:51 -0700 2002 598069 0 van 2 598197 A group of 3 of us went to Wishbone last week. The restaurant was deserted and our fourth friend was running late. They refused to seat us. I started laughing and said "well the three of us intend to eat...so please seat us." She said it was policy and she couldn't do it. So I looked at her and said " I have now changed my mind. We are a party of three and we may have a fourth." She then sat us at a four top. DUH. I can see if you are a group of 10 and only 2 people are there...but a group of three waiting for the four? AND the restaurant is empty. Bye bye Wishbone. Thu May 16 16:56:24 -0700 2002 598130 0 Aliselara 3 598223 OK, if we are talking minor restaurant annoyances...... I made a reservation for Monday at Kevin and they required a credit card of which they will charge $25 per person if we don't show. They said it was due to the fact that the NRA (national restaurant show) is in town and that it is not their usual policy. My question is that if they are so darn busy why did they still have a 7:30 reservation open for 4? Still, I am really looking forward to Kevin, I have heard that it is fast approaching Spring, which is one of my favorites. Enjoy, Gary Thu May 16 23:10:56 -0700 2002 598197 0 G Wiv 4 598232 It is not fully clear in your post, but do you have an issue with giving a credit card to secure a reservation? The practice bothers me in the least. I have heard so much about how over-booking hurts resturants, how people, especially tourists (and attendee's of the Resturant Show!) reserve tables at multiple spots and decide later. How much business do the unpicked spot lose? All the credit card policy does is give people a little extra reminder to be courteous and cancel what they have booked. Is it really odd that you got a reservation. Perhaps someone just canceled moments before you called. Reservations are just like e-bay auctions. Sometimes you need to make an early bid, some times a crucial late call does it. Also, when deposits are on the line, are not more people actually cancelling as their plans firm up? I tend to be critical of resturant practices and poor service, but on the issue of deposits, I totally side with the resturants. Rob Fri May 17 10:40:51 -0700 2002 598223 0 Vital Information 5 598246 Rob, It's not that I have an issue with credit card deposits, just, as I said, I find it a minor annoyance. Admittedly Kevin is a 'hot ticket' with NRA attendees, and the reservation person specified that this policy was only in effect during the NRA, as many conventioneers, especially food conventioneers, tend to make multiple reservations. He even went so far as to apologize when I gave him my phone number and he realized I was local. I simply see this as one additional small shift away from the customer. Trotter's, Tru and Gary Danko only take CC deposits for 5 or more, which at $200+ per person with limited seating is understandable, though I don't think Kevin is quite in their league. Either way, I gave Kevin my CC # without hesitation and am looking forward to going there Monday, as I said it was a very minor annoyance. Coincidentally, we happen to be going to Kevin with a chef friend who is in for the NRA, so maybe they had me pegged right all along. I will submit a full report. Enjoy, Gary Fri May 17 14:02:57 -0700 2002 598232 0 G Wiv 5 598317 re cancelling - I can tell you that if I have to cancel, I call - and ALWAYS get a very suprised, very grateful "thank you SO much for calling." Kind of like the time I bought a rug at Cost Plus, got it home and found out it was actually 2 rugs rolled up together. I brought it back, gave it to the manager, and started to leave. They chased me down the street to give me candy, they were so grateful. That says something sad about our society. Mon May 20 12:42:20 -0700 2002 598232 0 leek 4 598234 I forgot to mention about Kevin. I have never been there, but I snagged a menu one evening. I would guess that the menu on your visit will look different, still there were some things that really sounded good including: - tartare of tunaa with wasabi and hamachi salad with herbs, chili, lime, green papaya and sesame [how Nobu !] - shrimp tempura marinated in chili, sesame and garlic in a tomato and thai herb coulis - sauteed breast of duck in a black peppercorn sauce on spiced peanut and napa salad with duck confit and a smoked duck and plaintain spring roll. I mean do not those dishes sound great! I look foward to the review (hint, hint) Rob Fri May 17 10:53:24 -0700 2002 598223 0 Vital Information 5 598249 Rob, Thanks for the heads up on the menu items, the tuna tartare with wasabi and hamachi salad sounds particularly good. Actually, all the items you listed sound wonderful, Asian influenced, hot and spicy flavors with lots of seafood and the occasional duck breast thrown in for good measure. Thanks again, I will submit a full report. Enjoy, Gary Kevin 9 West Hubbard Chicago, IL. 312-595-0055 Fri May 17 15:14:09 -0700 2002 598234 0 G Wiv 1 598136 I was recently part of a large party--9 of us--at a restaurant that has the "no seating of incomplete parties" policy. Seven of us were there on time (the other 2 were coming from out of town), but they still wouldn't seat us, even though we could see our empty table from the bar (there was only one table set up in the restaurant that could accommodate so many of us). The organizer of the dinner was able to finally cajol the hostess into seating us after about 15 minutes of waiting. Ten minutes later, the last two members of our party arrived. I'm sure we would have ordered drinks and appetizers before our straggling friends arrived if we'd been seated earlier. Wed May 15 16:23:35 -0700 2002 598069 0 Li Wen 1 598141 I'm a little dismayed to see a number of people make the point that they would spend money on drinks and first courses if restaurants seated their incomplete parties, but not if they are made to wait in the anteroom even when tables are available. What, have we concluded that restaurants must be tempted with a financial incentive simply to treat their customers decently? My goodness, a place with open tables that will not seat a party, even if incomplete, is guilty of rudeness of a most basic kind and should not be patronized, period. I would not even remain in the premises, I would wait on the sidewalk outide for the missing members to show up, and then go somewhere else. I can understand a restaurant's prioritizing all-present parties for available seating if the place is busy and tables are scarce. But when tables are plentiful, there is no excuse. Don't offer bribes to places that treat the customer poorly - vote with your feet. Restaurants change their policies only when those policies start hurting their bottom lines. Wed May 15 16:56:18 -0700 2002 598069 0 Harry V. 2 598188 harry writes it is dismaying that we "would spend money on drinks and first courses if restaurants seated their incomplete parties, but not if they are made to wait in the anteroom" as an incentive to be seated. I think you may be misunderstanding me. I would order an appetizer if seated at a table, but not if at the bar because you never know when your friends will come. If you are seated and they come, great, the apps are coming and they'll share. If at the bar, well you have to carry your drinks, settle the tab, what if your order hasn't come yet... it's just more of a pain. Especially since I generally don't get a mixed drink, but a bottle of wine with dinner. At the bar, I haven't a good idea of the menu yet, and haven't perused the wine list. So it's more for my comfort than as an incentive. I was just wondering if I am weird in ordering if at a table and waiting but not at the bar and waiting. Thu May 16 13:06:11 -0700 2002 598141 0 leek 3 598189 I'm sorry, I wrote a bit carelessly. I believe I understand the situation from the customer's perspective - your ordering extra food/drinks would be done, on your part, strictly for your own enjoyment. Needless to say, that is why you are at that particular restaurant, to enjoy its food and drink. However, I still note that this likelihood (of ordering food/drinks if treated well but not if not) is posited publicly, as if your point were to call an establishment's attention to the fact that they might profit by treating their customers decently. This is what led to my dismay. The fact that the practices of a given establishment could ever prompt a customer to even to embark upon such considerations is, to me, a sign that the establishment should not be patronized. Thu May 16 13:34:28 -0700 2002 598188 0 Harry V. 4 598200 Ok, maybe *I'M* writing carelessly :) :) My original intent was not to chastize the establishment (note that I did not name it) but to do a reality check. Partly on not seating incomplete parties (which we didn't know they did, actually, until we had been waiting a long time) and partly on ordering at the bar. Am I weird in this behavior? I probably should have done two posts on the two issues. On bar ordering when waiting - when we were at another establishment we came in, were told there would be a wait (no reservations, crowded place) and sat at the bar - and ordered a glass of wine, and before it came, we were called for a table. The bartender hadn't opened it yet, and we told him "nevermind, we'll just order from the table." Reinforcing my original thought of "don't bother to order from the bar, it will be too quick before you are seated to enjoy it". This goes doubly if you are just waiting for another person to show up for a reservation - it should only be another few minutes, after all we knew what time we were to be there. If I know it's going to be forever, I will order from the bar (like getting a bottle of champagne for our group at Brasserie Jo on Bastille Day) but if I don't know how long it's going to be, then it seems like a waste. Thu May 16 17:09:09 -0700 2002 598189 0 leek