No reservations (the policy)

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I was wondering about feelings toward restaurants with a no reservations policy. Actually, I know the general answer - which is that in polls and studies or whatever, diners apparently overwhelmingly prefer the security of reservations to no reservations, and that having a no reservations policy has (I think) been shown to actually damper business, or at least to have no real bearing on the bottom line, even taking into consideration the money saved not having a full-time receptionist.

But I get off track. I suppose I understand the practice, at least when there is a bar involved. More waiting means more drinking. And having the policy in place is certainly any restaurant's prerogative. But is there any other defense of this practice? (

(The cynic in me feels it's simply there to discriminate against or dissuade families, though by extension it also hurts parents dining out sans kids, since they - and by they I mean me, of course - are unlikely to pick a place with a potentially long wait when there's a sitter on the clock. There are lots of places I'd love to try out, or try out more frequently, were it practically feasible to do so.)

Anyway: thoughts? Opinions?

There's a disproportionate response in many consumers (likely related to the "customer is always right" mentality) that makes reservations a losing proposition for some restaurants. The same person who feels within their right to book several tables for the same night and then pick whichever suits their fancy at the last minute will likely blow their top if they're asked to wait 10 minutes past the time of their reservation to be seated. In other words, you can't make everyone happy. First come, first served is as good a solution as any, and I don't see any inherent bias in such a system. Time is money to everyone, not just people who have hired a babysitter for the evening.

If reservations are a losing proposition as practiced, and lost seatings are a real issue, wouldn't it make more sense to adjust the reservation policy and enact penalties for canceling reservations? Conversely, one would think any restaurant good/hyped/whatever enough to result in waits over, say, 45 minutes for a table would be able to easily fill whatever tables are left open by abandoned reservations. No? It just seems to me that the blanket no reservations policy, despite ostensibly being "first come, first served" egalitarian, may actually discourage as many diners as it may invite. That is, I can't imagine it being much more than a wash, financially speaking.

Again, I should stress that it is every restaurant's right to adopt no reservations policies, and I can think of several places where a reservation policy could potentially lock people out for hours if not outright months (say, Great Lakes or Kuma's). But spots like those seem like exceptions rather than rules. I'd still like to hear how restaurants with no reservations policies directly benefit, because a full house is a full house. No?

Vitesse98 wrote: I'd still like to hear how restaurants with no reservations policies directly benefit, because a full house is a full house. No?

I think this basically answers your question: no guarantees that people who reserve will show up, while the people at the door are actually there.

Somewhere here there's a thread where a customer freaked out on Alinea and blasted them because they were charged for a no-show, even though the restaurant had called them to confirm. I have a feeling that penalties just create all kinds of bad PR - something that really has an impact on the bottom line.

You take for granted that if a popular no-reservation place decided to offer reservations that the crowd waiting for a table would be the same...I don't think that's the case at all. The crowd is a result of the policy. If people could just phone in a table time, they wouldn't be there two hours earlier sitting around drinking. And, if a place was supposedly all booked up for the night, there aren't going to be a lot of folks who are willing to stand around hoping for a last minute no-show. As we've seen in other threads, attempts to secure against no-shows are bound to rub some folks the wrong way. However, I think a hybrid system could be beneficial, where a certain number of tables are offered for booking, but the rest are for walk-ins. This would ensure a decent walk-in crowd from which to draw to fill any canceled/skipped reservations. It wouldn't be perfect, I can foresee a couple of implementation and staffing problems, so I don't know if there's a great motivation for a successful no-rez place to try it.

One of the big ways that restaurants benefit financially from this policy is that they don't have to pay people to answer the phones and maintain the reservation book/computer. They'll still have hosts/hostesses, but probably fewer of them and not during off hours.

It's also a way to save A LOT of hassles. Restaurant staff are forever juggling, adjusting, responding to situations caused by people not honoring reservations, showing up early or late, camping out at a table that's reserved for another later party. Removing the need to think about all that saves a restaurant's staff a lot of stress.

Personally, I like it, both from a restaurateur's standpoint, and from a customer's. But I'm also not a planner and tend to go places on a whim, so often show up without reservations anyway, and I don't mind waiting and having a couple drinks first, which I'd probably do anyway.

How does it benefit any restaurant, then, to have reservations, if they cost them customers and money?

It does seem to me that there would indeed be room for compromise. Last I checked, I believe restaurants experience about 15-20% missed or skipped reservations. The question is how much potential business a walk-up only restaurant loses thanks to its no-reservation policy, but I imagine that number is a lot harder to quantify. Does anyone know of a restaurant that used to be no-reservation that has since gone reservation, or vice versa?

Shortly after Schwa opened they were getting a lot of cancellations and were thinking about no longer accepting reservations. I'm not sure, in retrospect, if that would have been a good idea or a bad idea from a business perspective for them. Personally I don't think I would have enjoyed waiting out on Ashland for a table to free up.

Anyway, I'm not really a fan of places that don't take reservations since I mostly eat out on the weekends and don't enjoy risking long waits. A place like Chizakaya, for example, I'm much more likely to go to now that they accept reservations.

Restaurants with a cancellation fee are a bit less likely to get my business. Not that I've ever missed a reservation, but paying for not getting service seems a little harsh. I'm also suspicious of giving a credit card to the kid on the phone when I call.

On the "should they accept reservations" philosophy: my wife, her three sisters and their mother went to a show right after xmas, and were looking for a restaurant open after the show (6:30 start was kind of weird, even on a Sunday, as that meant it was too early to eat before, and not many places are open after 9 on a Sunday). Purple Pig sounded like a good idea... except for the no-rez situation. They didn't want to get there to be turned away or have a long wait. (They went to Quartino and had a very nice time).

How does it benefit any restaurant, then, to have reservations, if they cost them customers and money?

well, for one thing, most restaurants aren't beating customers away with a stick, so for them, taking reservations is great because it locks people in. you capture the sale when they make the phone call, notwithstanding the small percentage that change their mind or no-show.

for another thing, it allows the restaurant to plan how the evening is going to go and prep/staff accordingly.

it's also a courtesy to the diner who wants/needs the assurance that their table will be ready at the agreed-upon time, for those who need to get to a show, make a flight, or whatever. some people just aren't comfortable leaving things to chance and need to know that the table will be ready and waiting for them right as they drop the car at the valet. restaurants that want to cater to this sort of diner (and there are plenty of them) will offer reservations.

really, it's only restaurants that are pretty much full every single night that can get away with a no reservations policy. either that or restaurants that are really strongly committed to being a casual drop-in type place, or are taking an egalitarian bent to the extreme.

places that aren't going at close to capacity will pretty much bend over backwards to accommodate whoever happens to call or show some interest, and will nearly always be tickled pink to take a reservation.

JoelF wrote:Restaurants with a cancellation fee are a bit less likely to get my business. Not that I've ever missed a reservation, but paying for not getting service seems a little harsh. I'm also suspicious of giving a credit card to the kid on the phone when I call.

On the "should they accept reservations" philosophy: my wife, her three sisters and their mother went to a show right after xmas, and were looking for a restaurant open after the show (6:30 start was kind of weird, even on a Sunday, as that meant it was too early to eat before, and not many places are open after 9 on a Sunday). Purple Pig sounded like a good idea... except for the no-rez situation. They didn't want to get there to be turned away or have a long wait. (They went to Quartino and had a very nice time).

There's a great place in SF, La Mar (actually part of a South American chain) that charges a penalty for a missed reservation but it applies it to a gift card for the full amount. A pretty nice solution.

That's a great compromise! So, perhaps, is the Next solution.

Anyway, if a restaurant is full every night with a no-res policy, why not just have reservations and still be full every night, rather than guarantee a long wait for walk-ups? A restaurant can still keep a couple of tables and/or the bar free for those that actually enjoy the thrill of sitting/standing around waiting.

I have a different take on this, because the better half is also someone with a rather severe physical disability, who cannot tolerate any extremes in temperature. Of course, this means most all of the year in Chicagoland!

We simply cannot EVER partake in a fine dining locale if they do not take reservations, unless the weather is within a very limited range of temperatures.

So as a matter of practice, we just do not patronize Frontera Grill, or the Purple Pig, or any of the other high end spots that cannot guarantee us a reservation.

By the same token, I also am entirely sympathetic of those places that want to charge a "no show" fee if they are not contacted in advance. As I recall, back in the day, Cafe Provencal, and later, Trio, had such policies. A place like Alinea or Trotter's is entirely within its right to recover against no-shows, because unlike places with heavy foot traffic, they cannot count on walk by business to fill an uncovered table. So I absolutely will patronize these restaurants, and in fact, tend to favor them. They take their reservations seriously, and so do I.

I agree with the poster that said that one restaurant applies the "no-show" fee to a gift card, that's great hospitality idea.

One last thought... There are two kind of no-show's. There are true thoughtless people who double book, and drop a reservation after the group votes on where they want to go. They deserve to get charged.

Then there are those who are legitimately ill, and they should not be subject to penalty for a "less than 24 hour" cancellation. I had to cancel at Trio once because of the better half's illness, day of the reservation, and since they know us, they knew it was legit, and did not charge us. Naturally, they earned our loyalty.

Vitesse98 wrote:That's a great compromise! So, perhaps, is the Next solution.

Anyway, if a restaurant is full every night with a no-res policy, why not just have reservations and still be full every night, rather than guarantee a long wait for walk-ups? A restaurant can still keep a couple of tables and/or the bar free for those that actually enjoy the thrill of sitting/standing around waiting.

For some popular no-reservations restaurants, especially those with small dining rooms, to switch to a reservations-based model of service would guarantee that guests who have been patronizing the restaurant for years would suddenly be unable to get a table. Or, that a tourist who neglects to make a reservation before arriving in Chicago would be unable to get a table. Or, that a group of friends who decide at the last minute to dine out on Saturday night would be unable to get a table. Without reservations, these guests are able to simply wait for a table if that is their choice--sure, it might be a long wait, but they'll still get in. In a popular restaurant, with a consistently full book (especially on peak nights), these types of guests may not be able to get in at all, because the reservations have to be honored.

This is from the guests' perspective. There are many reasons why a no-reservations model is appropriate for certain restaurants from the perspective of the house, some of which were mentioned upthread.

To echo what Nero said, if a restaurant is so popular that you have to plan reservations far in advance, I'm a lot less likely to go. All things being equal, I prefer a restaurant where I can make a reservation a day or two in advance. If they require over a week's notice then I have to really want to go there. If Avec had a 2-3 week lead time on reservations, I'd go a lot less frequently. But as it is, I know that if I show up early enough I'll be seated at a reasonable hour. The lesser evil in my book.

turkob wrote:I know that if I show up early enough I'll be seated at a reasonable hour. The lesser evil in my book.

I do exactly the same thing, and subsequently end up going out earlier when I'm going to place that doesn't take reservations. I would imagine that not taking reservations also extends the hours that a restaurant is busy beyond the peak dining times.

Attrill wrote:I would imagine that not taking reservations also extends the hours that a restaurant is busy beyond the peak dining times.

But I think the same may be true with restaurants that take reservations (at least in the direction of extending peak hours toward the earlier end of the spectrum).

Case in point: I've had a few experiences lately where we've wanted to go to a restaurant that took reservations, only to find that the then-available options at that restaurant were either "too early" in the evening or "too late." More and more, my wife and I have been responding to this by pulling back the borders of what we define as "too early." In the past, we would have said, "If we have to eat at your place earlier than 7:00, we'll dine somewhere else this weekend, and hope to see you on some other occasion when you can accommodate us at 7:00." Now, instead, we're saying, "What the hell, 6:15 is fine, we'll take it." Or even, "What the hell, 5:00 is fine, we'll take it."

And when we get there, we find that we're far from alone.

riddlemay wrote:

Attrill wrote:I would imagine that not taking reservations also extends the hours that a restaurant is busy beyond the peak dining times.

But I think the same may be true with restaurants that take reservations (at least in the direction of extending peak hours toward the earlier end of the spectrum).

Case in point: I've had a few experiences lately where we've wanted to go to a restaurant that took reservations, only to find that the then-available options at that restaurant were either "too early" in the evening or "too late." More and more, my wife and I have been responding to this by pulling back the borders of what we define as "too early." In the past, we would have said, "If we have to eat at your place earlier than 7:00, we'll dine somewhere else this weekend, and hope to see you on some other occasion when you can accommodate us at 7:00." Now, instead, we're saying, "What the hell, 6:15 is fine, we'll take it." Or even, "What the hell, 5:00 is fine, we'll take it."

And when we get there, we find that we're far from alone.

The same is definitely true. And if it gets dark at 5:00 PM anyway, that seems a perfectly reasonable time to eat dinner.

A good reservationist builds the book early and late, as well as during the more obvious prime time. This is easy to do, at least in downtown Chicago, where you have a lot of pre- and post-theater/opera/etc. diners. And it sets the restaurant up nicely for that crucial early turn into the 7:00 and 7:30 seatings.

NeroW wrote:A good reservationist builds the book early and late, as well as during the more obvious prime time.

I'm not saying the following scenario happens, but you've put the bee in my bonnet that it might. Do you suppose it's ever the case that a caller inquires about a 7:00 reservation and is told there is none available at that hour, when in fact there are still tables at 7:00 that haven't been taken--because the reservationist is trying to "build the book" in the earlier and later hours? If he or she can find a customer who wanted 7:00 but will accept 5:30, that's to the restaurant's benefit, because the restaurant knows it will have no trouble filling the 7:00 slot and the 5:30 reservation therefore represents incremental business. If this sort of thing goes on, does the reservationist "discriminate" in favor of more frequent customers when deciding what answer to give? The next time I call a restaurant that I haven't been to, and am told that no tables are available at 7:00 and am asked if I would like an earlier reservation, should I assume that I am being told the truth--or being jerked around?

I think you're asking two questions, both of which I will attempt to answer based on my experience.

I doubt it is a widespread practice for restaurants to have an open book in the prime time and tell callers that "5:00 and 5:30" are their only available slots. It is more nuanced than that. If it's getting tight around the prime time, and running short on tables may become an issue (for instance, if a reservation that was supposed to be pre-theater decides to scrap the show and do a tasting menu instead, you're screwed), the reservationist may try to coax a caller into an earlier slot. The reservationist has to be skilled at saying "no" without really saying "no." But if 7:00 is the only acceptable time for the caller, the reservationist may overbook--you can assume 15% no-shows and cancellations.

I would seriously doubt that calling a restaurant with a free and clear book and asking for 7:00 PM would result in being told 5:00 or 5:30. Sometimes restaurants that use Open Table will manually block all the prime time slots so that they are unavailable online and you have to physically call and talk to a human, but I have never seen a reservationist not take a reservation for prime time if they can reasonably honor it. They love to say "8 o'clock? Sure, we can do that." I promise you, they smile every time. Building the book early and late, other than pre- and post-theater, usually happens only after the prime reservation times are spoken for.

As to holding back VIP tables during the prime time on prime nights, I know it happens, but I would assume it happens much less frequently than one might imagine. I think that was a 1980s thing. The bottom line is the bottom line, and an empty table standing there in hopes of a VIP guest honoring us with his or her presence, generates nothing for the restaurant.

Time to go to work

Thanks for your answer, Nero, which was not only complete, but what I was hoping to hear.

Thanks for the info - I have absolutely no inside knowledge of how the booking process works, or why places decide to not take reservations. I'm just basing it on personal experience of no reservations places seeming to be more crowded earlier in the evening.

My wife and I decide the time and then find a place to go (for us time can be very limited due to things like the hours a babysitter is available, movie times, my parents having to eat by X time, etc.) On the nights that we have no time restrictions we'll go to a place that doesn't take reservations and just plan on being at the bar for an hour or two. The only place I go to early to avoid a wait is Hot Doug's (they need to add a bar).

I'm giving this thread a bump because of the discussion on the Ruxbin thread.

I think the fairest solution is one that I've encountered numerous times on Open Table: take a reservation, but require a credit card number to hold a spot; cancellations under 24 hours are penalized, but cancellations before 24 hours are not. The amount of the penalty should vary based on the pricing of the individual restaurant - cancelling at Alinea should cost $200, cancelling at Bistro Campagne should cost about $50.

The problem with reservations is one of risk modelling and social norms. Diners over the years have grown accustomed to being able to walk away from a reservation without penalty. Under that model, the restaurant bears all of the risk for reservations, and patrons had no real incentive to hold their reservations. As a result, restaurants would tend to overbook, leading to long waits and bad feelings when they screwed up.

The ticket-model at Next is a great idea on paper, but the actual implementation leaves a lot to be desired. The economist in me loves the idea of premium pricing for the peak hours, and discounting for the off-peak. The hard-core economist would argue for auctioning, but that goes back to the question of social norms: people naturally tend to resent the idea of being priced out of a restaurant. And by people, I mean me, and by resent, I mean "Workers of the world, unite!".

Ahem.

Anyway, I've found that even though most places don't require a deposit, simply knowing that my Open Table account resides somewhere on the cloud motivates me to get my reservations right. I tend to be a LOT more active these days about confirming that everyone in my party can make it, and keeping the restaurant informed of changes. I'm determined to earn my "perfect attendance" award, and I think everyone winds up happier as a result.

Its a mixed bag. I like having reservations when I am going with my mom who is elderly and can not wait in line. If a place is really popular and does not take res, then I go early. We went to Bien Trucha tonight and got there around five because we knew the line would go out on the street later. I will only wait fifteen min. for a table. But what about the places who take res and will not seat you if you do not have one? Last week when I went to the Pink Martini concert, we tried to eat at the Gage and had no res. They said they had no tables and wait was over an hour. Next door was Henri, completely empty and they too turned us away because we did not have a res. But they were empty. Strange. We ended up at Russian tea time and they seated us promptly and it was nice and quiet there. Its really frustrating to try to go to the popular places....I've yet to get into Hot Dougs.

Even before kids, my issue with the "go early to avoid long waits" is that I simply don't want to eat dinner at 5:15. I don't live in Del Boca Vista, and am not interested in the early-bird special.

The one time I had to do this was walking into Girl & the Goat at 4:35pm because they were all booked that day...we got seats at the bar, and sipped cocktails for a couple of hours before ordering. By doing this, we ate at a more "normal" time, but our intentional foot-dragging contributed to longer waits for others. I hated doing it, but we had to pick between being inconsiderate or eating dinner at 4:50pm...hardly an ideal situation. My solution is to avoid G&tG and places like it (Ruxbin, for example), and to advise anyone who asks me for a restaurant recommendation to do the same.

I do not mind eating dinner early. If you go early you do not usually get the food that way anyway and you can do some stretching out of the meal by ordering drinks or appetizers. Its saved a lot of stress by just going early and getting a table rather than get there when the hordes do. I understand that some people do not like to eat early. My system operates better though eating early and not having food sit on my stomach in the evening.

I'm a big fan of using a reservation policy and will stay away from no-reservation restaurants 99.9% of the time. I don't want to eat at 5:30, because in the U.S. the norm is to turn the table, so I know I'm going to be pressured to get of there in 90 minutes or so in order for the restaurant to turn the table. What fun is it to be home on a Saturday night by 7:30 or 8:00, having just had a good meal and wine? I'll do that when I'm 80 years old.

I think incurring a penalty for a cancelation within 24 hours or a complete no-show is perfectly fine. As noted, this can be done easily with Open Table and may be the kind of thing that justifies a restaurant using them with the associated cost.

The mindset of diners that make several reservations for the same date and time and then deciding which to use at the last minute just escapes me. Commit for pete's sake! Make the reservations of successive days or weekends so that you experience all the places. You do enough of that last-minute cancelation thing with the great, small places we have here in Chicago and you'll get a reputation in no time, resulting in no reservations ever again at any of them. Relationships with restaurants are a two way street.

I think there's a place for both places that do and don't take reservations.

If I'm going out to dinner on a weekend, I generally won't go to a place that doesn't take reservations. I like to know that if we're going out with other people we'll be sitting down to eat at a time of our choosing. I don't want to waste time waiting in a line or hanging around a bar not really knowing when we'll eat. Also on a weekend I have zero interest in eating at 5 or 5:30pm (unless we're talking about something pre-Bulls game).

On the other hand, if I go out during the week, I'm fine with going to a place that doesn't take reservations. For one thing, it's more likely that I'm up for an earlier dinner. I also seem to have more things come up spontaneously (work and personal) during the week so I appreciate the flexibility.

For someplace like Ruxbin where there seems to be a line most of the time, I'm probably not willing to eat there at all on any night of the week. That doesn't really bother me know. There are only a million other good restaurants in this city. Maybe one day the crowds will go away and then I'll eat there.

on the Ruxbin Kitchen thread, ChitownJackson wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:That said, I'm not sure I understand why anyone would "absolutely love" a no-reservations policy. At best I can see not minding it. Is it because it essentially helps protect the restaurant for those who live nearby? I'm being sincere when I say that I just don't understand this and really hope you can enlighten me -- especially as it pertains to Ruxbin Kitchen.

I'm actually really glad you asked this and the answer is really simple and was mentioned only a few posts prior by northshorefoodie:

northshorefoodie wrote:The answer to the question why not have a reservation system is actually simple and found in Ruxbin's blog: if they had one, it would be less accessible. Instead of waiting a couple of hours for a table, customers would have to wait months. Personally, I far prefer being able to count on eating there whenever I want so long as I'm prepared to wait a few hours or (my preference) get in line well ahead of opening (I enjoy the camaraderie with the other guests and coming in from the cold to the warm staff and warm restaurant is delightful, too). The restaurant's appeal for me is its total package: the food, the spectacular setting (tiny size and ingenious interior design), staff who care a lot and show it, and the icing is it's BYOB. I'm convinced their no reservations policy is intended for the greater good, not a thoughtless or holier-than-thou attitude, but rather their best answer to a genuine dilemma.

Girl & the Goat is facing the dilemma northshorefoodie refers to right now and it's freaking ridiculous. Try to get a reservation there (at a reasonable dinner time) before August. As of a few days ago, you could not. Imagine if Ruxbin took reservs? With only 30 seats? We wouldn't be able to eat there until December.

In the end, above everything else that's been said, it's really the following two points for us and we're glad Ruxbin is making it work:

1. Miss Chitown and I LOVE (yes, truly love) the ability to decide the night before that we want to go to Ruxbin, and actually be ABLE to go. We show up at 5 p.m. and we are seated 30 minutes later. A 30-minute investment with no prior planning needed? I cannot name many decent sit-down dinner restaurants in Chicago where we can do this. Not with the food and hospitality we've experienced here.

2. Personally, we're sick of dealing with Chicago restaurants that cater to "connected" individuals. That is, you have to be someone to have a chance at getting a decent reservation at a decent time. I see all these people getting Next tickets and special treatments at restaurants and it makes me snicker because I understand that's how the dining industry works for you guys, and that's great. But don't be pissed off when a place tells you to wait in line with all the other lowly grunts. And don't tell the world that the policy is "wrong" because it's an inconvenience to you. To many people, it's a blessing. Everyone we've ever talked to in line does the same thing we do and can't say enough about the place. *shrug*

I'm not sure I follow this logic. There are literally thousands of restaurants in Chicago and only a few at which one cannot simply walk in before 5:30 and get a table without a reservation. Even Girl & The Goat, which you mention above as being highly inaccessible, offers a walk-in, first-come, first-served option. They also probably have as much of that seating as Ruxbin Kitchen has in total. But they also offer the convenience of reservations, so I'm not sure by what measure it could be considered less accessible than Ruxbin Kitchen. I mean, if you're willing to go somewhere early and wait, you pretty much have your pick of any restaurant you'd like.

If a restaurant accepts reservations, why would that necessarily mean that they'd cater to these "connected" individuals to whom you refer? I think you're confusing reservations with preferential treatment. They're 2 separate issues that are mutually exclusive of each other. Restaurants can offer both, either or none.

As for Next, it's an entirely unique model and I don't see how it's relevant in this discussion. Even if it were, from what I can tell, folks who'd never eaten there before -- and who'd never set foot in Alinea -- had equal access to season tickets there as folks who'd been to both restaurants multiple times. Yes, it is exclusive but it's due to a very unique set of parameters that don't yet apply anywhere else.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:I'm not sure I follow this logic. There are literally thousands of restaurants in Chicago and only a few at which one cannot simply walk in before 5:30 and get a table without a reservation. Even Girl & The Goat, which you mention above as being highly inaccessible, offers a walk-in, first-come, first-served option. They also probably have as much of that seating as Ruxbin Kitchen has in total. But they also offer the convenience of reservations, so I'm not sure by what measure it could be considered less accessible than Ruxbin Kitchen. I mean, if you're willing to go somewhere early and wait, you pretty much have your pick of any restaurant you'd like.

So you can walk up to Girl & the Goat and get seated, and stay as long as you want on a Friday or Saturday night?

The way we were seated there, just last weekend, was with a pretty serious pre-condition. We were only allowed in if we were willing to leave by 6:30 p.m. sharp because the table was held for a reservation. Now, they were totally upfront about this and I appreciate that. But normally, there's no way we would agree to this pre-condition because it sucks feeling rushed when you're trying to look over the menu, get a feel for things and enjoy the food. However, given the fact that we tried to get in for a normal reservation several times prior and were told there is a three- to four-month wait, we jumped at the chance to at least see if we what this place was about (and, we had a great time there).

So, for you to say we could have our pick of "pretty much any" restaurant isn't true at all because the one we were at last weekend told us we had to be out by 6:30 p.m. (Ruxbin has never done this to us and in fact we usually stay past 8 and do dessert if we arrive at open.)

Plus, who's "pretty much any" list are we talking about? Your list? Who's to say mine isn't totally different?

The ones we want to dine at are all the ones with the longest waitlists and as I've stated elsewhere, I cannot tell you what I'll be doing this Saturday night, let alone 12 to 14 Saturday nights from now in July or August. If you live a life where you can plan your weekend nights two or three months ahead around what restaurant you're going to, hey man, it's a free country and that's awesome. Go for it.

Mine? If I'm feeling like Big Star at 5 p.m. on a Saturday, I'm there because I'm spontaneous like that. If I want Xoco at 7 p.m. on a Thursday night, I'm there. Ruxbin this Friday? Okay. Sure. I don't like planning things out because I never know what's going to happen, and I hate canceling reservations on places.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here as so many others have said the same thing prior to this discussion in the Ruxbin thread. What's so hard for you to understand that not everyone wants to plan their weekends out (sometimes) months in advance?

ronnie_suburban wrote:If a restaurant accepts reservations, why would that necessarily mean that they'd cater to these "connected" individuals to whom you refer? I think you're confusing reservations with preferential treatment. They're 2 separate issues that are mutually exclusive of each other. Restaurants can offer both, either or none.

Restaurants certainly do this, although that's not what I implied. Restaurants can do whatever they want.

What makes me snicker is the clientele. Most of these individuals who are used to getting reservations because of their connections hold a severe bias—a form of elitism—and they will not stand in line with average, ordinary folk because it is below them. Places like Ruxbin anger them greatly because they cannot use their influence to bend the restaurant policies to their will.

Just a few weeks ago at Ruxbin, a guy rolled up in a Mercedes SLK at about 5:10, parked directly in front of the restaurant with his hazards on (it's a no parking zone at any time), and waited in line behind us until 5:30. He was alone and in workout clothes so I'm guessing he was trying to land reservations. I didn't hear the conversation that happened between he and the front of the house, but since he was not seated I'm imagining it didn't work out too well for him. Want to bet that guy tried to work his way in, holding spots for his friends later that night, like he does everywhere else? I love seeing people like that get denied. How hard is it to hit the website before you show up? Due diligence?

ronnie_suburban wrote:As for Next, it's an entirely unique model and I don't see how it's relevant in this discussion. Even if it were, from what I can tell, folks who'd never eaten there before -- and who'd never set foot in Alinea -- had equal access to season tickets there as folks who'd been to both restaurants multiple times. Yes, it is exclusive but it's due to a very unique set of parameters that don't yet apply anywhere else.

It's relevant to this discussion (in my view) because of the three similarities to Ruxbin:

1. It's a hot restaurant with a great chef and great food.
2. There is a thread on this forum dedicated to the restaurant.
3. It has a seating policy that pisses a LOT of people off.

If we're going to dedicate half the official Ruxbin thread tearing the place to shreds for their no reservations policy without mods doing anything about it, why aren't we ripping Next for their ridiculous ticketing policy? I could write you guys a thesis on why that system is a real piece of shit, but you don't see me in there stomping that place.

The double standards here are a little out of hand sometimes. It took until today before this chat was moved? Yet the discussion about their policy has been there since last year with one or two people constantly coming back to say how crappy their policy is? As moderators you should be able to rise above this.