Being Famous and Pregnant Doesn't Get You as Far as It Used To

[Mikayla]

I hope this doesn't derail the thread too much, especially since it sounds like the wording at this particular restaurant is very clear, but does "No Substitutions" always mean you can't/shouldn't ask for things to be left off your food? I always assumed that meant just what it said: that I could say, "No onions on that sandwich, please," but not "Could I get jalapeños instead of onions on that sandwich, please?" or behave like the scene in Get Shorty in which the movie star orders something completely unlike anything on the menu.

With one exception, I've always found you can ask for things to be left off, unless the item is premixed - like you want the tuna salad minus the celery.  The exception was weird, though!  I was at a TexMex place and asked that my entree come *without* the refried beans and rice.  The waiter gave me "I'm afraid that won't be possible".  He didn't speak English that well, so I even asked in Spanish.  No go.  Maybe they were aiming to attract more of the Beckham crowd.  Dang, that was bizarro.

[Sterling]

I would never have thought that the rule meant you couldn't get dressing on the side.  How odd. I do think Ramsey handled it badly.

[Fleur-de-Lis]

I would never have thought that the rule meant you couldn't get dressing on the side.  How odd. I do think Ramsey handled it badly.

Yes, but in a busy, assembly-line kitchen, it may be necessary to have everything the same every time. They don't necessarily put in the time or thought for *this* salad has no tomatoes (or whatever). Any dish can go to any customer. No need to track a special item.

[Lisbeth]

Victoria Bickham chose to eat at that restaurant, pregnant or no.

The restaurant has the right to enforce "no substitutions" restrictions if it wants to against all its guests, which it announces that it does.

Gordon Ramsay was out of line (then again, he just about always is).

[MyFamily]

my son has food allergies - before we go to a restaurant for the first time, i call them and make sure they can accomodate his needs.  There has been only one restraurant that couldn't do it.  So, I thanked them for taking the time to talk to me and we have never gone to that restaurant.  It seems to me that if I can do that for my child who can't eat certain foods because they'll kill him, she can do it for whatever reasons she has for prefering her food the way she wanted it. 

Frankly, I think it is good of the restaurant to stand by their policy and state it clearly.

[Akarui Kibuno]

And it's not like they don't both have the money to make sure they can choose any restaurant they wish anyway o_O ...

[hyzenthlay]

I know some chefs feel their meals should be served  particular way, and that's it.

I have to agree that Ramsey is being a rear end about this, but I think it's a really really stupid policy.

[Sharnita]

I don't think the initial request was rude because I would not dream that "no dressing" would be a "substitution".  I think that when they were told no they would have been perfectly fine to leave if nothing else on the menu appealed as it was described.

[It's good to be Queen]

Chef Michael Symon posted the link to that article on his Facebook page and asked what people thought.  Most agreed that it is ok to ask to leave something off, but not ok to ask for substitutions.  In his restaurants he has a no substitutions policy, but it clearly states you can ask for something to be omitted from the dish so IOW, you can say no cheese but you can't ask for cheddar instead of blue cheese.

[hyzenthlay]

I don't think the initial request was rude because I would not dream that "no dressing" would be a "substitution".  I think that when they were told no they would have been perfectly fine to leave if nothing else on the menu appealed as it was described.

But that isn't what their menu says

"Changes & modifications politely declined."

That's not no substitutions, that's no changes period.  Which I think is a bad idea, but it's their business, and it's not rude.

[hobish]

Their changes and substitutions policy could be pretty discriminatory- after all there are many people who have allergies and intolerances, who may be quite able to eat a particular dish if "Ingredient X" is left out.

As for Victoria Beckham- well some pregnant women do have some strong aversions in pregnancy, which can go right up to birth. I just couldn't eat fish, or drink tea, or tolerate cheese sauce in any form.

Yes, I can sort of understand where they are coming from, as it must be very frustrating for them to accomadate constant requests for changes, but for some people they really need to be allowed to make some changes.

I think in that case the person needs to eat somewhere else, not that the restaurant needs to accomodate them, whether it is preference, aversion, or deadly allergies.

It is kind of funny that it is Gordon Ramsay oof all people throwing the fit and i love the thread title.

[Winterlight]

I think it's the restaurant's call. I also think I'd want to check their menu online first if possible, and pick somewhere else if I can't eat their offerings.

[KimberlyRose]

so does this mean if a restaurant is that strict that everything is basically pre made before the people arrive to order the food?  I'm envisioning a giant salad bowl with salad already made, just sitting there waiting for people to order it....ack

My guess is that they don't want to set a precedent for alterations.  ("You did X for that person, you should do Y for me" or even "You did X for me last time, so you should be able to do Y for me this time.")

Ages ago, I went to the ballroom dance camp at Brigham Young University.  The cafeteria in the building where the classes were held had a Taco Bell in the cafeteria, and they weren't able to leave things off (I usually order bean burritos with no sauce).  I presume that it's a blanket policy so that they don't have people making requests when it's really busy and holding up the line.

[purplemuse]

I know some chefs feel their meals should be served  particular way, and that's it.

I have to agree that Ramsey is being a rear end about this, but I think it's a really really stupid policy.

I don't know... sometimes food isn't just about the ingredients, it's about the interplay of ingredients, and maybe this chef has worked really hard to get the balance just right (or, you know, just right according to him). Now, if you don't like one of the ingredients, you may not like the dish, but maybe leaving something out of the dish would turn it from "really good" (as far as most people are concerned) to "meh, I thought this was supposed to be a five-star restaurant."

And maybe the kitchen should leave that choice up to the customer. I don't know, I'm nowhere near the level of chef that some of these restaurants have.

I do know that I wouldn't like it if someone went around badmouthing my food after having asked for it to be made differently, but I don't know how much of an issue that ever is...

[Sabbyfrog2]

I shudder to think what Ramsay would say if someone went to the media whining about one of his restraunt policies. I saw him publicly humiliate a customer who was trying to scam a comp meal.....

I honestly don't see a problem with the bolded. The customer (read; theif) was trying to steal from him. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a "customer".
I don't know where this idea that he yells at customers came from.
FWIW, I think Gordon Ramsey is VERY good to his resturants customers. I have never experianced rudeness* or know of anyone that's had a bad experiance in one of his resturants. And none of us are rolling in dough or anyone important enough to think we deserve special treatment anywhere. We are average joes who happen to like really good food. And isn't he always the one advocating that the customers get GOOD food in Hell's Kitchen and Kitchen Nightmares? I've yet to see him "go off" on a customer in either show. I would think that if he had, there'd be footage somewhere wouldn't there? He's usually going off on one of the chefs.

I personally don't feel that the resturant is wrong. I am a huge Ramsey fan but I think he's wrong here. (I don't know why he's getting involved to begin with but whatever...) The resturant has the right to set its policies as they choose. The policy was very clear. Victoria could have eaten somewhere else but she chose to go there despite it. This was another case of a SS celeb trying to use thier status to get thier way. No go.

I am disturbed by the number of people who say the policy is stupid. It's not. A business has a right to operate as they choose. It's not rude or stupid to want your business to uphold it's own policies either. The resturant is clearly not hurting for business so I don't see them changing it anytime soon. I think it's very SS to demand a business of any time change what they are doing to accomodate you (general).

I happen to be a bit of a foodie. Not nearly the level of someone like Ramsey but I know my way around a kitchen and a 4 star menu. Many 4 star resturants have this policy. Thier reputations depend on thier food being good. Their food is part of what got them those stars and they aren't willing to sacrifice the quality of thier food to accomodate SS. (Allergies are another thing altogether).  Like Purplemuse said, the interplay of the ingredients matter. Each one has a role to play in the dish. They balance eachother. If you subsitute one item for another, it will NOT taste the same. I'd be quite irritated too if I had worked to create a delicious dish to have one person after another asking to change it. Whats the point of me working to creat a "dish" if it's going to be messed with? Go to a place that does that or that allows you to create your own dish if that's what you want and leave my menu alone.


*I don't actually know if he has this policy because I don't substitute when I go to resturants like that so I didn't think to look. Something tells me that he doesn't because of his reaction to this resturants policy.