Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

But they didn't say that, so this point is irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

This

Totally agree. Would do if I had dinner guests. “Oh, I’m allergic to fish.” “So shellfish is out, too?”

+1. Anyone with half a brain would clarify before serving any type of seafood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUshaiyr0_U

The preferences sheet starts at 11:50

The guest asked for ahi tuna on their preferences sheet. I guess in your world you would ask ..oh are you allergic to fish?

Don't be dumb. No, I would ask "are you allergic to shellfish?" I mean, the choice for the chef is pretty clear: serve a food that won't kill the client because you asked first OR serve a food that may kill the client because you didn't ask first. I dunno. It's a tough one, for sure. DP btw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

This

Totally agree. Would do if I had dinner guests. “Oh, I’m allergic to fish.” “So shellfish is out, too?”

+1. Anyone with half a brain would clarify before serving any type of seafood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUshaiyr0_U

The preferences sheet starts at 11:50

The guest asked for ahi tuna on their preferences sheet. I guess in your world you would ask ..oh are you allergic to fish?

You seem pretty invested in this shitty reality show.

If you want people to respond to some clip from the show, instead of your initial question of “would you serve cooked shellfish to someone who said no cooked fish”, then ask that in your OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

This

Totally agree. Would do if I had dinner guests. “Oh, I’m allergic to fish.” “So shellfish is out, too?”

+1. Anyone with half a brain would clarify before serving any type of seafood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUshaiyr0_U

The preferences sheet starts at 11:50

The guest asked for ahi tuna on their preferences sheet. I guess in your world you would ask ..oh are you allergic to fish?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

This

Totally agree. Would do if I had dinner guests. “Oh, I’m allergic to fish.” “So shellfish is out, too?”

+1. Anyone with half a brain would clarify before serving any type of seafood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

This

Totally agree. Would do if I had dinner guests. “Oh, I’m allergic to fish.” “So shellfish is out, too?”

The person who rents the charter is the prime guest. The charter will ask for food allergies or preferences which is supplied by the prime. Remember all food is bought and on the boat for before the charter leave the dock. Now the prime will bring guest. The prime may or may not ask his/her guests about food preferences/allergies or the guest say what they will eat and not eat as the food is served(like this one did). Eating non cooked fish is a preference- I will eat sushi but not cooked fish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

This

Totally agree. Would do if I had dinner guests. “Oh, I’m allergic to fish.” “So shellfish is out, too?”

Anonymous wrote:If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

This

If a client said they didn't like fish, I would clarify before I served them shellfish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main lesson to be learned here is that the "chef" should have cleared the food item with the client or the passenger before serving it. The fact that they didn't do that shows a flagrant disregard for the preferences of the guests on the boat. The client and the guest have reason to be mad with the boat management because of it.

I would be livid if we chartered a boat, one of our guests said something on the preference sheet about a food item, and then something similar was served without it being discussed first.

Lobster is close enough to fish or shellfish or seafood that any person worthy of the "chef" title should have and would have stopped to question whether the lobster ravioli was okay with the guest and the paying client.

I wouldn't connect the two. When someone says fish, I think fish. If the person is unclear or inaccurate, that's on them and they shouldn't be "livid."

LOL. You must be the "chef," you know, the one who didn't do his job. Or perhaps the captain who didn't make sure that the chef did his job.

You truly don't see that a lobster and a fish are more closely aligned than, say, a fish and a cow? Really? That's pretty strange.

Both lobsters and fish live in water and neither can live out of the water. That makes them pretty similar in my boat. I would include oysters and clams in the same class of water dwellers btw. Perhaps the client could have better expressed her preference as seafood; however, the onus is on the so-called "chef" to clarify before making and serving the food.

Okay, but lobster isn't fish. That's pretty much it. Oysters and clams aren't fish, either. The client should state what they want - or in this case, didn't want. The client misspoke and blamed the chef. Shocking...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main lesson to be learned here is that the "chef" should have cleared the food item with the client or the passenger before serving it. The fact that they didn't do that shows a flagrant disregard for the preferences of the guests on the boat. The client and the guest have reason to be mad with the boat management because of it.

I would be livid if we chartered a boat, one of our guests said something on the preference sheet about a food item, and then something similar was served without it being discussed first.

Lobster is close enough to fish or shellfish or seafood that any person worthy of the "chef" title should have and would have stopped to question whether the lobster ravioli was okay with the guest and the paying client.

I wouldn't connect the two. When someone says fish, I think fish. If the person is unclear or inaccurate, that's on them and they shouldn't be "livid."

LOL. You must be the "chef," you know, the one who didn't do his job. Or perhaps the captain who didn't make sure that the chef did his job.

You truly don't see that a lobster and a fish are more closely aligned than, say, a fish and a cow? Really? That's pretty strange.

Both lobsters and fish live in water and neither can live out of the water. That makes them pretty similar in my boat. I would include oysters and clams in the same class of water dwellers btw. Perhaps the client could have better expressed her preference as seafood; however, the onus is on the so-called "chef" to clarify before making and serving the food.

Why do you assume the chef is a he?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main lesson to be learned here is that the "chef" should have cleared the food item with the client or the passenger before serving it. The fact that they didn't do that shows a flagrant disregard for the preferences of the guests on the boat. The client and the guest have reason to be mad with the boat management because of it.

I would be livid if we chartered a boat, one of our guests said something on the preference sheet about a food item, and then something similar was served without it being discussed first.

Lobster is close enough to fish or shellfish or seafood that any person worthy of the "chef" title should have and would have stopped to question whether the lobster ravioli was okay with the guest and the paying client.

I wouldn't connect the two. When someone says fish, I think fish. If the person is unclear or inaccurate, that's on them and they shouldn't be "livid."

LOL. You must be the "chef," you know, the one who didn't do his job. Or perhaps the captain who didn't make sure that the chef did his job.

You truly don't see that a lobster and a fish are more closely aligned than, say, a fish and a cow? Really? That's pretty strange.

Both lobsters and fish live in water and neither can live out of the water. That makes them pretty similar in my boat. I would include oysters and clams in the same class of water dwellers btw. Perhaps the client could have better expressed her preference as seafood; however, the onus is on the so-called "chef" to clarify before making and serving the food.

Anonymous wrote:The main lesson to be learned here is that the "chef" should have cleared the food item with the client or the passenger before serving it. The fact that they didn't do that shows a flagrant disregard for the preferences of the guests on the boat. The client and the guest have reason to be mad with the boat management because of it.

I would be livid if we chartered a boat, one of our guests said something on the preference sheet about a food item, and then something similar was served without it being discussed first.

Lobster is close enough to fish or shellfish or seafood that any person worthy of the "chef" title should have and would have stopped to question whether the lobster ravioli was okay with the guest and the paying client.

I wouldn't connect the two. When someone says fish, I think fish. If the person is unclear or inaccurate, that's on them and they shouldn't be "livid."

The main lesson to be learned here is that the "chef" should have cleared the food item with the client or the passenger before serving it. The fact that they didn't do that shows a flagrant disregard for the preferences of the guests on the boat. The client and the guest have reason to be mad with the boat management because of it.

I would be livid if we chartered a boat, one of our guests said something on the preference sheet about a food item, and then something similar was served without it being discussed first.

Lobster is close enough to fish or shellfish or seafood that any person worthy of the "chef" title should have and would have stopped to question whether the lobster ravioli was okay with the guest and the paying client.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you just watch Below Deck?

Last night. mentioned it was from an episode so hopefully no one would blame me. The guests also had an issue with water being not sparkling, but they did not call it flat. Maybe they said it was low?

Ha must have missed the water part. Shellfish lady was nuts. I think people just try to be difficult.

I think she was trying to sound fancy. Thought it was a rich person slang to call lobster fish, like saying champs for champagne. Wrong Bravo show, not The Real Housewives.