When the United States Supreme Court strode bravely through two fields of etiquette that Miss Manners knows to be strewn with landmines, she had full confidence that it would emerge safely. This is because the justices were careful to stick to handling the legal aspects, at which they are quite good, and leave the difficult part to her.

The two fearsome areas are canvassing and tipping. In the etiquette business, they are recognized as major sources of annoyance and anxiety in which the rude are generally rewarded and those trying hardest to be polite are the most likely to be victimized.

The doorbell rings, and the resident allows himself to be interrupted and to be addressed on views and beliefs that are considered so personal that one is cautioned not to bring them up lightly with even one's most intimate friends. Many feel that once they discover that the summons is not connected with an anticipated package or guest, they are trapped and owe the courtesy of listening, even if they have no intention of changing their politics or religion. It is the ones who respond rudely with threats, insults and slammed doors who minimize the imposition.

Tipping upsets both those who are worried that they are not giving the right amount and those who are certain that they are not getting the right amount. The formulae are so complicated with factors of geography and luxury level, as well as job description and quality of service, that there is plenty of room for abuse from all parties -- customer, employee and employer -- and it usually comes laced with some form of rudeness.

Rudeness is not illegal, nor should it be, even though it would save Miss Manners a great deal of trouble to be able to back up her persuasive powers with police action. The law has quite enough to do without nosing into every case of petty irritation.

The Supreme Court upheld freedom of speech when it struck down a village ordinance that would control door-to-door canvassing through issuing permits. In regard to tipping, it dealt only with the tax angle, permitting the Internal Revenue Service to estimate tips when calculating payroll taxes.

Fortunately, Miss Manners can offer some relief to polite people who feel obligated to hear out strangers who ring their doorbells. The choice is not between rudeness and pretending to be interested when one is not. Those who have peepholes in their doors may ignore any summons entirely, and those who open the door mistakenly may properly close it quietly after saying, "Thank you, but I'm not interested." They should regard it as saving the canvasser's time, as well as their own.

Tipping is a more difficult area, because the etiquette outrages are legion: Customers who stiff low-paid employees whose tips are an expected part of their income, workers who use embarrassment or insult to extract larger tips, industry spokesmen who give out false etiquette information about how much tipping is proper, and so on.

Even the supposed advantages of the tipping are questionable. The idea that one gets better service by paying above the stated price cannot escape the implication that substandard service is otherwise provided -- unfair as that may be in the case of hard-working individuals. And the notion that it is a way of rewarding hard work is undercut by the fact that the lavish tips go to the august people who assign tables rather than to the people who bus those tables.

Having long campaigned in vain to abolish this unseemly system and build the cost of service into the price of doing business, Miss Manners sees hope in the new decision. Whatever is said in defense of tipping as a privilege for the customer and an incentive for the worker, it is an open secret that its true value is its elusiveness in regard to taxes.

Should this decision make it worthwhile to pay restaurant and other workers a full and dependable income, she will be most grateful to her legal sisters and brethren.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When you are having a party, dinner or whatever the occasion, and you state a time that it starts, what do you do when a guest comes unexpectedly an hour early? What is the proper etiquette on handling guests arriving to a party before the start time of the event?

GENTLE READER: First you reassure the embarrassed guest that he need not be embarrassed by saying, "I'm so glad to have a chance for a real visit with you before the others get here." Then you leave him sitting alone in the living room while you finish getting dressed.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am having a dinner party where I am going to serve a fish casserole of crab, shrimp and scallops and a side dish of steamed fresh asparagus with lemon butter sauce. Do I set the place with fish forks and knives, dinner forks and knives or both?

GENTLE READER: Although etiquette has a reputation for making mealtime difficult, this is false, if not slanderous. Miss Manners has never been able to understand how people can think such mean thoughts about something that is only trying to help.

The rule is to provide only the table implements that are necessary to get the food into the mouth without causing undo stress on the tablecloth, rug or appetites of other diners. Everything you mention on this menu can be eaten with the fish knife and fork, so there is no need to provide a meat knife and fork. The asparagus may even be properly eaten with the fingers, although if you happen to have those lovely little silver asparagus tongs, you will want to provide them.

Oh, that must be how etiquette got its reputation.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am increasingly encountering a problem at social events that I hope you can help me with. It concerns the prevalence in gay social circles of kissing other gay men during greetings and goodbyes.

As a gay man who restricts his kissing to boyfriends (my own) and close family members only, I frequently find myself trying to dodge the proffered lips of fellow party guests. I further note that the kissers generally do not extend this behavior to straight men or to women of any sexual orientation. It is an "honor" reserved almost exclusively for other gay men.

Up to now I have successfully employed your excellent advice for anyone attempting a kiss-dodging: a pre-emptive handshake, friendly smile and cheerful hello or goodbye. Unfortunately, I now sometimes find myself foundering in the post-handshake aftermath.

A small minority of kissers are easy to deal with: They make some remark implying that I must be uncomfortable with my sexuality, which gets them a raised eyebrow, a firm goodbye and an entry onto my "Do Not Invite" mental list. The real problem is the folks who are genuinely trying to be friendly and who are hurt by my desire to impose some sort of limit on public displays of affection (especially ones from which heterosexual men and all women are excluded). These guys won't say anything, but it is apparent that they are a little taken aback by my "unconventional" departure.

Can you suggest a comment suitable for the awkward post-handshake pause that lets the kisser know that: a) he should not take this personally (kiss-bearing women also get pre-emptive handshakes unless they are blood relatives); b) refusing the kiss is not a sign of dislike; and, c) I intend to stand by my nonkissing standards no matter how sad a look I get. I am hoping for a pithy phrase that will convey these sentiments more gracefully than this rather lengthy note.

GENTLE READER: Sorry, no pithy. You will not accomplish your goal of disarming possible feelings of rejection by clever quips at these people's expense.

The phrase you need is, "I am delighted to see you," and Miss Manners' instructions are to boom it out heartily at the first sign of a smoochy approach. This establishes you in advance as welcoming. More importantly, a moving target is harder to hit.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My next-door neighbors have four kids, ages 4 to 10. These kids have been told by their parents that if one kid is invited to a function, they are all invited. Therefore, when my son invites his 10-year-old counterpart over to swim, all four kids may show up.

Do you find this one-is-all rule acceptable? It presents obvious problems, such as baby-sitting the 4-year-old while she is in the water. Any advice for handling the situation without banning them all from the pool? I don't want to be rude to the kids that were not invited by stopping them short of the water and sending them back home.

GENTLE READER: Someone had better stop these children short of fratricide when they attempt to go on one another's dates and wedding trips.

Whether the parents are motivated by the touching-but-futile desire to make the outside world treat their children alike or the more immediate one of having a quiet house to themselves, this is a disastrous (and socially illicit) policy. It is not the children who should be embarrassed, Miss Manners agrees, but the parents who must be disabused. She suggests a double-barreled warning with the invitation, citing safety as well as social reasons:

"We'll be delighted to have all of you another time, but Zachery wants to have some time with Kipp, without the smaller children around. I'll keep an eye on them, of course, but I can't let the others into the pool unless there are more adults around."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I usually remember the order of introductions, but not always. "X is introduced to Y" is spoken how? In the case of ladies and gentlemen, is it "Ginger, I'd like for you to meet my good friend Fred"?

Would that be introducing Fred ("I'd like you to meet") to Ginger, or Ginger (whose name is revealed first) to Fred? I think I have it right, but I stammer occasionally on this one.

GENTLE READER: You wouldn't get so rattled if Ginger and Fred could only stand still for a minute instead of swinging off into the distance while you are giving them a proper introduction.

If you think of it as presenting one to the other, you will remember that the person whom you are addressing, Ginger, is the one to whom the other is presented. "May I present" is, in any case, a more graceful construction than "like for you to meet." If you find that cumbersome, you can say simply, "Ginger, this is..."

Two extra points that Miss Manners throws in for free:

1. If neither party is related to you, do not refer to one of them as your friend, because it implies that the other one isn't.

2. Please, please, use their last names. Suppose Fred calls Ginger the next day to ask her to be his dance partner, but reaches the other Ginger who was at the party -- the one who is perfectly nice but has two left feet?

: