DEAR MISS MANNERS: Please inform me of the appropriate manner of wearing rings and evening gloves.

GENTLE READER: One on top of the other, and Miss Manners assures you that it does matter which. If you wear rings on top of your gloves, you will look vulgar, whereas if you wear them under your gloves, you will merely look lumpy.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the far dim recesses of my closet has lurked, for many years, an extremely elegant dinner jacket. Following some period of dieting and exercise, I find that I can again fit into it. Alas, it is a true child of the early '70s and remarkably out of fashion: highly peaked lapels, somewhat flared slacks, very tight waist.

Yes, I know it serves me right, which is why my current jacket has a shawl collar, but it truly is a lovely piece of designer apparel in its own way and I would love to take it out on the town again. I seem to recall a general rule that no dinner jacket, like no piece of couturier clothing, is ever out of fashion. Is this so? Or am I just fooling myself?

GENTLE READER: Not exactly, but the assumption that has been lurking in the back of your mind did get a bit out of shape.

The twist Miss Manners must iron out is your notion that the rule applies to couturier clothing. Evidently you have not been following the news from Milan and Paris.

Rather, it concerns the formal clothing of fastidious gentlemen, a demographic that fashion leaders would be loathe to attract for a good reason: These gentlemen pride themselves on being out of fashion as much as other people pride themselves on being in it.

They especially like their evening clothes to be ever so slightly dated, lest they be mistaken for something new and rented. So the reason that these clothes cannot go out of fashion is that they were never in it.

Of course this boast, like many another fashion claims, is exaggerated. Once the dinner jacket became standardized early in the 20th century, it merely varied between peaked lapels and the shawl collar, and gentlemen seemed to prefer whichever one was not being touted as fashionable.

Any additional attempts to fool with it -- odd colors and odd tailoring as well as such fads as turtleneck shirts and string ties -- can be counted as passing fads that are forever dead. If your '70s suit is tight enough and flared enough to qualify, Miss Manners suggests learning to love your newer one.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a stay-at-home mother of two and have noticed that people don't seem to wrap gifts anymore. The "gift bag" with the present ensconced in tissue paper seems to be the decorative vehicle of choice.

I always thought that the time spent wrapping a present was a nice part of the gift giving process. Are these gift bags, which I might add are frequently re-used, now an appropriate option for the gift giver?

GENTLE READER: As long as some festive wrapping is attempted, etiquette cannot demand that everyone wrestle with papers and ribbons to produce something lovely. But it reserves the right to be more charmed when that is done.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the right thing to say when someone insults your intelligence by telling you something which is obviously not true?

For example, my girlfriend left a letter under the door of my room saying she is going to her parents' house because her mother "wants to talk to her about something." My handyman told me that that when she left she was wearing a sexy top, and she never does that when she goes to meet her parents.

Her parents live a couple hours away, in another city. She does not own a car, so it's improbable that she would have made it to work the following morning, yet when I stopped by her office, her boss said she went out to lunch.

Also, she just started her job, and I am still supporting her until her first paycheck at the end of the month. I know she did not have money for the trip. So when she gives me some excuse, I feel bad, because it seems she is underestimating my intelligence.

Is there a snappy answer that would demonstrate to her that I am no fool? We have an open relationship, it's not that I am jealous, but I don't want to be lied to so blatantly. I cannot dump her at the moment because she is pregnant, and my family would like me to take part in raising the child.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners will not insult your intelligence by claiming that this problem is solvable. An expectant mother who violates the terms of an arrangement already open to heaven-knows-what is not going to be reformed by a quip.

Nor will we argue about whether your bad feeling stems from the presumed deed or the use of subterfuge to accomplish it; fortunately, that is out of Miss Manners' purview. The etiquette question is whether you can insult the perpetrator so as to shame her but not alienate her.

Probably not. Nobody is willing to suffer being called a liar -- least of all liars. The indignation they are able to bring to such accusations is stunning.

You could unnerve her by throwing out small indications that you have discovered contradictions in her story without stating any conclusions -- "Funny, your mother called here" or "I would have been glad to drive you" -- stated without rancor or probing.

Who knows, this may even lead to indications that you were mistaken about her deception. Or at least it will encourage her to lie to you less blatantly, which is all you claim to want.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I gave a New Year's Eve party last year and invited 12 of our close friends. The evening included a formal dinner, followed by dancing and champagne at midnight.

One of our friends has taken us to task because we chose to split the couples up when arranging the place cards at the table. This person maintains that separating couples is "inappropriate" for a New Year's Eve dinner. Is she correct?

GENTLE READER: We let couples kiss each other at midnight, for heaven's sake. Isn't that enough of a concession? They want to talk to each other at dinner, too?

Even on New Year's Eve, couples who go to parties should be prepared to socialize with the other guests. Those who only want to concentrate on each other should certainly do so, but at home or among strangers. A dinner party is a social event, not a free place to go for a private date.

:

OK, Jolly Season's over. Before we enter into the short Season of Wild Abandonment, followed by the even shorter Morning of Remorse & Reform, Miss Manners would like to put in a cruel word.

Next year, give them lumps of coal.

Not your entire holiday list. Only those on it who have indicated that they would prefer not to receive what you have bestowed upon them.

The way to tell if a present had the happy effect that you intended is to pay attention to the recipient's reaction. Did opening it bring on an exclamation of pleasure and gratitude? Were additional appreciative references to it made on subsequent occasions? If you could not hand it over in person, did it inspire an immediate letter of thanks, brimming with enthusiasm?

These responses indicate that you have succeeded. That should be ample incentive to continue, on future occasions, to think of what would be pleasing, to take the time to track it down, to undergo the expense of buying it and to suffer the nuisance of sending it.

Less gratifying are impersonal responses -- those that are late, mechanically rendered and formulaic. A Gentle Reader who chastises Miss Manners for refusing to dumb down the requirement for letters declares that "Thanks for the present" e-mails are "indeed new, modern and acceptable" -- and then pathetically adds, "when you consider the alternative -- nothing!"

Whether only-just-better-than-nothing responses are enough to sustain generosity probably depends on the relationship of giver to recipient. When there are family ties, notoriously those of grandparents to their minimally responsive descendents, disappointment is tempered by the fear that in the absence of presents, there will be no bond left. The response, therefore, is often to resort to that most impersonal and formulaic of presents -- a check.

Checks, however welcome to those who prefer cash to signs of thoughtfulness, at least produce the response of an actual live signature. Unless, of course, your bank has switched to sending you only reproductions of your checks, with the signed back not shown.

Miss Manners' gentle critic is certainly right that a widespread response to receiving presents is silence. A cashed check or a delivery receipt may be the only evidence that the present has been received. How it has been received remains unknown.

An alternative that may be even worse is the consumer complaint. Bestowers of presents are told that what they offered was not to the taste of the recipient, who asks for a receipt or gives it back to be exchanged.

These actions have the virtue of being honest. The beneficiaries of your generosity honestly don't care that you put yourself out for them, and they frankly dislike what you gave. Those who complain that effusive thanks may be faked -- and those who probe to test if they are -- don't know what they are risking.

Miss Manners has been told of numerous methods of stimulating more palatable reactions to the burden of being given presents. The conventional method is to inquire whether the package was lost, but this can no longer be counted upon to prompt shame and apologies in miscreants. Gentle Readers are reporting that they are being told, "Oh, yes, it arrived." Others have tried giving presents of writing paper and stamps, or sending self-addressed envelopes, sometimes with fill-in-the-blanks or complete letters merely to be signed.

This is silly. The whole concept of exchanging presents rather than doing our own shopping is to give others pleasure. If there is no sign of this having worked, one ought to quit doing it.

But Miss Manners is not completely heartless. Give them one more week.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the difference between white tie and black tie? When are each of these called for?

GENTLE READER: In simpler times, going out socially at night called for white tie (black tailcoat with satin lapels; black trousers with one stripe of satin braid; white waistcoat; starched shirt with winged collar; and white pique bowtie), while a casual evening at home required only black tie (black suit with satin or grosgrain faile lapels and -- classically -- double braid on the trousers; pleated shirt; black silk or satin bowtie).

These days, it is the hosts or organizers of the social occasion who make the call. Often, Miss Manners notes, in vain.

: