DEAR MISS MANNERS: Every Easter, my sister-in-law has an indoor candy-and-small-gifts hunt for all the adults and five children. My husband refuses to look, so I find his items for him. I feel uncomfortable as the women keep getting me small gifts, but I only get things for the children, and a host-hostess gift, along with a contribution of food for the meal. I feel like a curmudgeon for not wanting to spend the money on such things, and I've never enjoyed shopping, even if it is just for cute, inexpensive items and food gifts (for the men).

Is it OK to refuse to get things for the older children (now 11-29) and just get one thing to hide for our granddaughter, age 2? Or should I be more cooperative and give gifts to all those who give them to me?

GENTLE READER: You hate this event, don't you? And so does your husband.

Miss Manners won't bother to ask why you nevertheless attend. It's a family tradition.

That is all the more reason that you can get into trouble messing with it, especially if you do so obviously pursuing only your own advantage -- taking but not giving, except to your own granddaughter. You either fully participate or you don't.

The way to escape is to make it clear beforehand that you are skipping the hunt, either by saying you would love to come to lunch but can't stay or by skipping both. If you merely sit it out on the premises (unless you can persuade your husband that it's his turn to be the family hunter and gatherer), they will still bring you little presents.

Perhaps after a year or two, they will simply count you out, and you can then endear yourself by staying but cleaning up from lunch while they have their hunt.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: ?My friend and I are having a discussion about "Who gets Grandma's diamond ring?"

She insists that it is written somewhere that the first granddaughter always inherits Grandma's rings. I told her that maybe it was a custom in her family but I have never heard this from anyone else. Have you ever heard of this "Custom"?

When my Mother passed away I got her rings, but my friend insists that my niece should have gotten them because it is a rule. She almost said "a law" but then retracted the statement.

I have only one granddaughter, and someday in the distant future (I hope) she can have my rings if she wants them, but if I had more than one granddaughter (like my friend), I would pass my diamonds on to the one who deserved them most.

GENTLE READER: Assuming that we are not talking about legally entailed family heirlooms (Miss Manners has been escaping into Victorian novels again), there is only one place where this decision is written. In Grandma's will.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The girl who tortured me daily in junior high is my fellow bridesmaid in an upcoming wedding. My co-worker's husband's ex, who sued them in court, will be at the daughter's graduation celebration. Today I will see a man who hacked into my computer at a funeral.

Can you advise us on how to handle ourselves correctly when we are forced to see people we loathe socially?

GENTLE READER: By turning down the social temperature, which is normally set at Warm for such occasions.

But Miss Manners insists that you understand that there is not simply one setting marked Cold. You may loathe them all, but the offenses are different and require different settings.

For the bridesmaid, it is Slightly Cool. Your mouth turns up when you have to say hello to her, but your eyes do not participate in the smile. Then you endeavor to keep at a distance. That should remind her of your grievance, and if she has grown into a different person, she will endeavor to make it up to you.

The ex gets Cold. All the formalities, but no smile. You do not have a personal grievance against him; you are merely treating him as the sort of person you do not want to know.

The hacker (at a funeral -- what was that all about?) deserves Freeze. You do not greet him, you do not acknowledge his presence, and if he approaches you, you turn away.

Mind you, all of this has to be performed without the notice of others. Putting a chill on such occasions is itself a grievance that will have others giving you the cold shoulder.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have just received yet another invitation from my husband's family, ?and this time we are asked to bring "8-10 bottles of Prosecco and of course a festive mood" for Easter Brunch.

This occurs throughout the ?year. At Christmas it was three cases of red wine and one case of white. I am sure you get the picture.

I like to think myself a ?gracious guest and with every other invitation, I confirm my ?attendance and include an offer to bring something. If the hostess declines my offer, I show up with flowers, chocolates or an appropriate small gift.

I even mentioned to a table of female relatives how much I enjoy baking ?and would love to bring the desserts for the next party. However, being told on my invitation to shell out a good $200 for the booze is, I think, horribly rude.

How can I tactfully resolve this problem and still show up with a festive mood while the rest of my husband's family shows up empty handed?

GENTLE READER: Evidently, these are not cooperative dinners, in which relatives or friends agree to contribute. In that case, others would be doing so, and there would have been a who-brings-what discussion in which you could state your preference.

So Miss Manners was about to take off on her dislike of hosts who demand that guests provide refreshments, or, for that matter, guests who demand to do so. This has undermined the hallowed tradition of reciprocal hospitality, whereby hosts do everything for their guests, but also take their turn as guests.

But wait -- do you reciprocate? If you spend all your holidays at your husband's various relatives', is this their way of nudging you to participate?

In any case, your insisting on doing so at the next opportunity, without accepting any help from anyone, is your way off the liquor run. Occasionally providing everything will give you the standing to state your preferences when it is not your turn.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am on the clergy staff of the local cathedral parish. At our annual Mardi Gras party, I had the honor of being elected king. The dean was elected queen.

We soon found ourselves dressed in royal drag and it was all great fun -- until time came for the "first dance." As so often happens when two men are expected to polka together on the spur of the moment, we began dancing before deciding who was to lead, and neither of us had any experience following.

A most unedifying spectacle ensued. In order to avert complete disaster, I decided to defer to the dean and the situation stabilized. Mostly.

As you have no doubt gathered, the congregation is very naughty and I am already getting alarming vibrations about next Mardi Gras. How should I handle the inevitable? It seems to me that allowing the dean lead was an un-Mardi Gras thing to do. But he was also the queen, and letting her lead would be in keeping with the spirit of the day. In order to set correct precedent for the many years to come, I need to know: Should I defer to the Dean, or should I assert my kingly authority and bring the queen to (high) heel?

GENTLE READER: It is Lent now. Aren't you supposed to be concentrating on something other than how soon you can get back into Carnival mode?

However, to answer your question: The theatrical rule is to keep in character, in which case the king leads the queen. However, Miss Manners feels that you actually did better than that. You deferred to the wishes of your congregation, who set this up for the fun of watching you both making fools of yourselves.

Now please see if you can keep calm until next year.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: About once a month I attend a professional luncheon at a local luxury hotel. When we arrive at our tables, the desserts are already on the tables at the 12 o'clock position above the salad plates. The servers clear the salad plates after we have finished that course and then serve the lunch plates. However, 95 percent of the time, the servers do not ever clear the lunch plates, leaving me with a dilemma as to how to eat the dessert. Some people switch the positions of their lunch plates and their dessert plates, but there is not enough room in the center of the table for everyone to do that. Some people stretch across their lunch plates to access their dessert plates still in the middle of the table, and others stack their dessert plates on top of their used lunch plates.

None of these seems quite right to me. What is one to do in such a situation if one does want to enjoy the dessert?

GENTLE READER: Find a hotel with decent service?

Yes, Miss Manners knows. You (or your employer) will argue that it costs more, just as the hotel argues that it costs more to hire enough waiters. And thus sub-minimum service is perpetuated under the name of luxury.

Under such conditions, the hapless diner must improvise, which is what your colleagues are doing. Of course, none of the methods seems "right." The situation itself is wrong.

: