At lunch on Thursday, Peter Harden, the co-publisher (with his brother Richard) of Harden’s London and UK restaurant guides, named a 7th (or is it now 8th) reason why diners seek out restaurant reviews: cover from blame should a restaurant suggestion of theirs disappoint.

One vital reason people consult guides and newspaper critiques is when they are inviting someone to a restaurant, that they want to borrow credibility for the decision from an established authority, so they can say – if things go wrong – ah well, it’s surprising because it has a great review in, just for sake of example, Harden’s.

Peter’s suggestion that he – or at least his guide – may serve as something of a scapegoat touches upon a prevalent yet largely ignored practice: the ongoing and undeclared battle among friends, colleagues and couples over who gets to choose the restaurant. Frequent dining companions may keep mental scorecards evaluating each other’s restaurant suggestions and recommendations. When one of them goes badly wrong, the diner whose judgement has been put into question may seek cover, as Peter suggests, lest he lose credibility and be excluded from negotiations over future dining destinations. 

These decisions are especially important in London, where distances between close friends can be great. If you live in N8 and they live in SW15 it’s essential you maintain the credibility to occasionally choose the restaurant where you’ll be meeting.  Otherwise you’ll be travelling an hour or longer every time you meet those SW15 friends for dinner.