What do Broadway theater-goers have a right to know and expect? The blog Gratuitous Violins has proposed a “Ticket-Buyer’s Bill of Rights.” While superficially reasonable, this manifesto embodies what is wrong with the expectations of consumers in general and theater patrons in particular. “Let’s face it,” the blogger, “Esther”, writes, “the producers are selling a product and we consumers should be able to make an informed purchase.” Okay. An informed purchase, however, does not require being routinely informed of all aspects of the production, particularly when the information is readily available to the responsible consumer.

Here are Esther’s three tenets of the “Bill of Rights”:

1. Websites and promotional materials should list the date of preview performances and the expected opening night.

2. The ticket seller should list the dates when an above-the-title star will not be performing.

3. Promotional material should state that the play or musical could close at any time, even it’s advertised as a limited run.

I think they all demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of theater, art, and the obligations of producers.

In support of the first “right,” Esther seems to be confused about what a preview is. “Ticket buyers,” she writes, ” 63 percent of whom are tourists and some of whom may be first-time Broadway theater-goers, should know when they’re seeing a work in progress as opposed to the finished product.” Actually, what they should know is that all performances of plays are works in progress. A preview merely means that the show has not reached the form that the producers choose to show to critics. It does not mean that the show is not finished (it is finished; it just isn’t final), professionally produced, designed and performed, or even necessarily inferior to whatever version appears on opening night; it is just different. A ticket-buyer has a right to see the show he or she has purchased tickets for, done as well as professionals can perform it at the time it is performed: a preview will meet all of these requirements. By Esther’s definition, opening night is also a work in progress: major changes and cuts after an opening are far from rare.

Her second “right”, requiring a ticket seller to list the dates when an above-the-title star will not be performing, completely warps the concept of a theatrical work. Sure: “An Evening With Mandy Patinkin” should not be shown without Mandy. Theater-goers, however, are supposed to be buying tickets to plays and musicals, not personal appearances. This “right” seeks to aggravate the celebrity-culture rot that has diminished Broadway for years. Again, a ticket-buyer has a right to see a professional production of a play. If a patron is so determined to see a particular performer, she can inquire, and if she does, she should get an honest answer. Understudies often are called without warning: what is fair notice for this “right”? If a patron can insist on the right to know when “the” star won’t be appearing, why not the Tony-winning supporting actor, or the sparkling chorus girl who got the rave reviews? I saw Phantom of the Opera on a night when Michael Crawford was ill and unavailable; I saw Torch Song Trilogy with Harvey Fierstein’s understudy; I saw the understudy for Salieri when I saw Amadeus on Broadway too. It didn’t matter: all of the performances of those shows were excellent without the famous stars. Esther’s rule might prevent such electrifying understudy discoveries as Lanie Kazan (for Barbra Streisand in Funny Girl) or Shirley McLaine (for Carol Haney in Pajama Game) by making it impossible for producers to get people into the theater when stars are ill, injured, or on vacation. The dark Broadway secret is this: often the understudies are better than the stars. If a ticket-buyer wants stars, she should go to Vegas. Baseball teams don’t advertise that their biggest star is on the disabled list: a fan can find out, but it is presumed that people buy tickets to see the ball game, not particular players. On Broadway, you are supposed to be paying to see theater.

Esther’s third “right” is just supporting laziness, requiring producers to make up for irresponsible and naive patrons. It reminds me of “National Lampoon’s Vacation,” in which a hapless family travels cross-country to see “Wally World” only to find it closed for repairs. New Broadway shows can close any time the box office flags. Tickets for shows that close get refunds. Esther is worried about people who plan vacations around particular shows that close unexpectedly—well, it’s Broadway. You can go to a different show, one that was successful enough to keep running. That’s show biz!

Commercial theater has been around for centuries, and the rules have always been clear. Casts, staging and scripts can change at any time; understudies take over without warning, and shows that are losing money close. Nobody in the theater business is trying to fool anyone about these things, and they shouldn’t be responsible for holding the hands of bumbling theater-goers who don’t understand what they are paying for. It is hard enough to entertain people without having to educate them and do their research too.

A theater-goer has a right to see a professionally performed and produced performance of the show he bought a ticket to see, and to get a refund if that show isn’t performed. Any other requirements just add more burdens to the already overwhelming task of trying to make a profit and make good theater too.