Wedding Etiquette Forum

Cash Bar

1246

Re: Cash Bar

  • Butterflyz419Butterflyz419 member
    100 Comments 100 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited November 2014
    MGP said:
    Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 
    You are correct about pretty much one thing and that is a host does not have to offer every facet of their event continuously throughout.  Where everyone is disagreeing with you is what those things are.  No one would have a problem with the string quartet stopping playing after the ceremony or the bacon wrapped scallops no longer served after cocktail hour because those things have a specific time and place aka "ceremony music" or "appetizers".  I think most people (except you) would agree that drinks are a constant.  It doesn't matter if you are the first or last person in line at the bar, you should have the same options at all times (ETA - and not have to pay for them).

    My point is you need to be prepared to fully and consistently host or not at all.  Would you have someone to your home for dinner and serve them wine during appetizers, then start charging them at dinner?  Would you invite someone to stay in your home for a week and then kick them out after three days because you arbitrarily decided that you had hosted them "enough"?

    You don't get the make that decision.  Your only responsibility is to host them PROPERLY.
    This is exactly my point. No. I wouldn't start charging them at dinner, but if I served all the wine I could afford to buy for the dinner I also would not go out and buy them more just because they had consumed it all; I'd offer them the iced tea I had instead. You might be disappointed that the wine is gone but that's definitely NOT a cash bar. 

    Just as guests shouldn't expect alcohol to begin with, neither should they expect that just because there is alcohol that they it should be drink all that you can. There's no need to announce ahead of time that there's a limit to the bar, and I don't see why anyone would, so there's no need to worry about creating "scarcity" behavior. As long as non-alcoholic beverages are available throughout and no one is being charged for anything then you've done your part.

    That makes you a bad host at dinner then too- you are saying you would have 10 people over and only buy one bottle of wine if that's what you could afford, instead of just serving something else? you don't think it would be weird for everyone to have one sip of wine and then switch over to soft drinks? Why not just have soft drinks the whole time?

    Because we aren't talking about running out- that happens and you cringe a little bit and you move on. You are talking about planning when you know its not enough- the one bottle 10 guest scenerio above.

    ----ETF boxes------- 

    No, it's like buying six bottles of wine for dinner with ten people. 

    With the 2000 dollar limit suggested here, with a 110 person guest list, every person could have three drinks assuming six dollars per drink. That's very reasonable and not stingy at all. If you need more than that you'll just have to wait to go to a bar afterward. Not at all as if only some of your guests will get some or as if you're ripping it from their hands right after they get a small taste.
  • arrrghmateyarrrghmatey member
    500 Love Its 500 Comments First Anniversary First Answer
    edited November 2014
    "A wedding?? I LOVE weddings! Drinks all around!"

    My FI and I recently went to a friend's wedding where the bride and groom served two types of house wine, two types of domestic beer, and a couples' cocktail (each guest was limited to one cocktail). Everything else was a cash bar. Now, I would have been fine with just wine and beer if I would have known that was all that was covered by the hosts. However, there was only one teeny-tiny sign in the corner of the bar (which very few people saw, apparently) that stated all cocktails were cash bar. So when I went up to get a rum and coke and was charged $9, you bet I was a bit miffed and embarrassed that I had to go back to my purse to get more money than what I intended to leave for a tip. Of course I got over it fast, but it definitely seemed a bit odd to me since that was the first time I had seen that at a wedding,

    That helped my FI and I in choosing our venue. Open bar for 4 (out of the 5) event hours, no limit, baby!

    Anyway, please continue. I'm learning a lot from these posts. Where's the popcorn?
                                     Wedding Countdown Ticker

                                                   image
    thisismynickname2
  • MGPMGP member
    Knottie Warrior 500 Love Its 500 Comments Name Dropper
    edited November 2014
    MGP said:
    Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 
    You are correct about pretty much one thing and that is a host does not have to offer every facet of their event continuously throughout.  Where everyone is disagreeing with you is what those things are.  No one would have a problem with the string quartet stopping playing after the ceremony or the bacon wrapped scallops no longer served after cocktail hour because those things have a specific time and place aka "ceremony music" or "appetizers".  I think most people (except you) would agree that drinks are a constant.  It doesn't matter if you are the first or last person in line at the bar, you should have the same options at all times (ETA - and not have to pay for them).

    My point is you need to be prepared to fully and consistently host or not at all.  Would you have someone to your home for dinner and serve them wine during appetizers, then start charging them at dinner?  Would you invite someone to stay in your home for a week and then kick them out after three days because you arbitrarily decided that you had hosted them "enough"?

    You don't get the make that decision.  Your only responsibility is to host them PROPERLY.
    This is exactly my point. No. I wouldn't start charging them at dinner, but if I served all the wine I could afford to buy for the dinner I also would not go out and buy them more just because they had consumed it all; I'd offer them the iced tea I had instead. You might be disappointed that the wine is gone but that's definitely NOT a cash bar. 

    Just as guests shouldn't expect alcohol to begin with, neither should they expect that just because there is alcohol that they it should be drink all that you can. There's no need to announce ahead of time that there's a limit to the bar, and I don't see why anyone would, so there's no need to worry about creating "scarcity" behavior. As long as non-alcoholic beverages are available throughout and no one is being charged for anything then you've done your part.
    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just clarify that there is a very big difference between these two scenarios:

    You plan and pay for food/beverages for 50 people.  The first 10 to the bar and buffet are horrible, greedy, "gimme pigs" and take enough for 3 people each thus creating a shortage.  That is not necessarily poor planning, it's more like guests being a holes.  If I was a guest that was shorted I would not necessarily be upset with the hosts, I would be upset with the guests.  And hungry.

    You want to host 50 people but only can afford drinks to appropriately host 30 people.  A common formula for planning is one drink per hour per guest so let's say you bought enough for 120 drinks (30 people x 4 hour event = 120).  When those drinks run out 2.5 hours in you say "sorry I only bought what I can afford, here have some iced tea".  This is not only poor planning but rude planning.

    Do you see the difference?  In the first situation - shit happens.  In the second - you should have only planned to host what you can afford (aka 30 people) instead of working off a wing and a prayer people won't get offended.

    Personally I think hosting is a two way street.  Hosts should not plan what they cannot afford and guests should be appreciative as long as they were properly hosted.  I know it's a fine line to maintain and takes a lot of experience to get it right.  Another argument to deal with professionals while planning your wedding, but that's a conversation for another time.

    ETA - oops just saw the last page on this.  Sounds like people already had some of my ideas covered.  :)
    Maggie0829
  • Butterflyz419Butterflyz419 member
    100 Comments 100 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited November 2014
    MGP said:
    MGP said:
    Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 
    You are correct about pretty much one thing and that is a host does not have to offer every facet of their event continuously throughout.  Where everyone is disagreeing with you is what those things are.  No one would have a problem with the string quartet stopping playing after the ceremony or the bacon wrapped scallops no longer served after cocktail hour because those things have a specific time and place aka "ceremony music" or "appetizers".  I think most people (except you) would agree that drinks are a constant.  It doesn't matter if you are the first or last person in line at the bar, you should have the same options at all times (ETA - and not have to pay for them).

    My point is you need to be prepared to fully and consistently host or not at all.  Would you have someone to your home for dinner and serve them wine during appetizers, then start charging them at dinner?  Would you invite someone to stay in your home for a week and then kick them out after three days because you arbitrarily decided that you had hosted them "enough"?

    You don't get the make that decision.  Your only responsibility is to host them PROPERLY.
    This is exactly my point. No. I wouldn't start charging them at dinner, but if I served all the wine I could afford to buy for the dinner I also would not go out and buy them more just because they had consumed it all; I'd offer them the iced tea I had instead. You might be disappointed that the wine is gone but that's definitely NOT a cash bar. 

    Just as guests shouldn't expect alcohol to begin with, neither should they expect that just because there is alcohol that they it should be drink all that you can. There's no need to announce ahead of time that there's a limit to the bar, and I don't see why anyone would, so there's no need to worry about creating "scarcity" behavior. As long as non-alcoholic beverages are available throughout and no one is being charged for anything then you've done your part.
    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just clarify that there is a very big difference between these two scenarios:

    You plan and pay for food/beverages for 50 people.  The first 10 to the bar and buffet are horrible, greedy, "gimme pigs" and take enough for 3 people each thus creating a shortage.  That is not necessarily poor planning, it's more like guests being a holes.  If I was a guest that was shorted I would not necessarily be upset with the hosts, I would be upset with the guests.  And hungry.

    You want to host 50 people but only can afford drinks to appropriately host 30 people.  A common formula for planning is one drink per hour per guest so let's say you bought enough for 120 drinks (30 people x 4 hour event = 120).  When those drinks run out 2.5 hours in you say "sorry I only bought what I can afford, here have some iced tea".  This is not only poor planning but rude planning.

    Do you see the difference?  In the first situation - shit happens.  In the second - you should have only planned to host what you can afford (aka 30 people) instead of working off a wing and a prayer people won't get offended.

    Personally I think hosting is a two way street.  Hosts should not plan what they cannot afford and guests should be appreciative as long as they were properly hosted.  I know it's a fine line to maintain and takes a lot of experience to get it right.  Another argument to deal with professionals while planning your wedding, but that's a conversation for another time.
    Neither you nor anyone else has given any reason why this is rude. You may not like it, it may be disappointing to find out that the alcohol wasn't unlimited, and you may think it is was poor planning, but it's not rude and does not violate any principle of etiquette. It does not impinge on anyone's comfort. It does not ask guests to supplement the reception. Alcohol is not a necessity. It's not water, basic food, or a seat. Since it's an extra, there can be no reason why just because I'm willing to purchase each guest 3 drinks, I must be equally willing to purchase them 6 or more. I love cake as a guest, I may want two slices of cake if it's good, but there's no reason why a host should order twice the number of slices of cake just in case some people want a second slice just because they were given the first.
  • plainjane0415plainjane0415 The hills of Tennessee member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Anniversary Name Dropper
    MGP said:
    MGP said:
    MGP said:
    Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 
    You are correct about pretty much one thing and that is a host does not have to offer every facet of their event continuously throughout.  Where everyone is disagreeing with you is what those things are.  No one would have a problem with the string quartet stopping playing after the ceremony or the bacon wrapped scallops no longer served after cocktail hour because those things have a specific time and place aka "ceremony music" or "appetizers".  I think most people (except you) would agree that drinks are a constant.  It doesn't matter if you are the first or last person in line at the bar, you should have the same options at all times (ETA - and not have to pay for them).

    My point is you need to be prepared to fully and consistently host or not at all.  Would you have someone to your home for dinner and serve them wine during appetizers, then start charging them at dinner?  Would you invite someone to stay in your home for a week and then kick them out after three days because you arbitrarily decided that you had hosted them "enough"?

    You don't get the make that decision.  Your only responsibility is to host them PROPERLY.
    This is exactly my point. No. I wouldn't start charging them at dinner, but if I served all the wine I could afford to buy for the dinner I also would not go out and buy them more just because they had consumed it all; I'd offer them the iced tea I had instead. You might be disappointed that the wine is gone but that's definitely NOT a cash bar. 

    Just as guests shouldn't expect alcohol to begin with, neither should they expect that just because there is alcohol that they it should be drink all that you can. There's no need to announce ahead of time that there's a limit to the bar, and I don't see why anyone would, so there's no need to worry about creating "scarcity" behavior. As long as non-alcoholic beverages are available throughout and no one is being charged for anything then you've done your part.
    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just clarify that there is a very big difference between these two scenarios:

    You plan and pay for food/beverages for 50 people.  The first 10 to the bar and buffet are horrible, greedy, "gimme pigs" and take enough for 3 people each thus creating a shortage.  That is not necessarily poor planning, it's more like guests being a holes.  If I was a guest that was shorted I would not necessarily be upset with the hosts, I would be upset with the guests.  And hungry.

    You want to host 50 people but only can afford drinks to appropriately host 30 people.  A common formula for planning is one drink per hour per guest so let's say you bought enough for 120 drinks (30 people x 4 hour event = 120).  When those drinks run out 2.5 hours in you say "sorry I only bought what I can afford, here have some iced tea".  This is not only poor planning but rude planning.

    Do you see the difference?  In the first situation - shit happens.  In the second - you should have only planned to host what you can afford (aka 30 people) instead of working off a wing and a prayer people won't get offended.

    Personally I think hosting is a two way street.  Hosts should not plan what they cannot afford and guests should be appreciative as long as they were properly hosted.  I know it's a fine line to maintain and takes a lot of experience to get it right.  Another argument to deal with professionals while planning your wedding, but that's a conversation for another time.
    Neither you nor anyone else has given any reason why this is rude. You may not like it, it may be disappointing to find out that the alcohol wasn't unlimited, and you may think it is was poor planning, but it's not rude and does not violate any principle of etiquette. It does not impinge on anyone's comfort. It does not ask guests to supplement the reception. Alcohol is not a necessity. It's not water, basic food, or a seat. Since it's an extra, there can be no reason why just because I'm willing to purchase each guest 3 drinks, I must be equally willing to purchase them 6 or more. I love cake as a guest, I may want two slices of cake if it's good, but there's no reason why a host should order twice the number of slices of cake just in case some people want a second slice just because they were given the first.
    It's rude because no one likes the rug being pulled out from under them.  End of story.  Good night.
    To the bolded.  You are 100% correct, it's not a necessity. You have 2 choices, a dry wedding, or a wedding with alcohol that YOU pay for.  Not your guests.  If I came to your wedding with a cash bar, I would want to drink, but there would be no way in hell I would pay for a drink at a cash bar at a wedding. I would eat your food and then leave.  I would then probably go to a bar where it's appropriate to pay for my own drinks.  
    image
    novella1186esstee33PrettyGirlLost
  • MGP said:
    MGP said:
    MGP said:
    Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 
    You are correct about pretty much one thing and that is a host does not have to offer every facet of their event continuously throughout.  Where everyone is disagreeing with you is what those things are.  No one would have a problem with the string quartet stopping playing after the ceremony or the bacon wrapped scallops no longer served after cocktail hour because those things have a specific time and place aka "ceremony music" or "appetizers".  I think most people (except you) would agree that drinks are a constant.  It doesn't matter if you are the first or last person in line at the bar, you should have the same options at all times (ETA - and not have to pay for them).

    My point is you need to be prepared to fully and consistently host or not at all.  Would you have someone to your home for dinner and serve them wine during appetizers, then start charging them at dinner?  Would you invite someone to stay in your home for a week and then kick them out after three days because you arbitrarily decided that you had hosted them "enough"?

    You don't get the make that decision.  Your only responsibility is to host them PROPERLY.
    This is exactly my point. No. I wouldn't start charging them at dinner, but if I served all the wine I could afford to buy for the dinner I also would not go out and buy them more just because they had consumed it all; I'd offer them the iced tea I had instead. You might be disappointed that the wine is gone but that's definitely NOT a cash bar. 

    Just as guests shouldn't expect alcohol to begin with, neither should they expect that just because there is alcohol that they it should be drink all that you can. There's no need to announce ahead of time that there's a limit to the bar, and I don't see why anyone would, so there's no need to worry about creating "scarcity" behavior. As long as non-alcoholic beverages are available throughout and no one is being charged for anything then you've done your part.
    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just clarify that there is a very big difference between these two scenarios:

    You plan and pay for food/beverages for 50 people.  The first 10 to the bar and buffet are horrible, greedy, "gimme pigs" and take enough for 3 people each thus creating a shortage.  That is not necessarily poor planning, it's more like guests being a holes.  If I was a guest that was shorted I would not necessarily be upset with the hosts, I would be upset with the guests.  And hungry.

    You want to host 50 people but only can afford drinks to appropriately host 30 people.  A common formula for planning is one drink per hour per guest so let's say you bought enough for 120 drinks (30 people x 4 hour event = 120).  When those drinks run out 2.5 hours in you say "sorry I only bought what I can afford, here have some iced tea".  This is not only poor planning but rude planning.

    Do you see the difference?  In the first situation - shit happens.  In the second - you should have only planned to host what you can afford (aka 30 people) instead of working off a wing and a prayer people won't get offended.

    Personally I think hosting is a two way street.  Hosts should not plan what they cannot afford and guests should be appreciative as long as they were properly hosted.  I know it's a fine line to maintain and takes a lot of experience to get it right.  Another argument to deal with professionals while planning your wedding, but that's a conversation for another time.
    Neither you nor anyone else has given any reason why this is rude. You may not like it, it may be disappointing to find out that the alcohol wasn't unlimited, and you may think it is was poor planning, but it's not rude and does not violate any principle of etiquette. It does not impinge on anyone's comfort. It does not ask guests to supplement the reception. Alcohol is not a necessity. It's not water, basic food, or a seat. Since it's an extra, there can be no reason why just because I'm willing to purchase each guest 3 drinks, I must be equally willing to purchase them 6 or more. I love cake as a guest, I may want two slices of cake if it's good, but there's no reason why a host should order twice the number of slices of cake just in case some people want a second slice just because they were given the first.
    It's rude because no one likes the rug being pulled out from under them.  End of story.  Good night.
    To the bolded.  You are 100% correct, it's not a necessity. You have 2 choices, a dry wedding, or a wedding with alcohol that YOU pay for.  Not your guests.  If I came to your wedding with a cash bar, I would want to drink, but there would be no way in hell I would pay for a drink at a cash bar at a wedding. I would eat your food and then leave.  I would then probably go to a bar where it's appropriate to pay for my own drinks.  
    Yeah...you missed the point. Reread the bolded. We're not talking about charging guests for drinks but your stock outrage is very helpful.
  • mikenbergermikenberger In a f'n cornfield member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    This thread makes me thirsty.

    image
    southernbelle0915novella1186esstee33chibiyui
  • This thread makes me thirsty.

    Well someone here is, but it's a different kind of thirst...
    *********************************************************************************

    image
    beetheryslothiegal
  • It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 
    What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 
  • And the cake comparison is silly. If you offer food, there must be enough. If you offer cake, there must be enough. If you offer beverages, there must be enough. If you can't afford enough of a particular beverage, offer what you can afford. Not limited quantities of particular sort that will cause confusion or uncomfortable reactions when it's gone.

    If you want a four or five hour reception, plan for it within your budget. You're choosing to offer what you can't afford. If you can't afford to host alcohol, don't. Just have plenty of soda, water, coffee, tea, so nobody has to be told "Sorry, we ran out." 
    MGPchibiyuiMaggie0829
  • mikenbergermikenberger In a f'n cornfield member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer

    This thread makes me thirsty.

    Well someone here is, but it's a different kind of thirst...
    I'm choosing to ignore. She will never get it. Ever. And even if she does, she's the special snowflake to which the rules do not apply. Can't fix stupid. Or inconsiderate.

    image
    esstee33
  • levioosalevioosa Southern California member
    Seventh Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    This is how dense I feel someone here is....

    image


    image
    mikenbergernovella1186climbingsingle
  • edited November 2014

    This thread makes me thirsty.

    Well someone here is, but it's a different kind of thirst...
    I'm choosing to ignore. She will never get it. Ever. And even if she does, she's the special snowflake to which the rules do not apply. Can't fix stupid. Or inconsiderate.
    It's always contrary for the sake of being contrary. She gets it and knows exactly what she's doing. If the collective opinion is black, she's white.
    *********************************************************************************

    image
    novella1186esstee33beethery
  • It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 
    What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 
    Oh for fuck's sake. You give fucking awful advice and you're wrong. Your nonsensical and constant arguments do not make you less wrong, they just make you more annoying. I find it incredibly horrible of you to hang out on an ETIQUETTE board and constantly push shitty anti-etiquette advice because it is not fair to the newbies who come here seeking GENUINE advice on etiquette. Your failure to understand good planning and basic etiquette does not mean that it does not apply to certain situations. It just means you fail to understand. The. Fucking. End.
    And your constant repetitions that I'm wrong don't actually make it so. 
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer


    This thread makes me thirsty.
    Well someone here is, but it's a different kind of thirst...
    I'm choosing to ignore. She will never get it. Ever. And even if she does, she's the special snowflake to which the rules do not apply. Can't fix stupid. Or inconsiderate.
    That wedding is gonna be a shitshow.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


    novella1186






  • It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

    What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

    Oh for fuck's sake. You give fucking awful advice and you're wrong. Your nonsensical and constant arguments do not make you less wrong, they just make you more annoying. I find it incredibly horrible of you to hang out on an ETIQUETTE board and constantly push shitty anti-etiquette advice because it is not fair to the newbies who come here seeking GENUINE advice on etiquette. Your failure to understand good planning and basic etiquette does not mean that it does not apply to certain situations. It just means you fail to understand. The. Fucking. End.



    And your constant repetitions that I'm wrong don't actually make it so. 

    They don't need to. Your wrongness does that all on its own.

    image
    image
    PrettyGirlLostesstee33novella1186
  • MGPMGP member
    Knottie Warrior 500 Love Its 500 Comments Name Dropper
    edited November 2014
    It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 
    What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

    It is embarrassing for the guest that is turned away but more importantly it is embarrassing for the hosts who look like cheap motherfu*kers that don't know how to appropriately budget and plan. 

    Again it is about planning for APPROPRIATE (not gluttonous) portions. In regards to drinks I think the consensus on this board any many other sources is one drink per hour. Anything less is quite literally a recipe for disaster. 

    I have actual work to do now. Which ironically has to do with planning food for an event.
    ohannabelle
  • beetherybeethery So sayeth the fuckin' Pope. member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer


    This thread makes me thirsty.
    Well someone here is, but it's a different kind of thirst...
    I'm choosing to ignore. She will never get it. Ever. And even if she does, she's the special snowflake to which the rules do not apply. Can't fix stupid. Or inconsiderate.
    That wedding is gonna be a shitshow.
    The really scary thing is that she's probably a licensed driver.
    --

    I'm the fuck out.

    image
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer







    It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

    What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

    Oh for fuck's sake. You give fucking awful advice and you're wrong. Your nonsensical and constant arguments do not make you less wrong, they just make you more annoying. I find it incredibly horrible of you to hang out on an ETIQUETTE board and constantly push shitty anti-etiquette advice because it is not fair to the newbies who come here seeking GENUINE advice on etiquette. Your failure to understand good planning and basic etiquette does not mean that it does not apply to certain situations. It just means you fail to understand. The. Fucking. End.



    And your constant repetitions that I'm wrong don't actually make it so. 

    "I know you are but what am I?"

    That's what you sound like. I hope for your guests' sake you are trolling.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


    novella1186esstee33
  • mikenbergermikenberger In a f'n cornfield member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    beethery said:






    This thread makes me thirsty.

    Well someone here is, but it's a different kind of thirst...
    I'm choosing to ignore. She will never get it. Ever. And even if she does, she's the special snowflake to which the rules do not apply. Can't fix stupid. Or inconsiderate.

    That wedding is gonna be a shitshow.


    The really scary thing is that she's probably a licensed driver.

    Let us pray for no procreation.

    image
    novella1186
  • plainjane0415plainjane0415 The hills of Tennessee member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Anniversary Name Dropper
    MGP said:
    MGP said:
    MGP said:
    Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 
    You are correct about pretty much one thing and that is a host does not have to offer every facet of their event continuously throughout.  Where everyone is disagreeing with you is what those things are.  No one would have a problem with the string quartet stopping playing after the ceremony or the bacon wrapped scallops no longer served after cocktail hour because those things have a specific time and place aka "ceremony music" or "appetizers".  I think most people (except you) would agree that drinks are a constant.  It doesn't matter if you are the first or last person in line at the bar, you should have the same options at all times (ETA - and not have to pay for them).

    My point is you need to be prepared to fully and consistently host or not at all.  Would you have someone to your home for dinner and serve them wine during appetizers, then start charging them at dinner?  Would you invite someone to stay in your home for a week and then kick them out after three days because you arbitrarily decided that you had hosted them "enough"?

    You don't get the make that decision.  Your only responsibility is to host them PROPERLY.
    This is exactly my point. No. I wouldn't start charging them at dinner, but if I served all the wine I could afford to buy for the dinner I also would not go out and buy them more just because they had consumed it all; I'd offer them the iced tea I had instead. You might be disappointed that the wine is gone but that's definitely NOT a cash bar. 

    Just as guests shouldn't expect alcohol to begin with, neither should they expect that just because there is alcohol that they it should be drink all that you can. There's no need to announce ahead of time that there's a limit to the bar, and I don't see why anyone would, so there's no need to worry about creating "scarcity" behavior. As long as non-alcoholic beverages are available throughout and no one is being charged for anything then you've done your part.
    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just clarify that there is a very big difference between these two scenarios:

    You plan and pay for food/beverages for 50 people.  The first 10 to the bar and buffet are horrible, greedy, "gimme pigs" and take enough for 3 people each thus creating a shortage.  That is not necessarily poor planning, it's more like guests being a holes.  If I was a guest that was shorted I would not necessarily be upset with the hosts, I would be upset with the guests.  And hungry.

    You want to host 50 people but only can afford drinks to appropriately host 30 people.  A common formula for planning is one drink per hour per guest so let's say you bought enough for 120 drinks (30 people x 4 hour event = 120).  When those drinks run out 2.5 hours in you say "sorry I only bought what I can afford, here have some iced tea".  This is not only poor planning but rude planning.

    Do you see the difference?  In the first situation - shit happens.  In the second - you should have only planned to host what you can afford (aka 30 people) instead of working off a wing and a prayer people won't get offended.

    Personally I think hosting is a two way street.  Hosts should not plan what they cannot afford and guests should be appreciative as long as they were properly hosted.  I know it's a fine line to maintain and takes a lot of experience to get it right.  Another argument to deal with professionals while planning your wedding, but that's a conversation for another time.
    Neither you nor anyone else has given any reason why this is rude. You may not like it, it may be disappointing to find out that the alcohol wasn't unlimited, and you may think it is was poor planning, but it's not rude and does not violate any principle of etiquette. It does not impinge on anyone's comfort. It does not ask guests to supplement the reception. Alcohol is not a necessity. It's not water, basic food, or a seat. Since it's an extra, there can be no reason why just because I'm willing to purchase each guest 3 drinks, I must be equally willing to purchase them 6 or more. I love cake as a guest, I may want two slices of cake if it's good, but there's no reason why a host should order twice the number of slices of cake just in case some people want a second slice just because they were given the first.
    It's rude because no one likes the rug being pulled out from under them.  End of story.  Good night.
    To the bolded.  You are 100% correct, it's not a necessity. You have 2 choices, a dry wedding, or a wedding with alcohol that YOU pay for.  Not your guests.  If I came to your wedding with a cash bar, I would want to drink, but there would be no way in hell I would pay for a drink at a cash bar at a wedding. I would eat your food and then leave.  I would then probably go to a bar where it's appropriate to pay for my own drinks.  
    Yeah...you missed the point. Reread the bolded. We're not talking about charging guests for drinks but your stock outrage is very helpful.
    Yep totally missed it.  You're right, the rest of us are wrong.  Just create a crazy mess at the bar.... go right ahead... it'll be fun.... 

    I can't, no. If you really can't see what we are trying to tell you here, then you should really just stop.
    image
  • plainjane0415plainjane0415 The hills of Tennessee member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Anniversary Name Dropper
    It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 
    What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 
    NOPE.
    image
  • I can't speak for the running out of alcohol because the B&G did make sure to have enough of that. They could bring their own in at this venue. What they didn't bring enough in was soda. Yep, ran out in a half hour. The bartender had to tell us no, all gone. You can bet we judged them for poor planning.

    The same will be true of alcohol. If the bartender has to say no, all gone, no more money, your guests will judge you.
    theartistformerlyknownas
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards