Is there etiquette about whether or not you need to communicate whether its a dry wedding ahead of time?
I only ask because FI and I like to drink, but would never drive drunk. So if a wedding was, say, 1 hour away, we would get a hotel because we would anticipate drinking. If the wedding was dry, we would certainly be annoyed if we didn't know ahead of time, because if we knew we would be totally sobes, we would have saved money on a hotel and driven home.
Just wondering. This has never happened (and my wedding will be 100% open bar), but I'm curious
And to add to what Maggie said, as guests, it is rude to expect alcohol at a wedding.
Is it? I mean, yes I get that for the most part, but is it weird to expect that friends with whom you often drink would let you know if their wedding was dry? Again, I've never been in this situation, and most of the weddings I've attended I have known somehow that it would have an open bar (usually I know the bride and hear about planning). It's just a totally random question I had
Honestly, if these are friends that you typically drink with often and enjoy their alcohol then it is probably safe to assume that there will be alcohol at their wedding. But it would not be rude of them to have a dry wedding and it would not be rude of them to not tell you that ahead of time. Alcohol is never a requirement. For example I had multiple stations at my wedding. I did not tell every guest what exactly we were serving in regards to food. They found that out when they came to my wedding. Same with the bar. I didn't make a point in telling people we were having an open bar, they found that out when they arrived.
That's different though, because nobody would ever spend money on a hotel or something in anticipation of food. If my friends with whom I drink socially hosted a wedding an hour outside of DC, I would likely get a hotel room because I would assume I might be drunk. I'm not saying it would be rude of them NOT to tell me if it was dry, but I might be slightly annoyed (in part with myself) for spending money on a hotel that I didn't need because the wedding was dry
Is there etiquette about whether or not you need to communicate whether its a dry wedding ahead of time?
I only ask because FI and I like to drink, but would never drive drunk. So if a wedding was, say, 1 hour away, we would get a hotel because we would anticipate drinking. If the wedding was dry, we would certainly be annoyed if we didn't know ahead of time, because if we knew we would be totally sobes, we would have saved money on a hotel and driven home.
Just wondering. This has never happened (and my wedding will be 100% open bar), but I'm curious
And to add to what Maggie said, as guests, it is rude to expect alcohol at a wedding.
Is it? I mean, yes I get that for the most part, but is it weird to expect that friends with whom you often drink would let you know if their wedding was dry? Again, I've never been in this situation, and most of the weddings I've attended I have known somehow that it would have an open bar (usually I know the bride and hear about planning). It's just a totally random question I had
Honestly, if these are friends that you typically drink with often and enjoy their alcohol then it is probably safe to assume that there will be alcohol at their wedding. But it would not be rude of them to have a dry wedding and it would not be rude of them to not tell you that ahead of time. Alcohol is never a requirement. For example I had multiple stations at my wedding. I did not tell every guest what exactly we were serving in regards to food. They found that out when they came to my wedding. Same with the bar. I didn't make a point in telling people we were having an open bar, they found that out when they arrived.
That's different though, because nobody would ever spend money on a hotel or something in anticipation of food. If my friends with whom I drink socially hosted a wedding an hour outside of DC, I would likely get a hotel room because I would assume I might be drunk. I'm not saying it would be rude of them NOT to tell me if it was dry, but I might be slightly annoyed (in part with myself) for spending money on a hotel that I didn't need because the wedding was dry
You can be annoyed all you want, but they have no obligation to tell you yes or no as to whether they are serving alcohol. You are choosing to book a hotel room under the assumption that you expect alcohol to be served. If it is not served you have no right to be annoyed at the hosts of the event because you decided to assume something.
If for the next wedding you go to that you may book a hotel room for, simply asks the hosts if alcohol will be provided because you want to make suitable arrangements for the evening.
I feel like I have seen this same post with the same results come up over and over on this board with the same results. One person asking a question and the same few slamming it down and demanding the only two options are open bar all night long or dry wedding. Now I understand the logic and etiquette of both sides even though personally I disagree. What would be nice if possible moderators would be if a poll or somethin could be established that May grant some insight to both sides and give those a voice that are too shy to post. Maybe something along the lines of asking a guest if an open bar was not an option for the couple would they prefer to attend a dry wedding or have the option to buy? Just a thought as reading the same thing and having it repeatedly shot down while watching everyone bicker like children all though amusing is redundant.
I am one of the moderators of this board and am happy to address your concerns.
Yes people do ask the same questions, yes people give the same responses, and yes, some posters are more active than others. This is all part of the internet.
No one ever says the only two options are dry wedding or open bar. Several posts in this thread suggested consumption bar or hosting a bar with limited options (ex: beer and wine only).
Users can create their own polls. You are free to to do so. It is in the drop down when you click the new post button. If I recall correctly, there was a poll much like the one you are proposing done on the reception board. You can search for it if you'd like to see the results.
I am all for guests comfort, but there is a line. If I invite you to dinner at my house and you decide that while my roast smells great you're really in the mood for pizza and call for delivery, I am going to be pissed. I don't give two hoots if you don't mind paying for the pizza. It is insulting to the host, and I would be insulted. In the same line of thinking, I don't care if you personally would rather buy a drink than attend a dry event. A good guest is pleased with whatever the host offers, so long as it is appropriate for the time of day. I'm not going to risk offending some guests with a cash bar and embarrass myself by hosting something poorly because some rude people would rather buy what they want than be good guests.
Honestly, if these are friends that you typically drink with often and enjoy their alcohol then it is probably safe to assume that there will be alcohol at their wedding. But it would not be rude of them to have a dry wedding and it would not be rude of them to not tell you that ahead of time. Alcohol is never a requirement. For example I had multiple stations at my wedding. I did not tell every guest what exactly we were serving in regards to food. They found that out when they came to my wedding. Same with the bar. I didn't make a point in telling people we were having an open bar, they found that out when they arrived.
That's different though, because nobody would ever spend money on a hotel or something in anticipation of food. If my friends with whom I drink socially hosted a wedding an hour outside of DC, I would likely get a hotel room because I would assume I might be drunk. I'm not saying it would be rude of them NOT to tell me if it was dry, but I might be slightly annoyed (in part with myself) for spending money on a hotel that I didn't need because the wedding was dry
You can be annoyed all you want, but they have no obligation to tell you yes or no as to whether they are serving alcohol. You are choosing to book a hotel room under the assumption that you expect alcohol to be served. If it is not served you have no right to be annoyed at the hosts of the event because you decided to assume something.
If for the next wedding you go to that you may book a hotel room for, simply asks the hosts if alcohol will be provided because you want to make suitable arrangements for the evening.
Like I said, I would mostly be annoyed with myself. I wouldn't be annoyed with THEM at all - I would be annoyed with myself and the situation generally. What I meant was that I would be annoyed with myself for NOT asking them before booking. I'm sorry if I was unclear
This is true I agree, however after looking over the website I find no board dedicated to opinions or guest expectations. The best outlet for these questions defaults to your etiquette board, so if you could refer me to a place where this would be better suited that would be great. I came here in the understanding it was a discussion board not a place of absolutes, once the absolute etiquette answer is found which you have clearly posted a number of times, why not have a discussion where people could voice opinions without being ostracized as bad planners who cant afford their own wedding.
Guests can have all the expectations that they want, but they should not be annoyed if those expectations are not met. Meaning, if a guest expects top shelf liquor but is only served beer and wine then they should not be upset with the hosts because in the end the guests are still being hosted properly. If a guest expects filet mignon and lobster tail but is served a chicken breast then again they should not be upset with the hosts because they are still being hosted correctly.
Now if the guests goes into a wedding that is being held at 5pm and expects dinner and something to drink to keep from getting dehydrated, but are only served cheese and crackers and no liquids what so ever, then the blame falls on the hosts because they poorly planned their wedding and were poor hosts.
I really don't understand what you want. Do you want a board that validates your expectations as a guest and also validates crappy planning?
Etiquette is an absolute. Period. Hosting people properly means that certain etiquette rules are followed. These rules rarely change. There are victimless etiquette crimes like using labels on invitations that even though are against etiquette do not in any way effect your guests comfort at your wedding. But then there are things like a cash bar or not serving a full meal during meal time or not having enough chairs for your guests to sit in that do effect your guests comfort and those etiquette rules/guidelines should always be followed.
This is true I agree, however after looking over the website I find no board dedicated to opinions or guest expectations. The best outlet for these questions defaults to your etiquette board, so if you could refer me to a place where this would be better suited that would be great. I came here in the understanding it was a discussion board not a place of absolutes, once the absolute etiquette answer is found which you have clearly posted a number of times, why not have a discussion where people could voice opinions without being ostracized as bad planners who cant afford their own wedding.
These boards are for everyone - brides, grooms, BMs/GMs, moms/dads, guests, etc. But mostly, the questions posed are by people planning weddings.
It would be rude of a guest to demand that something is served - whether that be alcohol, filet mignon, ice cream, etc.
Personally, I'm a drinker. Love my bourbon. But if I go to a wedding (as a guest) and it's a dry wedding, I would be the rude one if I pitched a fit about it. My etiquette obligation as a guest is to graciously accept what is hosted. However, as a guest, you CAN expect to be properly hosted.
Honestly, if these are friends that you typically drink with often and enjoy their alcohol then it is probably safe to assume that there will be alcohol at their wedding. But it would not be rude of them to have a dry wedding and it would not be rude of them to not tell you that ahead of time. Alcohol is never a requirement. For example I had multiple stations at my wedding. I did not tell every guest what exactly we were serving in regards to food. They found that out when they came to my wedding. Same with the bar. I didn't make a point in telling people we were having an open bar, they found that out when they arrived.
That's different though, because nobody would ever spend money on a hotel or something in anticipation of food. If my friends with whom I drink socially hosted a wedding an hour outside of DC, I would likely get a hotel room because I would assume I might be drunk. I'm not saying it would be rude of them NOT to tell me if it was dry, but I might be slightly annoyed (in part with myself) for spending money on a hotel that I didn't need because the wedding was dry
You can be annoyed all you want, but they have no obligation to tell you yes or no as to whether they are serving alcohol. You are choosing to book a hotel room under the assumption that you expect alcohol to be served. If it is not served you have no right to be annoyed at the hosts of the event because you decided to assume something.
If for the next wedding you go to that you may book a hotel room for, simply asks the hosts if alcohol will be provided because you want to make suitable arrangements for the evening.
Like I said, I would mostly be annoyed with myself. I wouldn't be annoyed with THEM at all - I would be annoyed with myself and the situation generally. What I meant was that I would be annoyed with myself for NOT asking them before booking. I'm sorry if I was unclear
Oh, my bad. I get what you are saying
But for any lurkers out there, if you book a hotel room under the assumption that you are going to get a bit buzzed by drinking all the alcohol at the wedding, only to then find out it is a dry event, you should not be annoyed or angry with the hosts because they did not inform you of this.
Honestly, if these are friends that you typically drink with often and enjoy their alcohol then it is probably safe to assume that there will be alcohol at their wedding. But it would not be rude of them to have a dry wedding and it would not be rude of them to not tell you that ahead of time. Alcohol is never a requirement. For example I had multiple stations at my wedding. I did not tell every guest what exactly we were serving in regards to food. They found that out when they came to my wedding. Same with the bar. I didn't make a point in telling people we were having an open bar, they found that out when they arrived.
That's different though, because nobody would ever spend money on a hotel or something in anticipation of food. If my friends with whom I drink socially hosted a wedding an hour outside of DC, I would likely get a hotel room because I would assume I might be drunk. I'm not saying it would be rude of them NOT to tell me if it was dry, but I might be slightly annoyed (in part with myself) for spending money on a hotel that I didn't need because the wedding was dry
You can be annoyed all you want, but they have no obligation to tell you yes or no as to whether they are serving alcohol. You are choosing to book a hotel room under the assumption that you expect alcohol to be served. If it is not served you have no right to be annoyed at the hosts of the event because you decided to assume something.
If for the next wedding you go to that you may book a hotel room for, simply asks the hosts if alcohol will be provided because you want to make suitable arrangements for the evening.
Like I said, I would mostly be annoyed with myself. I wouldn't be annoyed with THEM at all - I would be annoyed with myself and the situation generally. What I meant was that I would be annoyed with myself for NOT asking them before booking. I'm sorry if I was unclear
I totally bring up in conversation alcohol at the wedding with my friend in conversation. I would never book a hotel or taxi without this info. I don't think it's rude to ask so you can be prepared.
One of the heaviest drinkers in college I know had a dry wedding - it was lunch without a DJ, so I didn't really want to drink anyway - but it taught me never to assume based on my friends' drinking habits that there would or wold not be alcohol at the wedding.
Honestly, if these are friends that you typically drink with often and enjoy their alcohol then it is probably safe to assume that there will be alcohol at their wedding. But it would not be rude of them to have a dry wedding and it would not be rude of them to not tell you that ahead of time. Alcohol is never a requirement. For example I had multiple stations at my wedding. I did not tell every guest what exactly we were serving in regards to food. They found that out when they came to my wedding. Same with the bar. I didn't make a point in telling people we were having an open bar, they found that out when they arrived.
That's different though, because nobody would ever spend money on a hotel or something in anticipation of food. If my friends with whom I drink socially hosted a wedding an hour outside of DC, I would likely get a hotel room because I would assume I might be drunk. I'm not saying it would be rude of them NOT to tell me if it was dry, but I might be slightly annoyed (in part with myself) for spending money on a hotel that I didn't need because the wedding was dry
You can be annoyed all you want, but they have no obligation to tell you yes or no as to whether they are serving alcohol. You are choosing to book a hotel room under the assumption that you expect alcohol to be served. If it is not served you have no right to be annoyed at the hosts of the event because you decided to assume something.
If for the next wedding you go to that you may book a hotel room for, simply asks the hosts if alcohol will be provided because you want to make suitable arrangements for the evening.
Like I said, I would mostly be annoyed with myself. I wouldn't be annoyed with THEM at all - I would be annoyed with myself and the situation generally. What I meant was that I would be annoyed with myself for NOT asking them before booking. I'm sorry if I was unclear
You're fine then. But like Maggie said earlier, you can ask the hosts so that you can make proper plans.
@Maggie0829 & @Photokitty - I'm SO glad I saw these posts before ever being in this type of situation! Like I said before, I've never been to a dry wedding and could see myself assuming a wedding would have alcohol and booking a hotel, and then feeling very dumb and being annoyed with myself for doing so.
Sometimes assumptions are based on history. I've never attended a wedding that didn't have an open bar. I've been attending weddings for 40 years. I've never attended any family event that didn't have alcohol served.
In the same note, I've never attended a thanksgiving dinner that didn't have turkey and mashed potatoes.
When you have a history of over 40 years worth of turkeys on Thanksgiving you are going to assume there is turkey at the next thanksgiving dinner. Same with alcohol with me. If every family wedding you have been to in the last 40 years has had an open bar you are going to assume there is alcohol at the next one you attend.
Is it wrong that I assume? Probably , but I think it's normal when you have the history I have with how people host. Will I be mad if I showed up with alcohol? No, but I will be slightly disappointed.
What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests. Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated.
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 bar down before the event ends) would be necessary as a matter of etiquette when providing food for 5 hours straight is not. You may consider it poor planning and I would expect someone to budget for each guest to have more than one drink just as you would expect each guest to have more than one hors d'oeuvre, but as long as no one has to open their wallet and some nonalcoholic beverage is available, I can see no violation of etiquette. You want to side-eye it? That's your right, but it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol.
Look, you refuse to believe what you are doing is wrong, but it unequivocally is. We have no vested interest in your wedding, and I can 100% guarantee your guests agree with us (but will of course never say it to your face, they have manners).
Drinks are provided throughout the night, food is provided as either a meal or through some sort of non-meal buffet (depending on time). Your analogy would be pulling away someone's plate of food when they were half-way finished with their meal, or else running out of food when everyone hasn't had enough. Look on here and you can easily find SO many places where people say "the wedding was horrible because they didn't plan well and ran out of food".
Why do you insist on doing it this way when you could easily have just beer and wine the whole night? It is almost like you want to punish your guests to prove to us that it isn't rude. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
PS: I don't think anyone has a problem with the bar closing 30 minutes before the end of reception for last call, but when the bar closes, that signals the night is over and I am going to get my purse and coat. If the bar closed 3 hours before the planned end of reception, everyone will think THAT is when the party is over.
I've never said that I'm doing this or any of the other supposedly terrible things that I've defended on this board at my wedding. I've shared very little about my own wedding plans beyond the fact that my wedding is on a Sunday evening.
Oh and the whole just serve beer and wine the whole time? Yeah. Doesn't always work that way. At my venue, the cheap wine costs the same as the house spirits at $6 a glass so limiting to beer and wine would make no difference in cost.
I just get sick of seeing brides getting hammered on this board for absolutely no reason. I've still been given no reason by etiquette why you must serve alcohol for the entire event or not at all. If the alcoholic portion of the bar closes after a limit is reached, and as long as other non-alcoholic beverages continue to be available so no one gets dehydrated, your host duties are fulfilled.
Then you cannot afford your venue and you planned poorly. You should have either a.) picked a place that you can afford to host everyone properly or b.) held it at your venue and had a dry wedding. Don't punish your guests because you can't budget and plan properly.
Running out of anything at a hosted event is rude and poor planning. The problem is beverages and food are different. If you are hosting drinks they need to stay the same the whole night. See the what I posted about above about the wedding I went to where they had this.
THIS.
We loved our venue. The day we walked in we loved it. We also enjoyed a few other venues - but knew we couldn't afford to properly host people at another venue we loved - so we didn't pick that location.
We based our location and guest list size on our budgets. And you should do the same. If you didn't - you planned poorly. Step back and figure out budgets for everything and figure out ways to host appropriately and to your budget. You may have to get creative - but you're the only person who could have prevented this.
We had a few guests ask whether alcohol would be served at my wedding, because my H doesn't drink but I do. They wanted to be able to make advance plans for a room and/or a driver if need be. I had no problem answering their questions; I just didn't make a huge announcement that there was going to be an open bar.
Comparing a capped open bar to the food served at dinner is a bit ridiculous. Dinners are planned and served in such a way that everyone gets the same amount (plated meal) or so that everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds (buffet). In either scenario, it would be poor hosting if you ran out before everyone got a full meal. With a buffet, the venue knows how much extra they need to produce to keep from running out, and obviously waiters know not to give 2 plates to 1 person. But when you introduce scarcity into any equation, it's human nature to panic and get more. Don't believe me, look at WalMart on Black Friday. If it was announced at the beginning of dinner that the food was limited, people would take more than they needed to ensure they didn't go without, and that would inevitably leave someone at the back of the line with no food. Then what - they're either charged for food, or go hungry? Does ANYONE think that sounds like good hosting?
It makes sense for some things to be limited in quantity or duration though - cocktail food during cocktail hour (though you STILL see people mob the waiters to make sure they get a crab cake, knowing they're limited), one full meal during dinner (lemme take double mashed potatoes, those look great), one portion of dessert during dessert (and half of my H's). Beverages are not one of those things that people expect to be limited or rationed in the way the OP is proposing. It is reasonable to expect that whatever beverages are hosted, will be hosted and available at whatever moment you decide that you're thirsty. (Within limits of when the law/venue rules stipulate that alcohol may be served, including cutting off inebriated people.)
Honestly, if as your guest I found out halfway through your reception that you had capped the bar at a certain $ limit and now i was expected to pay for my own drinks, I would think you were tacky and would side eye your event. Either pay for your guests drinks or don't. I would feel the same way if you paid for a certain # of appetizers and then when you ran out, you asked your guests to pay for more food if they were still hungry. Tacky. It's YOUR wedding, it's YOUR responsibility to pay for your guests to celebrate YOUR event. End of story.
I once went to a wedding like this. People heard there was a limit to the bar, and a few started ordering double and triple drinks to line them up. There was even one guy sitting at a table with 5 pints in front of him that was meant to last him the night. Of course, he got them all free. However, the bar ran dry in 1.5 hours, and all I got was a measly small glass of white wine before it switched to cash. I didn't realise there was a limit so when I went to get my second glass of wine, I had to borrow money from a friend (I didn't have cash on me). It was embarrassing!
THIS!!! I have had this happen to me SO many times at wedding where the couple only hosts the cocktail hour or dinner but not the whole night. People will load up on alcohol because they fear the tap will run dry. Also, several people will drink SO much more on a pre-dinner empty stomach - leading to more drunky people for a longer duraiton of the night. So if you're hoping a limit will help limit the number of drunks - think otherwise. Chances are they will just get wasted quicker and be wasted for longer.
Thank you very much for letting me know about the polling option it will be a good gauge for me. I did take your advice and moved my question to the budget wedding page as maybe this is more of the type of thing I'm looking for rather than etiquette.
Doh. Even budget brides should care about etiquette. EVERYONE should care about etiquette!
I feel like I have seen this same post with the same results come up over and over on this board with the same results. One person asking a question and the same few slamming it down and demanding the only two options are open bar all night long or dry wedding. Now I understand the logic and etiquette of both sides even though personally I disagree. What would be nice if possible moderators would be if a poll or somethin could be established that May grant some insight to both sides and give those a voice that are too shy to post. Maybe something along the lines of asking a guest if an open bar was not an option for the couple would they prefer to attend a dry wedding or have the option to buy? Just a thought as reading the same thing and having it repeatedly shot down while watching everyone bicker like children all though amusing is redundant.
I am one of the moderators of this board and am happy to address your concerns.
Yes people do ask the same questions, yes people give the same responses, and yes, some posters are more active than others. This is all part of the internet.
No one ever says the only two options are dry wedding or open bar. Several posts in this thread suggested consumption bar or hosting a bar with limited options (ex: beer and wine only).
Users can create their own polls. You are free to to do so. It is in the drop down when you click the new post button. If I recall correctly, there was a poll much like the one you are proposing done on the reception board. You can search for it if you'd like to see the results.
I am all for guests comfort, but there is a line. If I invite you to dinner at my house and you decide that while my roast smells great you're really in the mood for pizza and call for delivery, I am going to be pissed. I don't give two hoots if you don't mind paying for the pizza. It is insulting to the host, and I would be insulted. In the same line of thinking, I don't care if you personally would rather buy a drink than attend a dry event. A good guest is pleased with whatever the host offers, so long as it is appropriate for the time of day. I'm not going to risk offending some guests with a cash bar and embarrass myself by hosting something poorly because some rude people would rather buy what they want than be good guests.
Thank you very much for letting me know about the polling option it will be a good gauge for me. I did take your advice and moved my question to the budget wedding page as maybe this is more of the type of thing I'm looking for rather than etiquette.
Um, you're going to get the same advice there. Rude is rude no matter what board you post on.
I once went to a wedding like this. People heard there was a limit to the bar, and a few started ordering double and triple drinks to line them up. There was even one guy sitting at a table with 5 pints in front of him that was meant to last him the night. Of course, he got them all free. However, the bar ran dry in 1.5 hours, and all I got was a measly small glass of white wine before it switched to cash. I didn't realise there was a limit so when I went to get my second glass of wine, I had to borrow money from a friend (I didn't have cash on me). It was embarrassing!
THIS!!! I have had this happen to me SO many times at wedding where the couple only hosts the cocktail hour or dinner but not the whole night. People will load up on alcohol because they fear the tap will run dry. Also, several people will drink SO much more on a pre-dinner empty stomach - leading to more drunky people for a longer duraiton of the night. So if you're hoping a limit will help limit the number of drunks - think otherwise. Chances are they will just get wasted quicker and be wasted for longer.
I'll actually admit to doing this at the first wedding I ever attended as an adult of legal drinking age. The first of my friends got married the summer after college. We found out the bar would close for 2 hours over dinner and cake cutting, but would re-open afterwards during the dancing. So we went and got like 3-4 drinks each to last us while it was closed. Pretty embarrassed by that.
The bar closing was actually the venue's solution - in that state, the bar at an event can only be open for so many hours, so they regularly close the bar during dinner so that it can be open until later in the evening. I'm not sure what etiquette would say about those two options; probably the correct thing is to end the event when the bar must be closed and then have an after-party.
I once went to a wedding like this. People heard there was a limit to the bar, and a few started ordering double and triple drinks to line them up. There was even one guy sitting at a table with 5 pints in front of him that was meant to last him the night. Of course, he got them all free. However, the bar ran dry in 1.5 hours, and all I got was a measly small glass of white wine before it switched to cash. I didn't realise there was a limit so when I went to get my second glass of wine, I had to borrow money from a friend (I didn't have cash on me). It was embarrassing!
THIS!!! I have had this happen to me SO many times at wedding where the couple only hosts the cocktail hour or dinner but not the whole night. People will load up on alcohol because they fear the tap will run dry. Also, several people will drink SO much more on a pre-dinner empty stomach - leading to more drunky people for a longer duraiton of the night. So if you're hoping a limit will help limit the number of drunks - think otherwise. Chances are they will just get wasted quicker and be wasted for longer.
I'll actually admit to doing this at the first wedding I ever attended as an adult of legal drinking age. The first of my friends got married the summer after college. We found out the bar would close for 2 hours over dinner and cake cutting, but would re-open afterwards during the dancing. So we went and got like 3-4 drinks each to last us while it was closed. Pretty embarrassed by that.
The bar closing was actually the venue's solution - in that state, the bar at an event can only be open for so many hours, so they regularly close the bar during dinner so that it can be open until later in the evening. I'm not sure what etiquette would say about those two options; probably the correct thing is to end the event when the bar must be closed and then have an after-party.
That's... weird. But, if it's a law in the state, there's only so much you can do.
They didn't make the bar a cash bar during those couple hours, so not a huge deal.
I once went to a wedding like this. People heard there was a limit to the bar, and a few started ordering double and triple drinks to line them up. There was even one guy sitting at a table with 5 pints in front of him that was meant to last him the night. Of course, he got them all free. However, the bar ran dry in 1.5 hours, and all I got was a measly small glass of white wine before it switched to cash. I didn't realise there was a limit so when I went to get my second glass of wine, I had to borrow money from a friend (I didn't have cash on me). It was embarrassing!
THIS!!! I have had this happen to me SO many times at wedding where the couple only hosts the cocktail hour or dinner but not the whole night. People will load up on alcohol because they fear the tap will run dry. Also, several people will drink SO much more on a pre-dinner empty stomach - leading to more drunky people for a longer duraiton of the night. So if you're hoping a limit will help limit the number of drunks - think otherwise. Chances are they will just get wasted quicker and be wasted for longer.
I'll actually admit to doing this at the first wedding I ever attended as an adult of legal drinking age. The first of my friends got married the summer after college. We found out the bar would close for 2 hours over dinner and cake cutting, but would re-open afterwards during the dancing. So we went and got like 3-4 drinks each to last us while it was closed. Pretty embarrassed by that.
The bar closing was actually the venue's solution - in that state, the bar at an event can only be open for so many hours, so they regularly close the bar during dinner so that it can be open until later in the evening. I'm not sure what etiquette would say about those two options; probably the correct thing is to end the event when the bar must be closed and then have an after-party.
Wow, two hours? That is a long time. I have been to some weddings where the bar was closed for an hour during dinner, but they also had wine on the tables and they made sure to announce when the bar was to close so that guests can get a refill before dinner was served. But two hours is ridiculously long.
I feel like I have seen this same post with the same results come up over and over on this board with the same results. One person asking a question and the same few slamming it down and demanding the only two options are open bar all night long or dry wedding. Now I understand the logic and etiquette of both sides even though personally I disagree. What would be nice if possible moderators would be if a poll or somethin could be established that May grant some insight to both sides and give those a voice that are too shy to post. Maybe something along the lines of asking a guest if an open bar was not an option for the couple would they prefer to attend a dry wedding or have the option to buy? Just a thought as reading the same thing and having it repeatedly shot down while watching everyone bicker like children all though amusing is redundant.
Sorry, but etiquette isn't "a matter of opinion."
There is no polite way to offer alcohol, or any other amenities, to your guests that isn't free of charge to your guests. The rule of etiquette here is that all costs of entertaining invited guests must be borne by the hosts. It's never proper under any circumstances to invite guests to a hosted event, whether it's in your home or somewhere else, whether it's a wedding or some other occasion, and say, "You pay for your own drinks."
Especially at a wedding reception, which is a thank you from the couple to the guests for attending a wedding. You do not thank your guests by requiring them to provide their own provisions. Even if they "expect" alcohol at a wedding (which they have no right to do regardless of what is "common" or "done" in their localities) and even if you can't afford a full open bar (in which case, you serve what you can afford, whether that's a "limited bar" or no alcohol at all). But you offer whatever the entire time for free. You do not stop serving (except where required by law) and you do not charge your guests for it. You don't even put out tip jars. All the costs, including gratuties, are for you to pay.
That's why cash bars aren't okay, that's why drink tickets aren't okay, that's why charging for any period of time for drinks isn't okay.
Why do people bicker here about it? Because new posters fail to lurk and read old threads to see whether someone has proposed cash bars or variations thereof in the past and what the reaction has been. Or they get defensive when we tell them that etiquette doesn't approve and neither do we. No poll is necessary because this rule of etiquette is never going to go away and we are not going to stop advocating for no charges for alcohol.
We don't think it's funny or cute to argue about bad planning that potentially, if not actually, ruins the time for your guests and makes you look like a cheap jerk. It is a waste of time for everyone-them as well as us. But as long as people think it's okay to make your guests pay for anything, including alcohol, we're going to respond "No, it isn't. It's rude." Because it is.
I once went to a wedding like this. People heard there was a limit to the bar, and a few started ordering double and triple drinks to line them up. There was even one guy sitting at a table with 5 pints in front of him that was meant to last him the night. Of course, he got them all free. However, the bar ran dry in 1.5 hours, and all I got was a measly small glass of white wine before it switched to cash. I didn't realise there was a limit so when I went to get my second glass of wine, I had to borrow money from a friend (I didn't have cash on me). It was embarrassing!
THIS!!! I have had this happen to me SO many times at wedding where the couple only hosts the cocktail hour or dinner but not the whole night. People will load up on alcohol because they fear the tap will run dry. Also, several people will drink SO much more on a pre-dinner empty stomach - leading to more drunky people for a longer duraiton of the night. So if you're hoping a limit will help limit the number of drunks - think otherwise. Chances are they will just get wasted quicker and be wasted for longer.
I'll actually admit to doing this at the first wedding I ever attended as an adult of legal drinking age. The first of my friends got married the summer after college. We found out the bar would close for 2 hours over dinner and cake cutting, but would re-open afterwards during the dancing. So we went and got like 3-4 drinks each to last us while it was closed. Pretty embarrassed by that.
The bar closing was actually the venue's solution - in that state, the bar at an event can only be open for so many hours, so they regularly close the bar during dinner so that it can be open until later in the evening. I'm not sure what etiquette would say about those two options; probably the correct thing is to end the event when the bar must be closed and then have an after-party.
That's... weird. But, if it's a law in the state, there's only so much you can do.
They didn't make the bar a cash bar during those couple hours, so not a huge deal.
In our area, the bar will often close for one hour during dinner. It also affords the bar staff time to take a break.
Just prior to dinner, guests will be informed of this, so if they want to enjoy a cocktail with dinner, one can be ordered and brought to the table. During dinner, wine is available at each table. More often than not, the bar staff returns prior to the end of that hour, and guests can continue to get drinks.
I once went to a wedding like this. People heard there was a limit to the bar, and a few started ordering double and triple drinks to line them up. There was even one guy sitting at a table with 5 pints in front of him that was meant to last him the night. Of course, he got them all free. However, the bar ran dry in 1.5 hours, and all I got was a measly small glass of white wine before it switched to cash. I didn't realise there was a limit so when I went to get my second glass of wine, I had to borrow money from a friend (I didn't have cash on me). It was embarrassing!
THIS!!! I have had this happen to me SO many times at wedding where the couple only hosts the cocktail hour or dinner but not the whole night. People will load up on alcohol because they fear the tap will run dry. Also, several people will drink SO much more on a pre-dinner empty stomach - leading to more drunky people for a longer duraiton of the night. So if you're hoping a limit will help limit the number of drunks - think otherwise. Chances are they will just get wasted quicker and be wasted for longer.
I'll actually admit to doing this at the first wedding I ever attended as an adult of legal drinking age. The first of my friends got married the summer after college. We found out the bar would close for 2 hours over dinner and cake cutting, but would re-open afterwards during the dancing. So we went and got like 3-4 drinks each to last us while it was closed. Pretty embarrassed by that.
The bar closing was actually the venue's solution - in that state, the bar at an event can only be open for so many hours, so they regularly close the bar during dinner so that it can be open until later in the evening. I'm not sure what etiquette would say about those two options; probably the correct thing is to end the event when the bar must be closed and then have an after-party.
That's... weird. But, if it's a law in the state, there's only so much you can do.
They didn't make the bar a cash bar during those couple hours, so not a huge deal.
In our area, the bar will often close for one hour during dinner. It also affords the bar staff time to take a break.
Just prior to dinner, guests will be informed of this, so if they want to enjoy a cocktail with dinner, one can be ordered and brought to the table. During dinner, wine is available at each table. More often than not, the bar staff returns prior to the end of that hour, and guests can continue to get drinks.
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.
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.
Thank you very much for letting me know about the polling option it will be a good gauge for me. I did take your advice and moved my question to the budget wedding page as maybe this is more of the type of thing I'm looking for rather than etiquette.
Doh. Even budget brides should care about etiquette. EVERYONE should care about etiquette!
etf boxes
If you aren't concerned about etiquette then you shouldn't be inviting people to your wedding.
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.
Sure...and once you run out of crab legs you can serve pizza rolls to the remaining guests.
Re: Cash Bar
That's different though, because nobody would ever spend money on a hotel or something in anticipation of food. If my friends with whom I drink socially hosted a wedding an hour outside of DC, I would likely get a hotel room because I would assume I might be drunk. I'm not saying it would be rude of them NOT to tell me if it was dry, but I might be slightly annoyed (in part with myself) for spending money on a hotel that I didn't need because the wedding was dry
<a href="
'>http://www.theknot.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Free Wedding Vows">
I am one of the moderators of this board and am happy to address your concerns.
Yes people do ask the same questions, yes people give the same responses, and yes, some posters are more active than others. This is all part of the internet.
No one ever says the only two options are dry wedding or open bar. Several posts in this thread suggested consumption bar or hosting a bar with limited options (ex: beer and wine only).
Users can create their own polls. You are free to to do so. It is in the drop down when you click the new post button. If I recall correctly, there was a poll much like the one you are proposing done on the reception board. You can search for it if you'd like to see the results.
I am all for guests comfort, but there is a line. If I invite you to dinner at my house and you decide that while my roast smells great you're really in the mood for pizza and call for delivery, I am going to be pissed. I don't give two hoots if you don't mind paying for the pizza. It is insulting to the host, and I would be insulted. In the same line of thinking, I don't care if you personally would rather buy a drink than attend a dry event. A good guest is pleased with whatever the host offers, so long as it is appropriate for the time of day. I'm not going to risk offending some guests with a cash bar and embarrass myself by hosting something poorly because some rude people would rather buy what they want than be good guests.
<a href="
'>http://www.theknot.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Free Wedding Vows">
Like I said, I would mostly be annoyed with myself. I wouldn't be annoyed with THEM at all - I would be annoyed with myself and the situation generally. What I meant was that I would be annoyed with myself for NOT asking them before booking. I'm sorry if I was unclear
You're fine then. But like Maggie said earlier, you can ask the hosts so that you can make proper plans.
@Maggie0829 & @Photokitty - I'm SO glad I saw these posts before ever being in this type of situation! Like I said before, I've never been to a dry wedding and could see myself assuming a wedding would have alcohol and booking a hotel, and then feeling very dumb and being annoyed with myself for doing so.
Thanks so much!
<a href="
'>http://www.theknot.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Free Wedding Vows">
I'm the fuck out.
There is no polite way to offer alcohol, or any other amenities, to your guests that isn't free of charge to your guests. The rule of etiquette here is that all costs of entertaining invited guests must be borne by the hosts. It's never proper under any circumstances to invite guests to a hosted event, whether it's in your home or somewhere else, whether it's a wedding or some other occasion, and say, "You pay for your own drinks."
Especially at a wedding reception, which is a thank you from the couple to the guests for attending a wedding. You do not thank your guests by requiring them to provide their own provisions. Even if they "expect" alcohol at a wedding (which they have no right to do regardless of what is "common" or "done" in their localities) and even if you can't afford a full open bar (in which case, you serve what you can afford, whether that's a "limited bar" or no alcohol at all). But you offer whatever the entire time for free. You do not stop serving (except where required by law) and you do not charge your guests for it. You don't even put out tip jars. All the costs, including gratuties, are for you to pay.
That's why cash bars aren't okay, that's why drink tickets aren't okay, that's why charging for any period of time for drinks isn't okay.
Why do people bicker here about it? Because new posters fail to lurk and read old threads to see whether someone has proposed cash bars or variations thereof in the past and what the reaction has been. Or they get defensive when we tell them that etiquette doesn't approve and neither do we. No poll is necessary because this rule of etiquette is never going to go away and we are not going to stop advocating for no charges for alcohol.
We don't think it's funny or cute to argue about bad planning that potentially, if not actually, ruins the time for your guests and makes you look like a cheap jerk. It is a waste of time for everyone-them as well as us. But as long as people think it's okay to make your guests pay for anything, including alcohol, we're going to respond "No, it isn't. It's rude." Because it is.
I'm the fuck out.
----
fka dallasbetch