potluck etiquette--- please help!!!



Wayne Boatwright <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

<snip>
>
> I see nothing wrong in having a BYOB party and it's commonly done in many areas, but I do agree
> that a cash bar at a party is poor etiquette. The end result is much the same but the latter
> method is insulting.
>
> Wayne

I agree that if it is local custom to have a BYOB party, then by all means, do it, if you'd like to.
I personally wouldn't do it, though. I have BMOB to others' parties in the past though, because
there are so few alcoholic beverages I will drink, and many in our circle do so. I think it is
reasonable to tell the guests what will be provided on the written invite and then verbally tell
them they may bring something different if they so choose.

IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.

-L.
 
On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:

> IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
>
I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive. I think we should have an open
bar up to a point
- then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after that.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments
 
sf <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
>
> > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> >
> I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive.

Yes, it can, and therefore if you cannot afford it, you shouldn't have it.

> I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after that.

Having open bar followed by a cash bar will confuse your guests, and will make for a bad situation.
If you still think cash bar is ok, search the Google archive of alt.wedding - I can assure you it is
frowned upon.

Why not just have beer/wine or wine/Chamagne for the entire reception? Many people do so, and there
is nothing wrong with offring a limited alcohol selection.

-L.
 
On 27 Dec 2003 10:06:40 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) arranged random
neurons, so they looked like this:

>Well, it is considered extremely poor etiquette (which is the title of the thread, afterall...).
>Asking your guests to pay for anything is poor etiquette. If you cannot afford to provide hard
>liquor, then don't. Don't insult your guests by requesting that they pay for it.
>
If you're asking them to pay for anything, they're not a guest. They're a customer, IMHO.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as old as the bird, and if the
bird's breasts had been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove "gotcha"
 
On 28 Dec 2003 18:19:14 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:

> sf <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > >
> > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive.
>
> Yes, it can, and therefore if you cannot afford it, you shouldn't have it.
>
> > I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after
> > that.
>
> Having open bar followed by a cash bar will confuse your guests,

No, it doesn't. Been there, done that more than once. If anyone is confused (belligerent)... that
person is too drunk to continue drinking anyway.

> and will make for a bad situation. If you still think cash bar is ok, search the Google archive
> of alt.wedding - I can assure you it is frowned upon.
>
By whom? Drunken guests?

> Why not just have beer/wine or wine/Chamagne for the entire reception? Many people do so, and
> there is nothing wrong with offring a limited alcohol selection.
>
Because times are changing, that's why - strictly limiting drinks to beer/wine/champagne isn't
fashionable anymore and I'm not offended by a cash bar, anyway. I know they have to meet a minimum
or pay up.

I'm offended if there is an obvious restriction on drinking... I attended a really cheap reception
where only punch and cookies was served, I've been to very limited (2 bottles per table of 8)
receptions, I've been to receptions with a full bar the entire time (over the top AFAIC) and
receptions that begin with an open bar, then pare down to beer/wine/champagne with a pay bar
available if you want more of the hard stuff.

As someone who has attended all types and also as someone who will someday have to foot the bill
for a wedding - I think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne with a choice to buy
hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is the sane way to go. It gives people options and it doesn't
shriek "cheap".

Practice safe eating - always use condiments
 
"sf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
>
> > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> >
> I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive. I think we should have an open
> bar up to a point
> - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after that.
>

You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.
 
Terry Pulliam Burd <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 27 Dec 2003 10:06:40 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) arranged random neurons, so they looked
> like this:
>
> >Well, it is considered extremely poor etiquette (which is the title of the thread, afterall...).
> >Asking your guests to pay for anything is poor etiquette. If you cannot afford to provide hard
> >liquor, then don't. Don't insult your guests by requesting that they pay for it.
> >
> If you're asking them to pay for anything, they're not a guest. They're a customer, IMHO.
>

Exactly.

-L.
 
sf <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 28 Dec 2003 18:19:14 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
>
> > sf <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > > >
> > > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive.
> >
> > Yes, it can, and therefore if you cannot afford it, you shouldn't have it.
> >
> > > I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> > > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after
> > > that.
> >
> > Having open bar followed by a cash bar will confuse your guests,
>
> No, it doesn't. Been there, done that more than once. If anyone is confused (belligerent)... that
> person is too drunk to continue drinking anyway.

No, if someone knew it was an open bar, they will be embarassed when they go for another drink and
then are left without their purse or money to pay. It's recipe for disaster.

>
> > and will make for a bad situation. If you still think cash bar is ok, search the Google archive
> > of alt.wedding - I can assure you it is frowned upon.
> >
> By whom? Drunken guests?

No, by anyone who knows anything about proper etiquette. Cash bars are the epitome of tackiness. You
don't invite someone to your wedding and then ask them to pay for their food or drink.

>
> > Why not just have beer/wine or wine/Chamagne for the entire reception? Many people do so, and
> > there is nothing wrong with offring a limited alcohol selection.
> >
> Because times are changing, that's why - strictly limiting drinks to beer/wine/champagne isn't
> fashionable anymore

Wrong. It has nothing to do with "fashionability". It is about hosting a wedding reception you can
afford and being a good host.

and
> I'm not offended by a cash bar, anyway.

Well, many people think it is pretty tacky.

> I know they have to
> meet a minimum or pay up.
>
> I'm offended if there is an obvious restriction on drinking...

Well, then drinking is your priority, then, not being a gracious host.

-L.
 
sf wrote:

> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone who will someday have to foot the bill
> for a wedding - I think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne with a choice to
> buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is the sane way to go. It gives people options and it
> doesn't shriek "cheap".

I suppose it isn't illegal, and some people might not mind a cash bar at a social event, but others
do, and there are social repercussions.

When I socialize, whether I'm the host or the guest, I'm hoping to meet people I have something in
common with. When I find myself with people who have totally different ideas of entertaining and
what constitutes a social event in the first place, I'm not likely to want anything to do with them
in the future.

With that in mind, if I accept an invitation to lunch at a friend's home and find when I get there
(and even if I know ahead of time) that there is Tupperware available for me to buy, even if I don't
have to buy anything and even if I still get lunch, you can bet that acquaintance is now off my
friend list. If an acquaintance would like to involve me in his multi-level marketing business, I
can't consider him a friend. We might have something in common outside of multi-level marketing, but
we'll never discover it because I'm no longer interested.

Thus with cash bars at weddings and social functions. If I'm invited to a social event and learn
that there's an opportunity for me buy once I'm there, I'm not going to call the police. I'm not
going to say anything at the time, but I will be cooler in the future. I'll never know if the
"hosts" (in quotes because that's not really what they are) like me and want my company. I'll assume
that we have so little in common that we don't have much to build a friendship on.

That's hardly the end of the world. After the cash bar, the "hosts" will know whose definition of
hospitality matches theirs, and they can continue their business relationship with those people.
I'll then know who I want to help celebrate life's great events with me. Everyone's happy.

--Lia
 
Julia Altshuler <[email protected]> wrote in
news:U9ZHb.693837$Fm2.598296@attbi_s04:

> sf wrote:
>
>> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone who will someday have to foot the bill
>> for a wedding - I think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne with a choice to
>> buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is the sane way to go. It gives people options and it
>> doesn't shriek "cheap".

It shrieks 'I really wanted an open bar but couldn't afford it for the whole time, so you, all my
friends and family, are forced to intuit when it's time to bring your wallet/purse to the bar to
pony up for the drinks that were free just 15 minutes ago.'

> When I socialize, whether I'm the host or the guest, I'm hoping to meet people I have something in
> common with. When I find myself with people who have totally different ideas of entertaining and
> what constitutes a social event in the first place, I'm not likely to want anything to do with
> them in the future.

Gotta agree with you. There are branches of my in-laws that rely on cash bars, and those are the
only events with cash bars that I happily attend.

When we got married, we wanted to do an open bar, but couldn't afford the prices that the venues we
considered would charge.

So we bought all the booze ourselves and hired bartenders. (We did it on family property so there
was no conflict with bringing booze vs. paying for the venue's booze.)

I bought the hard liquor at a DC liquor store known for cheap prices. We bought the wine at a winery
we like, and the beer came from Costco.

We saved thousands, and when it was over, we had enough left over that we didn't have to buy any
booze for our personal consumption for over a year.

Cate
 
"-L." wrote:

> No, if someone knew it was an open bar, they will be embarassed when they go for another drink and
> then are left without their purse or money to pay. It's recipe for disaster.

I've seen that happen, people had no idea they were expected to pay for their drinks, so they'd
order and the waiter said, that'll be $12 ... uh ... no cash, do you take credit? No. How
embarrassing. In my opinion, more embarrassing for the host to allow such an awkward situation. I'm
not Emily Post, but you should have no expectation (aside from fundraisers/whatever) that your guest
should be fumbling with their wallets and coughing up money. Ouch.

nancy
 
In article <[email protected]>, in rec.food.cooking,
[email protected] says...
>
> "sf" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > >
> > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive. I think we should have an
> > open bar up to a point
> > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after
> > that.
> >
>
> You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.

What would you rather deal with: someone angry because they had to pay for drinks, or someone
mega-angry and suing your ass off for providing the free drinks that made someone drunk and get
into a fatal traffic accident? The way the law is now, if someone gets drunk at a party you
provide drinks at (especially if they are free), and gets into a serious accident, they can sue
your ass off.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20 Modeling the NYC and NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail and D&H in N Proud NRA member addy:
[email protected]
 
Jack wrote:

> What would you rather deal with: someone angry because they had to pay for drinks, or someone
> mega-angry and suing your ass off for providing the free drinks that made someone drunk and get
> into a fatal traffic accident? The way the law is now, if someone gets drunk at a party you
> provide drinks at (especially if they are free), and gets into a serious accident, they can sue
> your ass off.

I disagree. It's not the availability or unavailability of the alcohol that would annoy people as
much as the "mixed messages" it sends to "Host" a party yet expect the guests to pay. Or to suddenly
change the "rules" midparty from "guests" to "paying attendees" at some soiree. If a host can't
afford to serve what they want, they need to alter their desires. Serving wine, or a wine punch...
or no alcohol at all even is a better solution than to host a "cash bar" at a hosted event. Goomba
 
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:14 -0500, Nancy Young
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "-L." wrote:
>
> > No, if someone knew it was an open bar, they will be embarassed when they go for another drink
> > and then are left without their purse or money to pay. It's recipe for disaster.
>
> I've seen that happen, people had no idea they were expected to pay for their drinks, so they'd
> order and the waiter said, that'll be $12 ... uh ... no cash, do you take credit? No. How
> embarrassing. In my opinion, more embarrassing for the host to allow such an awkward situation.
> I'm not Emily Post, but you should have no expectation (aside from fundraisers/whatever) that
> your guest should be fumbling with their wallets and coughing up money. Ouch.
>
It's up to the hosts to let their guests know what's going to happen. I get invitations that say to
the effect of "Open bar from x to x time, beer/wine/champagne after that". I'm not offended, I'm
informed and I don't have a problem with it.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments
 
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:05:56 GMT, Julia Altshuler
<[email protected]> wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > As someone who has attended all types and also as someone who will someday have to foot the
> > bill for a wedding - I think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne with a
> > choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is the sane way to go. It gives people
> > options and it doesn't shriek "cheap".
>
>
> I suppose it isn't illegal, and some people might not mind a cash bar at a social event, but
> others do, and there are social repercussions.
>
> That's hardly the end of the world. After the cash bar, the "hosts" will know whose definition of
> hospitality matches theirs, and they can continue their business relationship with those people.
>
It's a wedding we're talking about Lia, not any other type of social or semi-social function and I
would NOT invite people I am cultivating in business relationships to a son or daughter's wedding.
That's tacky beyond words!
>
> I'll then know who I want to help celebrate life's great events with me. Everyone's happy.
>
I have one expectation about socializing when I'm invited into someone's home, but my expectations
change when I'm "invited" somewhere else. Most weddings are a just a mini-coronation for someone's
little princess, so I call the wedding invitation a "summons".

Getting back to serving alcohol at a wedding reception: AFAIC, they can just serve
beer/wine/champagne from the bar in the reception room and people can go out to the regular bar for
their drinks, if they wish.

Now, I can really get into being critical when it comes to food service! That's IMPORTANT stuff. My
biggest complaints are lack of wait staff for sit down dinners and buffet lines that should be on
both sides of the tabe, but aren't... that sort of stuff. Feed me quickly or I'll get cranky.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments
 
Cate <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Julia Altshuler <[email protected]> wrote in news:U9ZHb.693837$Fm2.598296@attbi_s04:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone who will someday have to foot the
> >> bill for a wedding - I think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne with a
> >> choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is the sane way to go. It gives people
> >> options and it doesn't shriek "cheap".
>
> It shrieks 'I really wanted an open bar but couldn't afford it for the whole time, so you, all my
> friends and family, are forced to intuit when it's time to bring your wallet/purse to the bar to
> pony up for the drinks that were free just 15 minutes ago.'
>
> > When I socialize, whether I'm the host or the guest, I'm hoping to meet people I have something
> > in common with. When I find myself with people who have totally different ideas of entertaining
> > and what constitutes a social event in the first place, I'm not likely to want anything to do
> > with them in the future.
>
> Gotta agree with you. There are branches of my in-laws that rely on cash bars, and those are the
> only events with cash bars that I happily attend.
>
> When we got married, we wanted to do an open bar, but couldn't afford the prices that the venues
> we considered would charge.
>
> So we bought all the booze ourselves and hired bartenders. (We did it on family property so there
> was no conflict with bringing booze vs. paying for the venue's booze.)
>
> I bought the hard liquor at a DC liquor store known for cheap prices. We bought the wine at a
> winery we like, and the beer came from Costco.
>
> We saved thousands, and when it was over, we had enough left over that we didn't have to buy any
> booze for our personal consumption for over a year.
>
> Cate

That's the thing to do. Do what you *can* afford - Honestly, I have never been to a wedding where
beer and wine and/or Champagne is served and people complain because they can't get hard liquor. If
people *do* complain about that, they probably shouldn't have been invited in the first place.

The worst wedding I ever attended was held at dinner time but no meal was served - they served hor
d'ouvres, cake and punch, with wine and beer available as well (which would have been fine). The
problem was, they had only enough provisions to serve about 1/5 of the guests. Everybody else was
left standing in line - and all of the food and drink was gone. There wasn't even any way to get a
glass of water, which was bad because it was held outdoors and it was hot. Needless to say, we left
after a couple of hours to go get dinner.

-L.
 
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:05:34 GMT, "Vox Humana"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "sf" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > >
> > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive. I think we should have an
> > open bar up to a point
> > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after
> > that.
> >
>
> You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.
>
I'm not going to cut off the booze, just shift the focus.

It won't be a big surprise because it will be duly noted on the reception card: "Get drunk on the
hard stuff from this time to that... when we serve up the chow we'll cut off the bar, so you'll be
limited to guzzling unlimited amounts of beer/wine/chamagne after that. Dancing will follow".

Practice safe eating - always use condiments
 
"Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, in rec.food.cooking,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > "sf" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, [email protected] (-L.) wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > > >
> > > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite expensive. I think we should have an
> > > open bar up to a point
> > > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers can take care of themselves after
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.
>
> What would you rather deal with: someone angry because they had to pay for drinks, or someone
> mega-angry and suing your ass off for providing the free drinks that made someone drunk and get
> into a fatal traffic accident? The way the law is now, if someone gets drunk at a party you
> provide drinks at (especially if they are free), and gets into a serious accident, they can sue
> your ass off.

Your question doesn't have anything to do with the topic of etiquette.
 
On 29 Dec 2003 19:25:41 GMT, Cate
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Julia Altshuler <[email protected]> wrote in news:U9ZHb.693837$Fm2.598296@attbi_s04:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone who will someday have to foot the
> >> bill for a wedding - I think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne with a
> >> choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is the sane way to go. It gives people
> >> options and it doesn't shriek "cheap".
>
> It shrieks 'I really wanted an open bar but couldn't afford it for the whole time, so you, all my
> friends and family, are forced to intuit when it's time to bring your wallet/purse to the bar to
> pony up for the drinks that were free just 15 minutes ago.'

Most people who can read also know when an open bar ends, it's information that should be
included on the reception card. Limited open bars usually stop at dinner time, for those who
don't have a clue.
>
<snip>
> I bought the hard liquor at a DC liquor store known for cheap prices. We bought the wine at a
> winery we like, and the beer came from Costco.
>
> We saved thousands, and when it was over, we had enough left over that we didn't have to buy any
> booze for our personal consumption for over a year.
>
We attended a very nice open bar wedding last summer where the couple had negotiated drop dead
prices per bottle over the internet. I'm not sure if it was local and picked up or shipped. I still
need to find out the details.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments
 
what about having an open bar and serve ONLY beer, wine, coffee and soda? i have seen that done
successfully, MANY times!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back