large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

duchy

Andypandyboy wrote: »

10% is the norm for tipping here, in the US is is 20%.

The subject causes ructions on the cruising forums as many cruise companies insist of auto payment of tips ufront or automatically add it to your daily account at a set rate. Brits hate this system and often remove them to tip after the event in cash to specific people. Americans see this as beyond the pale, or as "stiffing the crew" and there have been some interesting bust ups online!!

So do traditional British cruisers.
I can remember discussions about this around the ships we cruised on when kids )so early 70s I'd guess). Specifically Cunard and P&O. Clearly nothing has changed

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

I have never ever experienced a restaurant telling me what I must order from their menu. Can you give some examples of places that do this so I know where to avoid?

Certainly: This is Ormer in St Helier Jersey;

Tasting Menu – Available Evenings Only

Beetroot
Salad, whipped goats cheese, rocket and hazelnut pesto, beetroot sorbet
Tuna

Avocado puree, Bloody Mary jelly, cucumber sorbet
Scallops
Glazed chicken wings, creamed corn, basil
Turbot

Pine nut crust, cauliflower salad, samphire, sea purslane
Duck
Buckwheat, celeriac puree, salt baked beetroot, pistachio crumb, citrus glaze
Camembert

Orange marmalade, pecan nuts, milk foam, salt caramel
Carrot Cake

Rum and raisin puree, walnut ice cream, vanilla cheese frosting
Tasting Menu – £75
Wine Flight – £49

Tasting menu requires participation of entire table

All prices inclusive of GST
An additional 10% service charge will be added to your bill


Judgement Tasting Menu*

Parmesan mousse, wild garlic
Loch Duart salmon, cucumber and radish, Oscietra caviar
Hot Label Rouge foie gras, aged grapes, hazelnuts and verjus
Pan-fried cod, cauliflower, curry and coconut
Middle White pork two ways, parsley root, pears
Green tea and grapefruit
Chocolate, salted caramel, cacao nibs, fromage blanc sorbet
Seven dishes - £89 Eight dishes (inc. cheese course) - £99
*Typical dishes available. Any of the above dishes may contain one or more of the 14 allergens.
Please click here for further details.
Available for lunch between 12pm and 1.30pm, and for dinner between 7pm and 9pm.

To be enjoyed by the whole table.

- See more at: http://www.the-vineyard.co.uk/tasting-menu.asp#sthash.VE3wiium.dpuf



http://thekitchin.com/menus/tasting-classic


http://www.launcestonplace-restaurant.co.uk/menus/restaurant/tasting-menu/



Everywhere I have ever had a tasting menu has stipulated that the whole table must eat from that menu.

onlyroz

I've only ever had the tasting menu at the Blue Elephant and they just say minimum 2 persons:

http://www.blueelephant.com/london/thai-restaurant-menu/

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

I can understand them saying "2 people minimum" or similar, but to force everyone in a large party to have it seems like poor business practice. Surely it's not too complicated for them to coordinate different preferences?

I've always assumed (and it is only an assumption) that it's to stop, say, 6 people having the expensive tasting menu and 2 others having a cheap main course and sharing the others' food.

I could be wrong, I often am.:o

duchy

If you always have only two courses and the others you eat out with always have three (and assuming alcohol consumption is about the same) it does seem like you are paying for their company or subsidizing them . The "It all averages out over time" theory clearly doesn't apply in this case .

I do think there is some taking advantage within some friendship groups if this is how it works every time. Clearly sometimes you have three courses and sometimes they have two then it all works out over time, or if there's some other service provided within the friendship that equalizes (maybe Mr 3course gives Mr 2course regular lifts and won't accept petrol money for example) but to expect a friend to subsidize your meals on a regular basis doesn't sound very friendly for two friends on similar incomes.

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I think you may be out of the norm though. Most people who eat out are doing so with those who are within their own circle so work colleagues or friends they know well. In that situation most around the table would be of a similar income bracket or the venue would have been chosen accordingly and everyone would have roughly the same. Often it is a set menu for a set price.

I have never been out for a meal and just calculated what I have eaten and paid for that. It has honestly never happened and I am rarely the one to work the bill out. Someone just picks up the bill and divides it by the number there. So I think that way of doing things must be the most common. Or maybe it just becoms the norm when you have friendship groups who have always done that?

Nor have I ever felt taken advantage of by someone shovelling food away. I don't often eat three courses unless it is a long lazy dinner, but lots of friends do and it has never entered my head to think they are taking advantage. I woudn't want to police what my friends eat to that degree!

I think that there seems to be a perception that those who split the bill equally do so from an ulterior motive, that they set out to "shaft" other diners. From my perspective it happens because that is what we have always done and anything else seems odd and embarrassing and involves too much faffing at the table. Either that, or you all know some quite nasty people who make conscious decisions to eat as much as they can when out with others.

Thankfully, I don't know anyone like that:rotfl:

Andypandyboy

duchy wrote: »

If you always have only two courses and the others you eat out with always have three (and assuming alcohol consumption is about the same) it does seem like you are paying for their company or subsidizing them . The "It all averages out over time" theory clearly doesn't apply in this case .

I do think there is some taking advantage within some friendship groups if this is how it works every time. Clearly sometimes you have three courses and sometimes they have two then it all works out over time, or if there's some other service provided within the friendship that equalizes (maybe Mr 3course gives Mr 2course regular lifts and won't accept petrol money for example) but to expect a friend to subsidize your meals on a regular basis doesn't sound very friendly for two friends on similar incomes.

But, I may have a more expensive starter or main...and sometimes they only have two courses, if ,for example, they have eaten a late lunch.

I don't do checks and balances to that degree I am afraid, but I would be aware if there was something amiss on a regular basis.

duchy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I lived in London in my early twenties - all the people I knew then were either students or lowly office workers - we were all skint, just by virtue of living in London!

The only reason I even think about people's income is so that I don't embarrass them by suggesting that we eat in more expensive restaurants, which I may be able to afford but they may not. It actually gets more difficult when you're retired because you can find that you know people who are in the "asset/property rich, income poor" situation which I still find difficult to get my head around.

Why is it difficult to get your head around that concept? How can you tell anyway, they may just prefer to be frugal or put everything on creditcards or have an equity release in place. or be lottery winners who don't want the lifestyle (I met a couple of those at a lottery dinner/event- really modest, unassuming people you'd never dream were multimillionaires) You simply don't know. You might think you do but you are judging solely on appearence as most people think talking about money in any personal detail is vulgar and not dinner table conversation.

Lots of people are (asset rich cash poor).....and lots who are would rather die rather than admit it (perhaps something to remember next time you are seething over a friend "ruining" your meal by opting not to have a starter !)

Andypandyboy

duchy wrote: »

Why is it difficult to get your head around that concept?

Lots of people are.....and lots who are would rather die rather than admit it (perhaps something to remember next time you are seething over a friend "ruining" your meal by opting not to have a starter !)

I find it difficult too.

I am a "dooer" so if I found myself in the position of having limited income but a high worth home I would sell it and use the money to fund a better daily lifestyle. Ditto, if I was healthy and mobile but had a low income with a house. Sell it and move to where you can alter your lifestyle for the better.

What use is it struggling and dying to hang onto a big house only to have others spend it all when you are gone? We are a long time dead.

onlyroz

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I've always assumed (and it is only an assumption) that it's to stop, say, 6 people having the expensive tasting menu and 2 others having a cheap main course and sharing the others' food.

I could be wrong, I often am.:o

Why on earth would they care if you share or not as long as you pay for all food ordered?

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

Why on earth would they care if you share or not as long as you pay for all food ordered?

Because that way the restaurant is losing the cost of the tasting menu for those people who are still "tasting" it. If you want to eat it they want you to pay for it. It comes down to money obviously. A tasting menu is supposed to be an "event dinner".