And it seems that the students' habit of splitting the bill according to who had what is not as unpopular as I'd imagine. Most people, especially Queensland's women, are unhappy about paying an equal share when they've eaten less, or incurred less cost, than others. Will we return to the days of equations scrawled on serviettes?

Fewer people, but still more than half in most states, are unhappy about sharing the cost of other diners' drinks, and I can understand that. My wife doesn't drink, and when the bill is divvied up for a table of couples it doesn't matter one iota but if she's alone it can mean she's $40 or $50 out of pocket!

It's been decades since I was party to a restaurant bill divided up according to individual orders, and I'm pleased about that. But I can understand that for some people the result could be consistently and unfairly expensive.

The top of my dining gripe will, though, be seen by many as mean and miserable. That is tipping. I cannot see why we should give money to waiters who are paid to deliver our meal when we don't give money to shop assistants and others paid to deliver our orders. And I am especially intolerant of diners who tip on my behalf and add that into the split. Demeaning for everyone, I say.

My other dining gripes include set menus and banquets, usually gloop in both cases; dining companions who are rude to the staff; wine drinkers but not beer drinkers being permitted to BYO; fellow diners at a sharing table ordering a dish they don't intend to eat; fellow diners ordering very expensive meals (lobster etc) or wine because splitting the bill equally will allay the cost; diners at a sharing table at, say, a Thai restaurant telling the waiter to have the food served mild because they don't like chilli so that we all get spiceless Thai.