I think the two people just act as a tiny corporation in the bidding process, and enter a single set of bids, just like the single people. Equally, if one person wanted two rooms, they would enter two sets of bids. I further think that this could easily end up putting everyone in the same rooms, at the same prices.
In terms of paying for the bedrooms, this seems fair. Yes, the couple are each paying half as much for the room as when it had a single occupant. But they're also only getting half the use of the room, because they're sharing it.
In terms of paying for the shared spaces, this does seem less fair, because everyone else now has a slightly smaller share of the use of those, whereas the couple jointly has two of those slightly smaller shares. I think the way that this ultimately shakes out is that the other housemates might decide that none of the room choices offer value for money, and move out of the house.
You know what, forget this marriage stuff, people who REALLY love each other should just incorporate together. People blabber on about two hearts beating as one, but by incorporating, they'd be LEGALLY a single person!
Plus, the veil on a wedding dress is just a piece of gauze, but the one on a corporation is protected by a thick layer of case law.
And just think of all the beautiful honeymoon locations in Delaware!
In terms of paying for the bedrooms, this seems fair. Yes, the couple are each paying half as much for the room as when it had a single occupant. But they're also only getting half the use of the room, because they're sharing it.
In terms of paying for the shared spaces, this does seem less fair, because everyone else now has a slightly smaller share of the use of those, whereas the couple jointly has two of those slightly smaller shares. I think the way that this ultimately shakes out is that the other housemates might decide that none of the room choices offer value for money, and move out of the house.