The prompt is a generosity-and-character test through food. Strong answers describe a specific ordering pattern — not a single dish, not a wine-pairing flex, not a vague 'whatever the table wants.'
The bread, twice — once at the start and again when no one's looking. Then whatever the loudest person at the table tries to skip.
Why it works: Specific behavior (bread twice), specific social calibration (advocating against the loudest person). Implies generosity and a comic eye for table dynamics.
The fries, against medical advice. One starter the menu describes weirdly. Whatever the server is too excited about to keep professional.
Why it works: Three specific items with specific reasoning structures — implies an answerer who picks based on signals (server excitement, weird menu copy) rather than just preference.
An over-ambitious cocktail, the salad I will pretend to like, and the dish that's clearly going to be a mess.
Why it works: Specific self-aware structure (the salad pretense, the mess prediction), implies the answerer enjoys a slightly chaotic meal. Funny and revealing.
Whatever pairs best with the wine we already chose.
Why it falls flat: Uses the prompt to signal wine sophistication. The matcher reads it as performance, not preference. Lands as 'I want you to know I have wine pairings opinions.'
Garlic bread.
Why it falls flat: Refuses the 'for the table' framing — the prompt is a generosity test, and a single item fails it. Names a preference but not a behavior.
Anything fun! The table picks.
Why it falls flat: Refuses the prompt to seem easygoing. The matcher learns the answerer doesn't have a specific food personality — which they almost certainly do.
The prompt is a generosity-and-character test through food. The strongest answers describe a specific ordering pattern — bread twice, advocating against the loudest skipper, the over-ambitious cocktail and the doomed messy dish. The most common failure is the humblebrag pairing answer ('whatever pairs best with the wine') which performs sophistication. The second is the single-item answer ('garlic bread') which refuses the 'for the table' part of the prompt. The third is the vague 'anything fun, the table picks' which refuses to commit to a preference. Order generously and weirdly.
Describe a specific ordering pattern, not a single dish. The strongest answers signal generosity (bread twice, advocating against skippers) and a real food personality (the over-ambitious cocktail, the dish you know will be a mess). Avoid the wine-pairing humblebrag and the vague 'anything fun.'
Playful with a specific point of view. Impressive ('the truffle fries, oysters, crudo') performs the expensive table; playful ('the bread, twice') describes a real person at one. The prompt rewards generosity-with-personality, not curated taste.
Yes — they refuse the prompt. The matcher is asking what kind of person you are at a meal, and 'whatever the table wants' is the absence of an answer. Pick something specific, even if it's small.
Once your prompts land, the next bottleneck is the messages. Opening lines tuned to her bio, replies that actually land, and a free profile roast.
Try the opening-lines tool freeOne tap with Google. No card.