dtlq1

I see no reason or meaningful alternative to 1NT here also, given it could be a 4cards opener. On a 5card opener my bid would be 2H

+1for Manu here too

I think West has exactly the hand to be expected 14 and 5233. I would take x also definitely as take out, probably invitational for penalty at opposite vulnerability (*still would not accept the invite). With my hand as East I would have bid 2♠, clearly 2 card support, weak hand. - The most certain fit in ♦ is offset in my opinion due to higher level and not particular good shape. As it turned out both 2♠ and 3♦ are valid contracts. But then ops certainly will bid 3♥ and question is if this has to be doubled or not. Also a good example how your suits do not split as good as could have...

@ Barmar , thank you for the insight. This answers most of the questions and or suggestions. It is actually much better done as I initial thought.

After playing a lot of tournaments and reviewing the results I have a few points for improvements. I am sure this has bothered also a lot of other players. We all play mostly for fun but why not improve it if possible.... 1. In almost all tournaments (especially in daylong) we see players being frustrated by the outcome of the first few hands bidding all further contracts 7NT or similar. As we know players are divided into different sections thus playing different sets of cards. Some sets have more "potential" for those reactions making the already score breaking differences even worse. In general there should be a filter to exclude the worst (and obviously non serious) results from the overall calculation. 2. Speaking of different sets it would be nice if we could see in more detail which rank we have scored compared to our "direct" opponents. I think this is/was done in some tournaments. Is it possible to implement this (again) or do I only not see it ? 3. Is there any possibility to mitigate somehow the impact different sets have on the overall scoring ? If you get a good placement it is far to often due to "only" descent play in a set with a lot of potential. Especially valid for IMP scoring. Playing a set with e.g. 8 boards flat 4 ♠ =/+1 even with overtricks here and there you get like 6 IMPs at the end, other players in sets with make-able slams get 10 from one hand only. I would like to hear some ideas how to make the different sets more realistically comparable. Maybe adjust scoring mechanism or making the sets more equally balanced. Thank you in advance for any feedback on this.

Let us start , opening 2♣ is a gamble and not a particular good since IMO you lack an additional ace to do so. From there South is not to blame.I probably would have bid 5♦ but very depending on vulnerability and scoring. Afterwards you should not let 4♠x play out since you are nowhere near the expected from a 2♣ defense values. So it would have been much better to bid 4NT as 2 places to play and let p decide. No guarantee here ops will not simply bid 5♠ but this is another story. If 4NT would be perceived natural (which it should not) I think 5♥ is the next step in the gamble. Having said this a 1♥ standard opening would probably bid out the same after 4♠ interference and all depend on your tools and agreements to deal with high level overcalls.

Is it only me not standing for 3NT with void as responder ? On the bid 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦-3NT I would bid 4♦ passing any 4M response or 5♦. In worst case if 4♦ would be passable (which it should not) I would bid directly 5♦. Having said this a 3NT bid from opener is bad in my eyes due to missing stop.

With the introduction of free daylong tournaments there is a reasonable base for a rating system. You could get an initial rating after like 10 played tournaments and go from there. Yes it could be slightly biased by "exploiting" GIB behavior and also people not playing 2/1 would have a bit of a disadvantage , but I think it is still viable. To try to rate hands played with random partners,for example on the main Bridge Club could never result in an adequate rating. It just has to be individual performance vs "neutral" robots.