[nige1]

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 13:17, said:

Perhaps we have here an example of two nations divided by a common language.

In the context of an argument, I confess that I tend to prefer narrow dictionary meanings. In the natural evolution of language, most words broaden their meaning, becoming less precise, often through metaphorical usage,

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 13:17, said:

Over here, a bid is 'invitational' if it conveys a specific message to partner: a message to the effect that the bidder thinks that there may be game or slam provided that the other partner has a 'good hand in the context of what he has so far shown'. An invitational bid is a question, not a description, although in many cases the bid also conveys information.

We're in broad agreement: My previous post defined invitational as suggesting game/slam.

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 13:17, said:

1N 2D (transfer)
2H 3H shows 6+ hearts so is 'descriptive' but the essence of the bid is to ask opener whether, in the context of having opened 1N, he likes his hand for 4H or not.
It is thus 'invitational'
Your usage would have the 1N and the 2H calls as both 'invitational', which basically deprives the word of virtually any utility.

IMO,

• 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ = ART (TRF completion)
• 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♥ = LIM (Invitational but -- more accurately -- a limit bid -- narrowly limited in terms of shape and strength).

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 13:17, said:

1D 1M
2C 3C this sequence contains no invitational calls at all.

1D and 2C are both descriptive, and the 2C call, in 'standard' methods, is still very wide range.

3C could, if one squints very hard, be seen as 'invitational' but it's not. It's descriptive: I have club support, not enough to force you to bid, but too much to risk passing...what do you want to do? However, at this point I may be picking nits

IMO,

• 1♦ - 1M - 2♣ = INV (Natural and non-forcing but suggesting game/slam.
• 1♦ - 1M - 2♣ - 3♣ = LIM (Another narrowly defined invitational bid).

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 13:17, said:

I can say this much with confidence: if I were to describe the 2C rebid, in 1D 1M 2C, as 'invitational' to any of my friends who are WC players, I'd be met with some strange looks.
As for cyber's argument that most descriptive bids are 'invitational', all I can say is that I couldn't disagree more.

Fair enough

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 13:17, said:

I open 3S...that's descriptive. It is not the least 'invitational'

IMO 3♠ = PRE. Weak (so only mildly invitational).

mikeh, on 2021-February-23, 13:17, said:

I raise partner's 1S to 2S...that is not invitational...now if I played that 3S by responder was limit, then 3S would be invitational. According to both nige1 and cyber, both spade raises are invitational...heck why not call every bid one makes below 7N as invitational? Maybe to disaster, but heck, opening 7S is clearly invitational to 7N, is it not? If I held x Axxx Axxx xxxx, I'd bid 7N at mps if partner opened 7S...I'd pass with void AKQJ AKQJ AKQxx of course.

IMO

• 1♠ - 2♠ = LIM (Invitational but narrowly defined in shape and strength)
• 1♠ - 3♠ = could be LIM (but for most partnerships it's PRE -- a stretch raise).
• 1N - 3N = S/O (sign-off) for most partnerships. Hence I disagree that all bids below 7N could be described as invitational.