[Coelacanth]

neilkaz, on 2012-March-04, 14:43, said:

Yes, or sarcastically called "blame transfer". In a good partnership, both realize it shows cards and ins't blame transfer and both realize that sometimes they will collectively still make the wrong decision and get a bad result.

North's pass of 3♥ was forcing. Thus, South's double says: I am keeping the auction open because I must not pass. I do not have spade support, a rebiddable diamond suit, or sufficient heart cards to bid 3NT.

With this knowledge, North is expected to know what to do.

[Lurpoa]

Coelacanth, on 2012-March-06, 13:22, said:

North's pass of 3♥ was forcing. Thus, South's double says: I am keeping the auction open because I must not pass. I do not have spade support, a rebiddable diamond suit, or sufficient heart cards to bid 3NT.

With this knowledge, North is expected to know what to do.

♥ ♥ ♥

That would certainly be good agreements....if you have agreed that N's pass could be a penalty pass....
Personally, I think such a penalty pass in front of the bidder will be extremely rare.

In BWS2001 we have the agreement (see the defaults), that IF(this is the key question of this threat I think) N's pass over 3♥ is forcing, his double is a kind cooperative double, a defensive hand, a suggestion to penalize.
I think this is a much more frequent situation than the pure penalty pass.
Also in BWS, playing S's double as t/o makes no sense: N's pass suggested he had no good bid... so better help him now, with a good bid.

I understand that not everybody agrees on that. Please give us your views.

♥ ♥ ♥