[trevahound]

Playing baby NT (or variable, but baby at least in 1st and 2nd), what do you think about reversing the meanings of pass and X, when playing support doubles? This would mean you'd be doubling on the hands with no fit (the ones partner is most likely to want to convert, if any), and also it would put some pressure on LHO on the hands he didn't want converted, as he wouldn't have the free pass he currently has over a supp double. Opener isn't going to have a weak NT, so responder won't need to worry about that. Seems like a gain to me, but some friends think I'm even nuttier than usual (and that's a high bar).

[ArtK78]

The obvious problem with reversing the meaning of double and pass in a support double situation is that the double commits your side to taking another call except in those rare instances when you want to penalize the opps. I admit that the chances that you do want to penalize the opps goes up when you have no fit and you are guaranteeing some values (such as when you open 1 of a minor in a weak NT situation), but that doesn't mean that you give up on the opportunity to penalize the opps by passing. Partner is still there and he can double. Perhaps it is you who has the penalty pass of their overcall - after all, you don't have a fit for partner.