[awm]

On the actual hand, double or 1NT would have worked fine if partner interprets them correctly. However, there was a substantial risk that (having never discussed this auction) partner might misinterpret those bids.

I also dislike doubling on 3352 on general principle -- we will often reach an inferior partial when partner prefers a major with 4M+4♦ for example. In many auctions bidding the diamonds will find a better partial, because partner will only bid a five card major, and in any case there is often an opportunity to double for takeout later in the auction to show almost exactly this shape (double first and bid diamonds later shows a strong one-suiter, not this hand).

I do find it amusing that for a lot of people it seems that "double is takeout of clubs, because clubs are the only naturally bid suit in this auction" but "1NT does not require a club stopper, because clubs have not been bid naturally." It seems mildly inconsistant, although I suppose any agreements would probably help here.

[jdonn]

awm, on Jul 3 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

I do find it amusing that for a lot of people it seems that "double is takeout of clubs, because clubs are the only naturally bid suit in this auction" but "1NT does not require a club stopper, because clubs have not been bid naturally." It seems mildly inconsistant, although I suppose any agreements would probably help here.

I don't think any person tried to make both those points, just a lot of people made either one or the other. It's the kind of things most decent partnerships have sort of beta-agreements about.