Two general observations:
first, that distributional hands defy any set rule
second, that there is some substance to the Culbertson theory of distribution to the effect that a player’s hand pattern will be closely related to the distribution of a given suit.
South’s business double of the final contract with nothing of defensive value in his hand: South figured that North must hold an ace and any other outstanding values against East/West.
The very presence of a seven card suit in South’s hand suggested that all suit breaks for declarer would be adverse. Hence the double was a good percentage bet, with the added advantage of possibly misleading declarer as to the location of the defensive values. The result in this instance was that East, looking for a heart honor in South’s hand, ended up losing two hearts and a diamond, going down two doubled and giving this North-South pair an undisputed top.
The usual results was six notrump down one undoubled,
“All too often,” the author concludes, “fine players will lapse in thinking when holding virtually honorless hands.” Well, we can think of a couple of counter-arguments against doubling on nothing, but no doubt there is a fair amount of logic to South’s thinking in this particular case. And we agree that thought is required even on the most uninspiring of holdings.