Left hand opponent opened 1 heart. Partner doubled for takeout. Right hand opponent passed. I "had to" bid 2 clubs with something like (S) xxx (H) xx (D) Jxxx (C) Jxxx.
We were doubled for penalties, and went down five, (vulnerable) after partner partner laid down:
(s) Axxx (H) Kxx (D) Kxx (C) Qxx
In defending the takeout double, partner said, "I had 12 points and four spades. That's a standard takeout double."
I said, "I need 14 points for a vulnerable takeout. I don't even consider your hand worth 12 points (even though technically that's the case), because of the 4-3-3-3 distribution." What bothered me most about the double was not the minimum point count, but the "stranded" king, and three cards in the opponents' suit.
Give partner a better distribution by changing her hand to something like: (s) Axxxx (h)--- (d) KQxx (c) Kxxx, and I wouldn't have complained. Because all her "values" would have been OUTSIDE the opponents' suit, for offense, not defense. (FWIW, Kaplan and Rubens evaluates this hand as 15 points, and the actual hand at 11 points because of the flat distribution and stranded honors. That's true, even though the traditional Milton Work count for both hands is 12 points.)
Was partner right to make the double? Or was I right to protest it? Is vulnerability the deciding factor? In either case, why?