[UdcaDenny]

Me and p have different opinions. He says you only use WND when 2 over one is still gameforcing after interference. I think it can give more information than the standard double to show a 4card ♠. Lets say you have a balanced hand around 10 points without a ♥hold after p open a minor and intruder bids 1♥. You have to pass and hope to get a second chance. If there was no interference with 1♥ you can bid 1♠ with only 4 so why not do same after 1♥ and use double to show p you got cards but no good bid. Isnt that much more useful than being able to differ between 4 or 5 spades ? Like to get some comments about this.

[helene_t]

So a Walsh negative double is a double after 1m-(1♥) which denies spades?

We have this discussion in another thread also: http://www.bridgebas...ge__pid__863960

There are obviously pros and cons. Maybe it should depend on your notrump range and which minor suit you opened. If you play weak NT and partner's minor is diamonds, a 2♣ response can be fairly light. OTOH if we play strong notrump and partner's minor is clubs, you need almost GF strength for a 2♦ bid to be safe, so the negative double becomes more attractive.

[WesleyC]

A variation that has become popular in recent times (especially if you play in a short club context) is using the double of 1H to show 4+S and the 1S bid to show less than 4S with competitive values or better. This solves the problem in a slightly more efficient way, because you gain an extra step after showing spades (which you could use to show 3c support).

There are lots of ways you can extend this treatment, such as making the 2H cuebid and 2S to show some other hands with 6+ spades.

Personally, I've never had a problem just using standard methods if you include the possibility of sometimes doubling occasionally with less than 4S.