[awm]

I'd open 4♠. These sorts of openings do not "always work" by any means but I think they are definitely percentage.

On the actual hand it seems that:

1. Opponents were playing unusual methods in that an initial double was apparently pure penalty.
2. They also made an aggressive penalty double on a 14-count without clear tricks that worked out.
3. Even so, they appear to be on for 3NT and on the normal-seeming ♦Q lead they get only 300 on defense. So either they found a lead that worked out better or the field let you down by not getting to/making a game on 25 high.

It seems like really a conjunction of events here (partner has the wrong hand for 4♠, opponents combination of methods/style/hands allowed them to double when many people would not be able to, and either opponents found a lucky lead or the field could not bid and make a normal game). I wouldn't let this dissuade me from opening 4♠ on this type of hand in future.

[Jinksy]

The bottom was because no-one in the room played 3N (or 4). I don't think anyone else opened 4S, but if they did, they weren't doubled.

the hog, on 2013-November-01, 18:29, said:

The x was for penalties? Where was the hand West held when he doubled? Surely it was not the hand you posted?

Alas yes, hence my snarky alert