In reply to ChuckR, you don't go b3 until they've gone ....e6, I think?

It was also interesting to see that the Ne5 move was more popular in this position but the move order was somewhat different. A slight change from post #21 could be 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Bd3 d5 5.b3 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bb2 Nc6 and now instead of 8.a3 b6 9.Nbd2 Bb7 White could play 8.Nbd2 b6 9.Ne5 getting the move in one move earlier. On ...Nb4 can't White play Be2 and then a3 with tempo ? Does this change things ? The 9.Ne5 appears to be played more recently by players of 2300-2450 strength.

The "Killer" recommendation is (1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5) 3.d5!?

Objectively it may not be that strong, but it is a bit annoying for Dutch players ...

I found the game.  I didn't quite give a good verbal description (fuzzy memories, carelessness, etc.).  Playing dxc4 immediately isn't so good, since it unnecessarily releases the tension.  I don't think Qh5 and c4 mix well.  (After your suggested ...d4, I think black is already much better.)  Here are some brief notes I made:

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 b6 5.b3 c5 6.Bb2 Nc6 7.0-0 Bb7 8.Nbd2 Be7 9.a3 0-0 10.Ne5 cxd4 11.exd4 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd7 13.c4?! 
[13.Qh5 h6 (13...g6) 14.c4 Nc5 15.Bc2 d4! 
A) 16.Rad1 d3 
A1) 17.Bb1 Qc7 18.b4 Na4 19.Ba1 (19.Bd4 Rfd8 20.Be3 Nc3) 19...a5; 
A2) 17.Nf3 17...Qc7 18.Bxd3 Nxb3; 
B) 16.b4 16...d3! 17.Bd1 (17.bxc5 dxc2 18.Nf3 Bxc5) 17...Ne4 18.Nf3 (18.Nxe4 Bxe4) 18...a5]
13...Nc5 14.Bc2 Rc8 15.b4 Nd7 16.Bb3 a5! 17.cxd5 exd5 18.bxa5 Nc5 19.axb6? 
[19.Nf3 Ba6 20.Re1 Nd3 21.Re2 bxa5³]
19...Ba6-+ 20.Re1 Nd3 21.Bd4 Nxe1 22.Qxe1 Bc5 23.Qe3 Qxb6 24.Nf3 Rfe8 25.Bxd5 Bxd4 26.Nxd4 Qc5 27.Qf3 Qc1+ 28.Qd1 Qxd1+ 29.Rxd1 Rxe5 30.Nc6 Rce8 31.g3 Bb7 32.Nb4 Rd8 33.Rd3 Re1+ 34.Kg2 0-1

Notice that in many lines, white has bad piece coordination.  I think white should leave the pawn on c2, so he can recapture the bishop on d3 if it is desirable.  The problem I have with white's position (at move 13) is that seems difficult to find a constructive plan.

That was exactly my idea against Ziatdinov!  And it failed miserably!

I don't have the game on my hands at the moment, but he got good play after Nc5 (upon which I retreated the bishop to c2), swapping of the c-pawn (upon I which I recaptured with the knight), followed by Rc8 and Ba6.  I remember the pin on my knight being very awkward (or the bishop's control of that diagonal).  Also, the move a3 was shown to be a weakness (weak square-b3).  I looked at this position for a while, and decided the position to be clearly better for black.

I don't think the c4 idea is that good, since it accentuates white's weaknesses on the queenside and white is not really in a position to contest black on the queenside with this pawn break.  Thus, I think it has the opposite effect of the intended neutralization, as it presents black with definite targets.  This is what bothers me about white's setup.  He seems to lack flexibilty on the center and the queenside, especially after committing to Ne5.

Maybe if I find the game, I'll type it up, but it isn't pretty...

Does anyone have good ideas for white in this line (Summerscale-Luther)?

The Exterminator, your last post just made this a hot topic!   

Kidding aside, ...Ne4 is often effective means of nullifying white's attack.  In both Belfer-Yermolinsky and Reefschlaeger-Luther (above post), after ...Ne4 both games turned in black's favor.  A common method for black is to allow white to set up a stonewall, and at the same time create a stonewall on one's own, resulting in a symmetrical stonewall structure.

This reminds me of the game Yermolinsky-Shaked, where black played the maneuver ...Ne8, ...f5, ...Nd6, ...Ne4.  White seemed to get good play in opening.  It seems like the plan of g4 may offer white a slight advantage, though it seems hard to make much of this in such a locked position.

[Event "New York open"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Yermolinsky, Alex"]
[Black "Shaked, Tal"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2660"]
[BlackElo "2535"]
[NIC "RE 20.15.2"]
[ECO "A04"]
[PlyCount "81"]

1. Nf3 c5 2. b3 d5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bb2 e6 5. d4 Nc6 6. Nbd2 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O b6 9. a3 Bb7 10. Qe2 a5 11. Ne5 Ne8 12. f4 f5 13. g4 Nd6 14. Qg2 Nxe5 15. dxe5 Ne4 16. Rad1 Qe8 17. gxf5 exf5 18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Nc4 Ba6 20. Rf2 Bxc4 21. bxc4 Rd8 22. Rd5 b5 23. Rfd2 bxc4 24. e6 Qg6 25. Rd7 Rxd7 26. Rxd7 Re8 27. Qxg6 hxg6 28. Ra7 Bf6 29. Bxf6 gxf6 30. Rxa5 Rxe6 31. Rxc5 Ra6 32. Rxc4 Rxa3 33. Kf2 Kg7 34. h4 g5 35. hxg5 fxg5 36. fxg5 Kg6 37. Rc8 Kxg5 38. Rg8  Kf6 39. Rf8  Ke6 40. Re8  Kd5 41. Ke2

Notice that Yermolinsky played Qe2 first before committing to Ne5.  Notice this approach bears similarity to a line in the Classical Queen's Indian, which is often considered by theory to offer Black equal chances:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 Bb7 5.0-0 d5 6.b3 Bd6 7.Bb2 0-0 8.c4 Nbd7 
9.Nc3 a6 10.Rc1 Qe7

I think this is something important to take note of, since the immediate 10...Ne4 is considered inferior to 10...Qe7, the main line of this variation.  Also Yermolinsky is strong player who has had much experience in queen's pawn openings.

I think it advisable for Colle-Zukertort players (from the white and black side) to take a look at the theory of this line in Classical QID and search for ideas that can be applied analogously in the Zukertort.  I think Geller's The Complete Queen's Indian and Yrjola and Tella's The Queen's Indian are good sources on the Classical.