My comments:

1. 1♥. No issue here.
2. 1♠.  I prefer 2♦, both establishing the game force and “bidding where I live”.  Look at the choice this way:  Would you rather partner held a stiff small spade or a stiff small diamond or Kxx of spades or Kxx of diamonds?
3. 2♥.  I agree with this choice, although the other table chose 3♥ at the same juncture.
4. 4♥.  Fine on the at-the-table auction, but over 1♥-2♦-2♥-4♣ would be a standout.
5. 4♠.  I do not care for this call at all: bad trump break is expected, as well as the inability to take many trump finesses.  Other problems: bad trump intermediates and no expectation that the opponents have found more than an eight-card fit.
6. 5♦.  Take the money and double.
7. Double.  Why?

Without the double, 6♥ is easy on a club lead.  Ruff a club, spade to the ace, ruff a second club, ♦ to king, having played ♥Q somewhere along the way.  Winning six trumps in hand, two club ruffs in dummy, ♠A, and three top diamonds, losing a club only.

But here is the report of Bill Braucher:

“[South]’s double sounded like she had a void somewhere and [North] led a club. [Declarer] Alan [Watson of Lexington, MA] ruffed in dummy.  Also fearing a void, he drew trumps and cashed ♠A and ♦K.  Nope – no voids anywhere!  What could [South] have? The only thing he could imagine was her actual shape.  With the courage of his convictions, Alan led a diamond and finessed dummy’s nine for +1860!”

PS: To John Goold and our friends at Master Point Press: This is the first entry I have prepared using the updated blogging tools.  Great job at creating Bridge Tools II!