You never know exactly what's going on when watching on vugraph, but my impression was that south described his 2NT as "bid your minor" and when quized on whether or not north is promising 5-5 implied "yes". On that basis, west contended that had he been alerted to possibility that north could be 5-4 he would be far more likely to sit 3
♣x.
Irrespective of how east-west play the double of 2
♥, it seems pretty obvious to sit it:
- if double is takeout, then partner has some ♣ length and virtually by definition his double of 3♣ is for money. So I pass 3♣x, he leads a trump and they get hammered. Or he doesn't lead a trump, they get tapped, and they get hammered.
- If double is values, they're screwed. I did nothing encouraging (i.e. I didn't double 2NT) and partner still hammers 3♣. I pass, and read the above for what I think will happen to it.
I don't think west would stand much of a chance at the appeals committee, and evidently no appeal ever went ahead so Joe Grue probably had a similar view.
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer