South opens 1NT announced as 15-18. North bids 2NT (not alerted or announced) and South bids 3NT, all pass. North then informs the table that South failed to announce the 2NT bid which was a transfer to ♦. East calls the TD, explains what has happened and then asks if he can speak to the TD away from the table. TD declines and asks East to speak up, East says that he would not have passed had he received the correct explanation of North's bid - he then shows his hand to TD. TD nods and asks all to play on and call him back later. West who had not yet faced his bid now does so (small spade) and NS make 3NT. TD rules that no damage was done and result stands. East takes his word, but when the tournament is over he realises that 4♥x-2 would have been an excellent score and wonders if opponents would really have risked 5♦ over that.
Under national regulations, 2NT as a transfer to ♦ should have been announced, in absence of which it is to be considered natural. Both partnerships are regular, NS being more experienced. In NS agreements, the only replies to the transfer are 3♣ positive and 3♦ negative, 3NT is undefined. In EW agreements, 3♥ by East over 2NT would be natural, 2♠ by East over 1NT would have promised spades plus a minor.
Your thoughts on this?
[Edited to correct errors pointed out below]