West passed in first chair and North opened a 15-17 1NT. East bid 2♦, alerted, asked, and explained as showing the majors. South bid 3♣ and West bid 3♠. North passed and East passed. At this point, West called the TD and explained that the explanation given of the 2♦ call was mistaken. The actual agreement was that 2♦ showed simply hearts.
The TD gave North the option of changing his pass over 3♠; North declined. The auction continued with a 4♦ call by South, a 4♥ call by West, and a raise to 5♦ by North, which was the final contract. Eleven tricks, 600 to N/S.
The TD judged to adjust the score to 720 for N/S, based on 21B3 and 12C1e. 3NT is cold for 13 tricks on a non-spade lead with both club finesses working and diamonds breaking.
East-West protested the ruling, pointing out that North had been given a chance to change her pass over 3♠ after being given correct information about the 2♦ call, yet chose not to bid 3NT. The TD replied that 12C1e requires that the TD judge what would have happened without the irregularity, not what happened after the misinformation was disclosed. What is at issue here, said the TD, is what will probably happen if West understands and explains the 2♦ call correctly when asked, not what happened in an auction with an irregularity.
The result at the other table was 720 to N-S. The offending side won the match by 2 IMPs, so several VPs were at stake.
Opinions?