[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2020-July-28, 11:41, said:

Are you sure about that Paul? If I have understood so far, the point of Opener announcing "Transfer" was precisely to cancel the message of 2♣ showing clubs and to say that it is simple pass/correct for Responder's minor if they actually do have that hand. And if Responder has a different hand, well they better do something different! In this context the 2♦ rebid is a clear "I have a weak hand and long diamonds". If Responder has, say, 5♠+4♦ and meant to respond to a 1♣ opening, they do not rebid 2♦ here (assuming 'normal' levels of ethics).

Incidentally, if the announcement of "Transfer" came after 4th hand had passed, would you allow them to take it back and refuse the IB? It is hard to imagine that the order of events would really be IB->announce->pass->TD call but as the OP was silent on the precise order we have to consider each of the possibilities.

Zel's well known passion for raking up dead threads apart, it is a mild shock to reread this and try to focus on such problems again after months of "real" (to reverse the paradigm) online bridge where insufficient bids and similar are things of the past.
On a national chat between TDs somebody asked a question today about comparable calls. The reaction was one of stunned amazement, plus a certain relief that if face to face bridge resumes 2021 is no longer far away.

[nige1]

dickiegera, on 2019-December-17, 09:11, said:

bidding 1NT-P-1Spade -P Now what? 1NT bidder said Transfer [really a relay] Called director and director saw no problem and said to continue bidding. My problem is that unauthorised info occurred. Did 1Spade bidder mean to bid 2S or did he not see 1NT bid? Now 1NT bidder bid 2C and 1S bidder bid 2D which was passed out.

IMO, the 1N opener should call the director. Then it's the poor director's problem. Failing that, he should alert 1♠ (because it might have a conventional meaning) but, when asked should explain "no agreement". In the old days, I would then offer to speculate on possible meanings, but directors tell me that such an offer is illegal (I can't think why). Anyway, I agree with Dickiegera: that opener's "Transfer" announcement is UI, and the director should so rule. But you have to sympathise with directors, who struggle to cope with the current loony laws.

Interesting discovery: the BBO ♠ option won't create an auction with an insufficient bid