I wonder if you could give a purely informal opinion on a situation that arose in our club last night.
This is not subject to any appeal - everybody is still friends, it is merely for future reference.
The situation involved a claim from declarer as follows:
The director was not called (he being quite inexperienced, and was playing a contract of his own).
West stated 'I assume there are no trumps outstanding, to which East said 'Yes I have a trump'.
Declarer accepted that she had forgotten the outstanding small trump (her earlier play substantiated this, in the fact that she took unnecessary risks in not drawing the outstanding trump). However she certainly realised that the J,10, 9 of spades were all boss. West then said "you should now play a diamond and ruff small in dummy" - it was pointed out that declarer would still succeed since East could not overruff. West then said "Well, play a heart and ruff small in dummy and my partner can overruff". Dummy (North) then stated that he thought it was an abnormal play not to cash the J spades (following with the 4 from dummy), and then the 10 and the 9. West didn't fully accept this, but for the sake of 'peace and harmony' acceded.
What would your possible ruling have been in accordance with Laws 70 C and D, and in your opinion should the claim have been allowed? What would have been the possible likely outcome in a more major event should it go to appeal?
I suppose it comes down to what is 'normal' for the player involved. If you rate our club players on a scale of 1 (worst) - 10 (best), I would rate declarer at about '7'.
So, what does everyone think?
Early on in the play she lost a trick to the K of spades.
She then came down to the three card ending shown: she was in hand.
She then claimed the remainder of the tricks (i.e. making her contract) without stating a line of play.