3N by West.
H4,H9,HJ,HK
S2,S5,ST,S3
HT,HQ,HA,D4
S7,SQ,SA,S8
ST,S9,C4,SK
At this point, the hand is as follows:
Now, declarer claims 7 more tricks? No explanation...just a claim for 7 tricks. 2S+1D+1D+2H is only 6 tricks. Where else could declarer think his 7th trick is coming from except for the H2? Defense rejects the claim and leads a small club to the Q and A. Declarer now doesn't make any attempt at all to take 7 tricks (including the CA). He takes his 6 obvious winners and gives up. Either declarer misclicked 7 winners (which he never said) or he thought he had 7 winners and the rejection of the claim woke him up and he realized his H2 wasn't good. Certainly the rejection of the claim is UI to declarer and he should continue with his originally intended line of play to make 7 more tricks. If he does this, he'll try to cash the H2 before leaving his hand and south will win and NS will take their clubs to set the contract. In an ideal world, play would stop after a claim is rejected and a director would determine a result but that would take too long and we know that the director would just say play the hand out. I don't have that much of a problem with that but you have to be ethical and not use UI. Does he have UI? His claim has been rejected by strong opponents. Did he use the UI here? I think it is extremely clear that he did.
I requested an adjustment from the director (after I had already been eliminated from the tourney) on this board and the directorial staff couldn't even agree that there is UI here. This case is so blatant in my opinion and I'm shocked at the disregard the players and the directors had for ethics and rules of bridge in this case. Please oh please give me the ability to give feedback on directors who have such a minimalist grasp of the rules.