Declarer (S) has won 9 of the first 10 tricks in 3NT, and has the lead in dummy:
3 3 7 - Q - Q - - T T J3 - - 8 98
Declarer states "I guess East wins the rest."
However, play continues, leading the D3 off the board, won by East, who cashes the CJ. Now, of course, declarer wins the last trick.
Defenders claim that they should win all 3 tricks. Declarer says she cannot lose that tricks, since when East cashes the CJ, it is impossible to lose the last trick.
What is your ruling? And does it matter that play continued after the original statement? Recall that Law 70D3 states "play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim."
Play should have stopped after the concession, and so the plays afterward should be canceled. Since S conceded the last three tricks, he should not receive that last Club trick. After all, when looking at the board, directors can determine that if East leads a small club instead of the Jack, E-W will win the remaining tricks. Therefore, the contract of 3NT should be making only three.
That was effectively my ruling. There are reasonable lines of play on which declarer loses all 3 remaining tricks (leading a major off the board; East playing the small club after the diamond).
I put in the quote from the Laws mostly as a red herring -- this was clearly not a situation where continuation of play clarified a line of play.
