Zelandakh, on 2016-July-11, 08:18, said:
it may be irrelevant with respect to the correct ruling in this case but perhaps not in terms of how (s)he is viewed by others in the club, as evidenced by mycroft's post (#14). And sometimes things get put down to gamesmanship that are in reality nothing more than stupidity or ignorance. If you encountered such a case, I daresay that you would choose to have a word with the reporter about it.
What Mycroft says in that post is (AFAICS) the obvious fact that a defender is protected against damage from Dummy's violation of Law 41D. This of course depends on that defender claiming such damage when he becomes aware of the damage, not necessarily already when he became aware of the violation as such if that was earlier.
Also observe Law 11A which protects an ignorant non-offending side from forfeiting redress in certain situations.
I fail to see how his post (or in fact anything in the laws) can be taken to justify any bad feelings against a player who does not call attention to an irregularity, regardless of his possible reasons for such action or lack of action.