Pause by 3rd Hand at Trick 1
Dealer East, Unfav Vul, You are North holding AQ9 AQJ7632 6 94. The bidding goes P-P-1D-4H-5D passed out. You lead the AH and Dummy has 1062 108 K83 KQJ72. Now South thinks for 84 seconds (on RealBridge) and plays the KH. North now finds the only successful line cashing AS and a spade to partners King. Partner had K874 K54 52 10863.
EW complained but the TD ruling was results stands. This is based on WB8.73.2.2, "Whether or not declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. No disclaimer is necessary. The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led."
Can this really be right here given this hesitation surely conveyed UI?
Comments
It isn't the current rule, but after reading a number of discussions online about this subject, I think the best rule would probably be "there is no UI if third hand plays to trick 1 within X seconds of the opening lead" (for some suitable value of X) – declarer can (and is encouraged to) wait for X seconds before playing from dummy in order to prevent this permission being used by the defenders to communicate, but if they play faster, third hand still gets the rest of the time to think about the hand.
Ok I will bite.
My thoughts are what do the laws say about "Pause" or "Pauses". It isn't mentioned in the definitions! It seems that the only mention is at 73A (2) "But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick. " The only mandatary pauses I know of are the "10 second pause" mentioned in the Blue book [2023] 3M 2 "Use of stop card" "After a jump bid, the next player MUST pause for about ten seconds before calling". So I think in the long run the "pause" is defied anyway by the regulating authority in the Blue Book. Pause is also mentioned at Blue Book [2023] at 9 B 5, this is about Real Bridge set ups for pauses and includes the pause for third hand play.
So now we have to go back and decide whether the idea of the "pause" has been breeched or whether third hand is entitled to think about the hand for 84 seconds or even longer. Ultimately we then have to think whether the first hand has received unauthorised information and used it. Shouldn't we poll in this situation?
I am not sure that we could say "there is no UI if third hand plays to trick 1 within X seconds of the opening lead" as declarer might well take several seconds [at least more than 10 seconds] to make their plan for the play. Declarer play might affect the way that third hand plays and they might need to re-think their plan.
Sorry to ramble but I don't see this as a straight forward situation that a "set process" can be applied to every hand or every circumstance (or even every player in first or third seat).
The first thing I would want to know is whether defenders were playing in accordance with their convention card. So what meaning, if any, was signalled by playing the KH.
If KH discourages the suit, then North is entitled to switch to another suit. Unauthorized information in this scenario would not have affected play and the result should stand.
However, if defender's convention card does not show a system of signalling, then the TD must consider whether the time spent considering the hand was reasonable in the circumstances and, if it was reasonable, then no UI was created.
If the time taken by S was not reasonable, the TD should consider what N might reasonably have inferred S was thinking about. That would clarify the nature of the UI.
Personally, S appears to have unduly delayed playing a card because there aren't any critical decisions for S to make: after taking a reasonable amount of time to consider the hand, if N/S have a signalling system, then S must play their signal card. If they don't play signals, then S just has to follow suit.
In N seat, in the absence of a signalling system, the length of time taken could only mean that S was considering whether or not they should unblock the suit from Kx. Kxx shouldn't cause any delay for S with only 2 hearts on the table. With 2 hearts in dummy, N has no reason not to believe that spades have split 7/2/2/2. Therefore, a reasonable alternative line of play is to follow the AS (bearing in mind to get to this point, Defender's do not have a signalling system, so a spade signal from S would not convey any special meaning) with a return to hearts, rather than continue with a spade.
N might be able to argue that they can justify a switch to spades, but they are bound to suffer the consequences of their partner's actions. The benefit of a decision should always go to a non-offending side.
The TD has based their ruling on the WB, as detailed in the OP. However, players do not have licence to take all the time they want, they can only take the time a player of reasonable ability needs. Therefore, it appears that S has caused undue delay in playing a card.
As E/W, I would have been disconcerted to have found that S had spent all that time deliberating over their hand when there is little to nothing for them to think about.
So in the absence of KH signalling no interest in the suit, UI was created and the result should be corrected to contract making.
No criticism of the TD intended, but in relying upon WB8.73.2.2 the TD should have considered whether the 3rd in hand had acted reasonably. It is impossible for me to agree that such a lengthy delay was reasonable, in the circumstances, and consequently, it would be a perversion of the rules of bridge to use those rules to justify unreasonable behaviour by a player. Players are not entitled to behave unreasonably, either deliberately or inadvertently, just because they believe a loophole in the rules allows them to do so.
IMO.
*N has no reason not to believe that hearts have split 7/2/2/2
Apologies for the error.
OK I'm being thick here, NS signalling system aside, why does KH played after a long pause mean switch to Spades (when after a short pause one it doesn't)?
I’m not sure where your question is coming from or who it is aimed at, so please be forgiving if I am answering at cross-purposes.
I haven’t said that either a long or short pause indicates a switch to another suit, I said that a signalling system might indicate a switch to another suit.
When N plays AS, I consider that to simply be a bad card from AQx, but N might consider ensuring declarer does not get an over-trick a worthwhile play.
I then spoke about what N might reasonably infer from the extended delay before playing KH. The only reasonable explanation (that I can think of) was that they were playing from Kx, for the reason given above.
Therefore, and this is probably what you are querying, N knows that S has a heart to return. So N can play AS and then xS to fish for the KS. If S shows up with KS, S can return the xH and N then plays QS.
If Declarer shows up with KS, then N still has an opportunity to cash their winning heart if S has the AC. If Declarer holds AC and KS, then the game is always making (based on the actual distribution).
Why N chose not to knock the contract by playing the QH, N only knows. However, having a reasonable expectation of an even break of hearts also leads to the line of play outlined above.
Essentially, when N believes that the hearts are split 7/2/2/2, they can risk a switch spades to fish for the KS. N doesn’t have to fish for the AC because Declarer will have to do that in order to set up the club tricks.
Thanks, Jaded. That makes more sense now (although it's not something I would ever have thought of as N).
Thanks for the reply.
The purpose of my original post was to highlight that a TD still has a duty to ensure players are not being unreasonable, even when they are 3rd in hand playing to trick 1.
I appreciate what you say, that as N you would not have thought of of those particular reasons to switch to spades. We just have to do our best to make sense of what has happened, which means looking at everything that led to the pivotal event. For example…
On the bidding, S might reasonably have expected N to have 8 hearts, perhaps 7. So when S is considering the hand, they are likely expecting a first round ruff by declarer or a 2nd round ruff if the AH holds and N continues with that line. So they really have little to nothing to think about.
Despite the bidding sequence, N leads AH. In so doing, N shows that they are willing to risk their AH being ruffed on table and potentially giving up the KH to Declarer.
In the play, the AH holds and N finds S had KH. So now N visibly changes their course.
If N had started out with the intention to take both Aces, then the sensible play is to play the AS first, to be sure that dummy has at least 1 heart, and then play AH. Something prompted N to change course.
Looking at the cards S plays. They put the KH under the AH, but they do not place KS under AS.
I conclude that N is not usually given to lead Ace from AQ, otherwise S has no reason to hold up KS, but it appears that N is willing to play an Ace on thin air.
For the avoidance of doubt, if N plays a heart at trick 2 or 3 and it holds, I would have concluded that UI had been created, but that it had not been influential because N had shown a willingness to play on hearts despite the risk of being ruffed that was implied by the bidding.
I may be guilty of overthinking this. South has to think about quite a lot and should come up with the plan that requires him to show he has KS. He can work out partner might have either AC, possibly singleton, or maybe AS. They're very likely to have AQ Hearts and Declarer a singleton or void (partner now has AQJ) so playing KH as a suit preference signal for Spades could well look right. If partner has AS they can safely lead it and continue with a small one. If partner had bare AC they might have led it in which case there might have been a think by South before playing something that might persuade partner to underlead their AH. If dummy has AS then 10C might suggest holding KH.
Either way there seems to be quite a lot to think about as what South plays at T1 could well have a major impact on the outcome.
I really struggle to follow your points, but in any event, 3rd in hand only has time to think generally about the hand. They don’t have to time to speculate about the possible holding combinations.
“… before playing something that might persuade partner to underlead their AH…”
The AH has been led, so nothing can persuade partner to now underlead their AH.
“ If dummy has AS then 10C might suggest holding KH.”
3rd in hand can see that dummy does not have AS.
Playing 10C on AH lead would be a revoke.
Thinking about playing the 10C on a lead of AC, which never happened, is wasting the opposition’s time.
As I say, I struggle to follow your points.
I think the points you're not following come after 'If partner had bare AC they might have led it in which case ...'
This is relevant in two ways:
1. On the actual hand it's a possibility 3rd in hand might be thinking about given that AC wasn't led.
2. It's another similar hand where after AC is led (and dummy has AS) 3rd in hand might have to think about the hand and plan the defence.
I asked a top Surrey player what he would have played on the actual AH lead. It took 2 minutes before he made a decision (10H with KH the other possibility).
The 3rd in hand gets time to think about the hand generally.
Their mind should be on what to play to the lead that has been made, not what they would play if another card had been led.
I’d be happy to read an explanation of why it took a top Surrey player 2 minutes to decide what to play because it sounds like the issue was indecision, when you say he was deciding between 10H (which isn’t in the hand) and KH. Being indecisive isn’t a valid bridge reason for holding up proceedings. I know there are players who think it is.
Of course, it might be that the 2 minutes includes time taken to make sense of the above description, which is understandable. However, if you set the cards out for dummy, 3rd in hand and the AH lead, they can see the disposition of 27 cards immediately, infer that partner has another 6 or 7 hearts and understand that declarer is either void or a singleton in hearts. So 3rd in hand can be quite certain about 33 cards at a glance. Over and above that, what are they thinking about beyond the obvious regarding the diamonds given that they’re trumps and there’s 2 in hand and 3 on the table…so declarer will certainly hold 5 and probably more, so that’s 38 cards accounted for, in the same glance.
To quote the OP regarding the holding for 3rd in hand:
“ Partner had K874 K54 52 10863”
I transferred 10H between the two hands by mistake. The OP was a while ago.
Not having led a particular card is an important consideration for 3rd in hand when working out the defence to a hand.
I'm often told that the first 3 cards played on any hand often require the greatest thought and it's not uncommon for their play to take almost as long as the rest of the hand. It's not unknown for them to be the only cards played before declarer claims.
The main consideration on the deal as presented is whether KH will be interpreted as a suit preference signal or encouraging a Heart continuation. I would be worried that declarer's spades are disappearing on dummy's Clubs. Maybe 3rd in hand is thinking about playing 4H to discourage a Heart continuation as it can't possibly be suit preference for Clubs.
I agree broadly with what you’re saying. However, none of those considerations are worthy of a 1 to 2 minute delay, they take quite literally seconds to consider.
It is the explanation as to why a TD should consider deliberation of this hand worthy of a significant delay that is relevant, when we can see 3rd in hand has 1 chance only to get in, that being with KS.
Are you arguing that 3rd in hand can have all the time they want before playing a card or that this particular hand is worthy of such a lengthy delay? (Rhetorical question).
You appear to be saying that you would have ruled that the delay was fine, but you appear unable to justify why it was fine, in terms that explain why the length of delay was reasonable. You are just pitching things that might have been considered (some of which are irrelevant), without commenting on how long it would reasonably have taken them to think about such things.
Just to be clear, the phrase, “should not” has an entirely different meaning to “must not”.
So where WB8.73.2.2 says, “…a pause by third in hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner…” This is not a bar against ruling that such UI has been created. If such a bar was required, the words, “must not” would be used, which would mean players could take as much time as they wanted, rather than as much time as they needed: You can’t reasonably penalise a player under the rules for playing in accordance with the rules, so there is no reasonable expectation that the guidance was meant to be understood as, “must not”.
In the absence of a cogent reason for the length of delay, and there being no apparent reason for the delay, the TD was entitled to rule that UI had been created. The length of time taken to play the KH was nowhere near being reasonable.
My point seems very clear and perhaps now, done to death.
Although, admittedly, I only polled one player and they were surprised it had taken them a couple of minutes to make a decision, I don't find it abnormal for players to take time early in a hand, particularly 3rd in hand at trick 1, to think about the hand. The longest I've waited was half way through the hand in a NICKO match when declarer took 15 minutes. I've frequently had partner or opponents think for a couple of minutes and I may have done it myself.
Although you may not think it relevant, many teachers advise declarer to think for at least 1 minute before playing from Dummy at trick 1 and some advise defender not on lead to delay their play on principle where declarer calls for a card from Dummy unusually quickly.
Your point seems completely at odds to the WB quote you've provided.
The conversation is not about the length of time that declarer takes to think about what they are going to do, it is about 3rd hand. Your points are not relevant to anything I’ve written in this thread.
Given that the WB quote I provide is about 3rd hand, and your examples conflate declarer with 3rd hand, I again have no idea what your point is.
Are you saying 3rd hand can have all the time they want? If so, why are you saying that?
I think the third player to play has all the thinking rights that declarer has at trick one. I've not heard anyone suggest there should be a limit to declarer's thinking time before playing from dummy, so why should the defender be forced to play before they are ready? Of course, you can argue that they get declarer's thinking time on top of what they take after dummy plays, but then defence is acknowledged to be a harder part of the game. If you set a limit to defender's thinking time but not to declarer's, the defender is thinking under pressure to finish their plan in the time allocation, whereas declarer is planning in comfort. I don't think the rules should give the declaring side an advantage like this.
Defenders have to be very careful to take time in all cases at trick one, otherwise there's a danger of passing UI to partner, or misleading declarer. Suppose declarer had held Sp Kx and H xxx. Now the winning defence (for an extra undertrick, if it's matchpoints) is to lead a small heart for partner to ruff and play a spade back. I'm sure there are people who are careless about pausing when they have no choice of play to trick one. This can cut down partner's losing options.
“… If you set a limit to defender's thinking time but not to declarer's, the defender is thinking under pressure to finish their plan in the time allocation,…”
Whilst I agree with this point in general, I have to point out that no one has argued in favour of a time limit. There was a suggestion in the original response to the OP that ‘setting a time limit’ has been discussed elsewhere and the response to that comment highlighted, in my words, that such a solution brought its own problems.
Please note that my position is summarised here:
(23 August), “… the TD must consider whether the time spent considering the hand was reasonable in the circumstances and, if it was reasonable, then no UI was created... players do not have licence to take all the time they want, they can only take the time a player of reasonable ability needs…”
It isn’t the amount of time they take to consider the hand generally that matters, it is whether the amount of time taken was reasonable in the specific circumstances.
The WB guidance is not a free-pass for the TD to avoid making a ruling, it is there to guide the TD in making a ruling. The TD should see the words, “should not” and understand that it means that in most circumstances they should take a particular view, but if the circumstances found are outside those that a reasonable player would consider to be appropriate, then the TD has a duty to ensure that the non-offending side are not damaged by unreasonable behaviour.
If a TD believes the reasons for a delay by 3rd in hand at trick 1 are immaterial, then they give 3rd in hand a free-pass to be unreasonable and less scrupulous partnerships are handed a situation that could be manipulated to their advantage, without breaking any rules because the transposition of “should not to must not” in the reading of the WB passage now means UI cannot be created by any pause by 3rd in hand at trick 1.
Your last paragraph suggests that we are on the same page, so what follows are just general observations.
Declarer reads into the delay at their own peril, but partners know each other’s habits and so unfettered restrictions on the use of ‘pausing at trick 1’ creates the very foundations of a concealed partnership understanding, that would be legitimised by the assumption that no amount of delay creates UI for partner.
My understanding of what was written in the guidance is that were the time taken is reasonable, in the TD’s view, the TD simply has to rule that the time taken was reasonable, without any need to explain why it was reasonable. However, every TD ruling is subject to appeal and if the decision is not objectively sound, it will be overturned. The TD would be aware that at the end of the hand, that the opponents will be able to make their own judgment about the delay and so be able to challenge any decision about such a delay that was not objectively sound.
So ‘no disclaimer is necessary’ during the hand because the reasonableness of the delay will be apparent at the end of the hand, and at the end of the hand the TD’s ruling will be judged to be either fair (and accepted) or unfair (and appealed).
This thread has shown that the only possible way to defend the 84 seconds taken in the particular circumstances is to prevaricate :-)
Prompted by the opening replies, I’ve now had a look at what ‘the internet’ has to say about this issue. For those that have a passing interest in my view on that, lol…
In summary, there are many people who have fundamentally misunderstood 3rd in hands rights* when pausing at trick 1.
The White Book guidance is perfectly clear about what 3rd in hands rights are at trick 1, that is, the freedom to think generally about the deal irrespective of their own holding in the suit led.
*There appears to be a substantial cohort that believes, “…freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally…” means something along the lines of, “freedom to forecast and analyse the various possibilities that might exist within the deal.”
These players have apparently been allowed to believe that 3rd in hand has some special place such that they can hold everyone at bay at their leisure. I could quote examples provided by others in this thread that would support that notion.
When players (and TDs) don’t understand what is meant by, “think about the deal generally’, it is no wonder we see questions like that posed in the OP.
IF (caps intended) a person believes the authors of the White Book intended to create perverse outcomes, then they will read the WB guidance in such a way to give effect to those perverse outcomes. By far the most obvious perverse outcome is to believe that 3rd hand’s pause is beyond regulation such that there is no limit to the pause and no matter the length of the pause, it will not give rise to Unauthorised Information for partner.
I’ll say it again for emphasis, that is certainly a perverse outcome.
This folly appears to have been accepted by a significant number of people and consequently prompts other people to desperately try to suggest regulating the maximum length of time that 3rd in hand can take to think about the deal, because they understand that UI can be created by 3rd in hand. However, trying to regulate 3rd in hand’s thinking-time in such a prescriptive way is another folly because the guidance doesn’t support the position held by the former group. Perhaps this latter group’s desire is understandable against the backdrop of the former appearing to be blind to what the guidance actually says and blind to what common-sense should tell them: That 3rd in hand can create UI at trick 1, even if they believe the guidance says they can’t create it (which of course the WB says no such thing, as I have outlined above).
It looks to me as though time would be better spent following the approach I’ve outlined above (which I take from the WB guidance by assuming the authors did not intend to create perverse outcomes) and further discussing what is meant by, “think about the deal generally”.
I’ve always understood 3rd in hand can take a moment to stake stock of dummy (which is a new source of authorised information), and then sense-check dummy’s holding against any bids made they might have made or explanations given by declarer.But in the main, they get a moment to fathom likely distributions based on AI (I gave an example earlier in the thread) and determine their own likely entries. Then they must play a card.
“No disclaimer is necessary” because the TD only needs to apply an objective standard based on, “what was there to think about and how long would it take a reasonable player (a player of average ability in the particular event) to think about it”. There may well be a margin of appreciation to take into consideration, with the TDs view holding unless it is so far from what what would be the objective standard that a reversal would be required for the sake of equity…
That said, the objective standard doesn’t exist if we have no inkling of what, “think about the deal generally” actually means.
It makes no sense to me, that a game that can be spoiled by slow play would entertain a perverse idea that actually promotes slow play.
This is the last I’ll say on the subject because it isn’t my intention to be either a lone-voice or someone that tries to change the nature of things in the game of bridge. If the game of bridge wants to be mired in such a needless situation, then that’s exactly where the game of bridge will be found.
I say that, but I do hope that some TDs will take note and see that the White Book does not actively promote perverse outcomes, despite what some people want to believe, and does want to maintain equity within the game.
Would, “…freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally…” not mean that 3rd in hand has time to consider not just what card to play to trick one, but also consider more generally the hand and how to play?
This is not in and of itself promoting slow play, but rather promoting the planning and consideration of the play of the hand at trick one, rather than considering each trick in isolation. This gives less UI to my mind, deciding how to play other suit holdings now, rather than having to consider taking an ace (or whatever) when a different suit is played, allows tempo to be maintained in that subsequent trick. Playing to trick 1 in a 'normal' tempo and then having to consider a trick later when that would certainly give UI.
That seems better to me than playing the singleton within a few seconds and then consider the play to trick 2 etc...
To my mind, 84 seconds to consider the auction, any explanations, work out the lead and any signalling opportunities, to plan the play for subsequent tricks etc, does not seem overly excessive.
I am also not clear (in the original post) as to how playing the KH at 84 seconds, or playing the KH in 10 seconds, or 30, or 45 or 60 etc would change the meaning of the card? If you polled a number of players of a similar standard and asked them what card to play to trick 2, do you think that any would be playing another H here at trick 2 and not switching to a spade?
Bridge is a thinking game and time needs to be allowed to do that. I can play 8 boards in a robot tournament in about 10-15 minutes. When I take my time and take about 30 minutes I do a lot better. I would rather that human bridge be a thinking game rather than a speed test
“… not mean that 3rd in hand has time to consider not just what card to play to trick one, but also consider more generally the hand and how to play?”
No.
Those thoughts have moved beyond the generality of the deal to the specifics of the play. You say it yourself, “… but rather promoting the planning and consideration of the play of the hand at trick one…”
That statement is not equivalent to “…freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally…” Your statement basically adds embellishments that are not found in the rules. I understand why you say it, because you aren’t alone in thinking along those lines.
Your comments reinforce my point that there is a lack of understanding about what 3rd in hand is allowed to pause their play of a card for.
The point you are making about the KH or 10H wasn’t my point, so I won’t address it fully. But given that we don’t agree on what 3rd in hand is allowed to use their time to think about, it comes as no surprise that you think 84 seconds was ok. My only observation about the KH being relevant was if it was mentioned in the particular convention card and was shown to signal a switch. I explained why I thought that.
The time you take with a robot invariably doesn’t create UI. The time spent deliberating 3rd in hand with a partner certainly presents the possibility of UI which you have downplayed and others have downright dismissed.
I appreciate the questions. It’s good to have my position tested.
My actual reply appears to have gone awol after editing 3 words from it. Perhaps it’ll reappear…
Briefly, “… but rather promoting the planning and consideration of the play of the hand at trick one…” is clearly not equivalent to “…freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally…”
Your embellishment takes approval for “general considerations” to mean approval for “specific details of the play of the hand”.
There’s nothing much I can say to that kind of interpretation, other than to point out it reinforces my point that there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about the things that 3rd in hand is given time to think about.
(Still not my original,response, just an additional observation)…
“ Bridge is a thinking game…”
The placement of 3rd in hand is rather arbitrary. The hand in the OP had 6 points (2 kings) and took 84 seconds to think of what? I don’t know where the AS is, but if partner leads a low spade, I’ll play the K. If Declarer brings a spade from dummy, I’ll play low. If declarer plays a spade…. All very basic stuff, that most bridge players will see in an instant, so I’m not seeing the complexity that you are when you say 84 seconds was ok.
Your position appears to be that no UI was created and yet there’s nothing complicated in what you’ve said that would have taken anywhere near 84 seconds for an average bridge player to think about in the OP example.
(Still not my original reply)...
I'm not certain these comments are responses to what I've written because I haven't written anything remotely worthy of them. If you believe I have, please quote me and I'll respond to the points you raise*:
"Playing to trick 1 in a 'normal' tempo and then having to consider a trick later when that would certainly give UI."
"That seems better to me than playing the singleton within a few seconds and then consider the play to trick 2 etc..."
" I would rather that human bridge be a thinking game rather than a speed test"
In contrast, your comment, "...to plan the play for subsequent tricks etc." is something that is not allowed by any of the rules that justify a pause by 3rd in hand at trick 1. You have to exaggerate the meaning of "...think about the deal generally..." to believe it stretches to, "...plan the play for subsequent tricks".
3rd in hand doesn't start thinking when dummy is faced or stop thinking after they play to the first trick. I know this is an obvious point to make, but I also thought it was obvious that UI could be created by a delay by 3rd in hand and that a TD would provide equity where necessary in such an event. However, I find that an awful lot of TDs simply defer to the white book and allow the pause at trick 1 to essentially be an unregulated portion of play.
Clarification is needed to confirm what is meant by, “…freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally…” and clarification is needed on whether "should not" is meant to be understood as "must not".
These are points that a regulating authority can answer.
Personally, I would have said that the regulating authority has already answered those questions because "think about the deal generally" quite literally excludes thinking about the deal explicitly (such as planning the play for subsequent tricks) and the use of 'should not' can be understood by extrapolation (I won't disagree if you want to say interpolation) from the introduction to The Laws of Duplicate Bridge which makes a distinction between the words "should" and "shall":
"Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not) “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.
For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws." (The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2017, pp.17 - 18).
So there are 3 sets of stronger wordings that might have been chosen instead of "should not" and yet there is an opinion that "should not" means the strongest of these, "must not".
The KH is either a singleton or indicates a switch to spades (suit-preference). Declarer has bid 1D so could easily hold three hearts and South the singleton. If KH Is singleton then North should play QH to cash their remaining heart trick and guarantee taking the contract down.
If South plays KH in half a second then that suggests it is a singleton. If South takes five minutes to play the KH then that indicates it is not a singleton. Somewhere between these two extremes is a period where South's actions are ambiguous - i.e. unclear whether South had a choice of hearts. South should therefore be careful to play such a dramatic card during that ambiguous period so as not to influence North's next decision.
It feels to me like 84 seconds is overstepping the mark.
I believe that planning the play for subsequent tricks is clearly a part of thinking about the deal generally and that this is the main reason 3rd in hand at trick 1 is permitted to take the time they feel they need without fearing they will be accused of passing unauthorised information to partner or deliberately misleading declarer through an unjustified 'hesitation'.
A former national champion I hold in high regard advises that when declarer calls for a card unusually quickly from Dummy at trick 1 3rd in hand should fold their hand (assuming they remember it) and say 'That's far too quick for me' then think for at least 1 minute before playing a card whether or not the card they play is a singleton.
It is also entirely reasonable for a player, e.g. Defender on Lead, to take time to think generally about the hand later when on lead or possibly during the play of a trick they might win or duck. Whether there is a risk of creating UI or of unfairly misleading an opponent would depend on the circumstances.
I also see no credibility in your ‘appeals to authority’.
“A former national champion I hold in high regard advises that when declarer calls for a card unusually quickly from Dummy at trick 1 3rd in hand should fold their hand (assuming they remember it) and say 'That's far too quick for me' then think for at least 1 minute before playing a card whether or not the card they play is a singleton.”
That is a description of unreasonable behaviour, when it is given, as you describe, without a suitable caveat. It essentially says, if declarer sees a play and wants to get on with it, interrupt their flow and wait for a minute, whether or not you have anything to think about.
It is called gamesmanship.
I disagree. The gamesmanship may be occurring when declarer calls for a card from Dummy 'unusually quickly'. This may be designed to persuade the 3rd in hand defender to rush at trick 1, a tactic experienced players may use to gain an advantage over less quick thinking or less experienced players. Somewhat more sinister is where declarer can count 3rd in hand for a likely doubleton or singleton from the auction and hopes to pressure 3rd in hand to play their singleton with undue haste giving away that it is a singleton. I've known this happen in a private match at a club with a professional EBU TD directing the regular club session. 3rd in hand had taken a few seconds to look at dummy before playing to trick 1. When the card turned out to be a singleton declarer accused the defender of cheating by not immediately playing the card but retracted the accusation as soon as the defender pointed out they would ask the TD to give a ruling.
The EBU guidance on time taken by 3rd in hand at trick 1 is clear and well based.
You've posted in another thread that you see no issues with Law 73.
You've posted here that you would, "think for at least 1 minute before playing a card whether or not the card [you] play is a singleton", not because you have something to think about, but because a former national champion, who you hold in high regard, told you to do so.
If a player admitted such a thing to me either as a player or as a TD, I would say they were in breach of Law 73A2 for improper hesitation (CPU),
Law 73D1, for deliberate hesitation (your declaration of an arbitrary delay cannot be defended, whether or not you can manufacture something to actually think about),
73D2, for attempting to mislead declarer.
You cannot make declarer wait just because you take apparent dislike to their play.
You can take your time to think generally about the hand, but only for so long as a reasonable player would need.
One position is reasonable, the other is not.
Declarer and 3rd in hand are not the same. Declarer cannot impart UI to their partner at trick 1, 3rd in hand obviously can.
There really is nothing more to say, other than if someone decides to abuse declarer so frivolously, I hope that declarer holds them to account for their unsporting behaviour.
I would add as a separate point, that your spoken declaration, "That's far too quick for me", breaches Laws 74A, B and C.