Trick 1 Hesitation
West leads. Dummy faces KQxx in the suit led.
South thinks. South calls for K.
East thinks some more.
Subsequently W regains the lead and plays the suit again.
East holds AJxx. South calls TD and complains that East's extra long think has conveyed UI.
The White Book states that a pause by third hand at trick 1 does NOT convey UI.
(Which was how TD ruled). But is there a limit to the length of a 'pause'?
And can/should TD make use of 'local' knowledge?
Knowing the parties involved, Declarer's 'think' would have been more than long enough for East to decide his play.
East was not the fastest player at the club either, but not given to long thinks when holding three small.
Comments
What card did he play to the trick? As long as it was an encouraging card, this sounds reasonable.
The licence to East to have some thinking time at trick one is to allow them time to think about the defence to the entire hand, not about which card to play from three small, AJxx, a singleton, or anything else. So long as South cannot tell whether East is thinking about which card to play from their holding in the suit led, or how many times to hold up the ace in another suit, or whether to cover an honour in another suit if it's led from dummy, or where their fourth trick is coming from, or how many hearts declarer is likely to have, or something else, they cannot draw any conclusion from the speed of East's play at trick one.
So much for the theory. In practice, East has to play their part by doing at least some thinking at trick one on every hand (not necessarily for longer than declarer, if declarer has taken some time), and by not doing anything to give the impression that they are thinking about which card to play immediately (e.g. by detaching a card, putting it back, thinking, detaching another card, etc.). If East thinks only one time in three or four, it makes it easier for other players to read something into the pause.
I don't think there should be any limit to the length of a pause at trick one, up to whatever should be the maximum thinking time for planning the play of an entire hand. Declarer's task is often easier than a defender's, or a particular declarer may be a faster thinker than a particular defender. It doesn't seem right to me to allow the declarer to dictate how much time their opponent has to think.