[pran]

sfi, on 2018-March-02, 14:06, said:

The laws don't say you are supposed to think before you act. But they do say you should act in tempo, and prescribe potential rectifications when the other side is damaged by not doing so. Just because your jurisdiction has mandated pauses in certain situations to give players extra time doesn't mean you get to not follow the laws when the regulations elsewhere are different.

PREFACE TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:

In contrast to other Mindsports like Chess and Go, Bridge is a comparatively new game [...]

(my emphasizing)
so the laws consider as a fact that Bridge is a mindsport (where you are supposed to think before you act).

And nowhere in the laws do they say that you should act in (unchanging) tempo. (I am fully aware of Law 73 D).
Instead

Law 73 A 2 said:

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

So it is perfectly acceptable for a player to vary his tempo so long as the variation (i.e. hesitation or haste) is not undue.

This obviously includes hesitations following an unexpected action by another player.
(Which is essentially what we are discussing here.)

[sfi]

I think both of the points you are trying to make rely on an unwonted interpretation of the wording you quote. But I think this diversion has more than run its course already.

[cherdano]

How can double by East by automatic in a partnership where West did not double 3S? If you don't know what double means, then passing seems obviously a logical alternative.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-March-02, 11:12, said:

I don't buy that argument.
From my experience (as TD) any pause longer than some 3 seconds is claimed by players in situations like this to be "long hesitation".

Try it out for yourself: 5 seconds without anything happening feels like a tremendous amount of time.

That may be true, but I expect the TD to determine the actual facts, and not waste our time posting about it if the hesitation was the expected delay after a skip bid.

[sanst]

pran, on 2018-March-02, 11:12, said:

I don't buy that argument.
From my experience (as TD) any pause longer than some 3 seconds is claimed by players in situations like this to be "long hesitation".

Try it out for yourself: 5 seconds without anything happening feels like a tremendous amount of time.

You have missed the first line of the OP: "The first pass by West followed a long hesitation - East called me to the table, explained that there had been a hesitation from her partner,..". So not the opps, but the partner said that there was a hesitation. Maybe you're right not to accept a claim of the opponents at first sight, but I will believe a partner who says so.

[sanst]

pran, on 2018-March-02, 15:05, said:

This obviously includes hesitations following an unexpected action by another player.
(Which is essentially what we are discussing here.)

Unexpected? Is the sequence1♦-(3♠)-p-(p) so unusual? Without the hesitation the 4♥ vul vs nonvul is completely idiotic and an exaple of suicide bridge. -800 or -1100 is not unlikely, where it might be just -140. As I wrote before, east made use of the UI and should be dealt with accordingly.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-March-02, 11:39, said:

The number is diminishing but I still see cards that say takeout doubles only apply up to 3♥

Indeed I have played with one or two intermediate players who play "negative doubles through 3S". They usually understand that "through" or "thru" means that a double of 3S is included, but not always. I suspect that West on this hand was uncertain whether double would be takeout or penalties, and he panicked and passed. East used the UI that West clearly had values. If East can show that double of 3S by West would have been takeout, then Pass is not an LA on the East hand. Otherwise Pass is an LA and all bids are demonstrably suggested over Pass, even though 4H would not be an LA.