[vigfus]

2♦ -3 is what I would rule.
South had UI from his partners slow pass, That makes his double a good bet, either for takeout or penalty. Fast passing partner over 2♦, makes PASS by south sure an LA.
3 off is what declared made, He earned it.

[bluejak]

I understand the TD ruled 2♦ -2. If there had been no infraction, that is the result that would have been obtained. If a silly play is because of the infraction - the case here - then it would not be made without the infraction.

The only doubt in my view is whether we should split the score: is the silly play bad enough to make Law 12C1B kick in? Well, I do not think it 'wild' - he had some idea, even if a poor one. It is not 'gambling' - same reason. And it is certainly not a 'serious error unrelated to the infraction' because it clearly was related to the infraction. So I consider it correct to rule 2♦ -2 for both sides.

[aguahombre]

relax about richard...his tongue was sticking out his cheek far enough to be quite visible. 2D-2 for e/w. Maybe it should be down 3 because of the lunacy of the play, but I think declarer was given an extra thing to overload his brain because of the irregularities, which other declarers would not have to cope with.