NORTH AJ32 AT6 KQJ864 AQ43 987432 AT7 KT985 7654 KQ 95   J762 KQT98 J5 32

Dealer: North    Vul: None   MP Scoring West X Pass 3 Pass North 1 3 1 4 East Pass X 2 Pass South 1 Pass Pass

After the auction ended, South, member of the declaring side, the one with the obligation and perhaps only presently privy to recollection of a requirement to alert the splinter bid, did announce and begin to explain, as due, the failure.
As is best, in the case of an irregularity where there is some doubt that knowledge of the rules in the area are not clear to possibly any member of the side not at fault, AT LEAST, the side not at fault, the director was summoned.
The auction was noted and play commenced.
West opened with the A lead, ruffed in dummy.
Cashing a trump before starting to run clubs was a line not pursued and the 4 heart contract made only 4.
That scored well for North South anyway (5 out of 8 : 62.5%)

   1>           0     6-    1-    1-    5     6-    8     3     4       
         ---- -170   450  -100  -100   420   450   480   -50   150   ----

In determining the contracts that might have resulted had there not a failure to alert, the director determined to allow 4 to stand.

South's pass of the 3 double suggested both:
a)not first round control of spades and b) interest in slam (not a minimum).
The range of West's second last turn is an interesting idea.
Does that turn begin after South completed second last turn?
At what point would you determine that East had submitted such Unauthorized Information, perhaps to be construed as clarifying the idea that the double showed spade LENGTH as well as a top spade honour, if at all, or vice versa?
What penalties, if any, would you suggest East liable to in such event as the picking up of the bidding cards being prior West's decision and/or commitment to a choice?

Declarer may have been put off by East's deciding to summon the declarer while the perception of the infraction of the early replacement of the bidding cards was still in mind. Due no adjustment for the disturbance of the early bidding box replacement of cards, in my opinion, but it's an infraction and probably should at least at some point be reported to the director, perhaps best at the table just after the failure to alert has been reported (2nd issue chronologically and perhaps 2nd of importance, at least prior a declarer perhaps thrown off).

East suggested that bidding 4 was a possibility.
At the table, South might have suggested the 4 would have been doubled.

The director ruled tht 4 making stood.
On balanced, East might have had in mind a 4 bid and if South would have doubled, North would have been put to the test.
If instead of that double, South had opted for a forcing pass, suggested greater slam interest, North would have to the test been put.
After that double, North should probably pass.

If South were to offer some idea of tending towards a theoretical double of 4, either aside and later reported, somehow the demands on your time on the issue, perhaps contrary the idea that there's a world otherwise to report to AND from which to extract monies for livings you would be expected to extract, would you find that to be material enough to impose some dream of a 4x contract? What result would you determine?

There is the idea of one of the weirdest looking split scores ever for the event of an East appeal for allowance of 4 over 4, of allowing 4 making 4, table result for North South, and 6X making for East-West, absent some amount of 'information' or its proper presentation.