Mind's desire lets you play the revealed cards without paying the mana cost.  The keyword is "play".  The basic rules say that you can only "play" 1 land per turn.  The mind's desire only changes how you pay for the cards that you play,  not whether or not you can play them.

It would be the same as if you casted a mind's desire,  and then your opponent somehow put an arcane laboratory into play before the desire resolved.  you would not be able to play the spells,  because you could only play 1 spell per turn.

I was also at this event.  I have been seeing and hearing the story of what exactly happened told several different ways,  and each time there have been a couple of things that have been left out.  I also think that the question that this thread's original poster was trying to get answered, was sidetracked by people posting about the legality of asking spectators for information.

Here is what happened at the event:
Player A plays a goblin welder on his turn.
Player B starts his turn by playing a vampiric tutor during his upkeep
Player A plays shadow of doubt
Player B plays pyroblast targeting shadow of doubt
Player A plays misdirection targeting pyroblast
Player B plays mana drain targeting the misdirection
Player A plays force of will targeting mana drain
Player B plays force of will targeting the first force of will
Player A activates goblin welder,  exchanging mox sapphire, for mox ruby from graveyard
Player A plays red elemental blast targeting the second force of will
 The stack resolves,  Player A draws from shadow of doubt,  Player B shuffles his library
Player B enters his draw step and draws a card for the turn
Player B plays Yawgmoth's Will
-- At this point Player B realizes that the goblin welder still had summoning sickness,  and that without it the red elemental blast that won the counter war could not have been cast.  The players call the judge to the table and explain what happened.

The judge listened to the players story as to what happened.  The judge did not say that anyone was right,  the judge said that both players were responsible for keeping the correct game state,  and since both players passed priority with a broken game state that it was both players error.

This next piece of information is the part that has been left out everytime that i have seen or heard this story since it happened. 
At the beginning of the event,  before anyone started playing the first round,  the judge asked for everyone's attention,  and announced that if there was an issue with a broken game state by both players,  that the game would go on "as is",  and the players would be issued a warning.  If a player received a second warning for broken game state in the event,  it would be a match loss for that player.

The judge then after listening to the players ruled that it would be game on as is,  and warnings to both players for having broken the game state.  Just as it was announced at the start of the event.

Some of the people there said that that was the correct ruling and others disagreed.  A similar ruling was made in a protour event regarding a firemane angel that was mortified,  and did not get placed in the graveyard.  both players agreed that the mortify resloved,  and that the angel belonged in the graveyard,  and the judge said that the game state was broken and that the game was played on as is.

I personally have asked one of the head judges at pastimes about broken game state and he told me that the broken game state rules were changed around the release of dissension.  The dci said that if both players pass priority with a broken game state,  that both players made an error in the game.  The dci had problems with fixing game states because it would be a different result from one event to the next.  the same exact game could be played incorrectly at 2 different events,  and 2 different judges could "fix" the gamestate differently at each event.  They wanted a consistent ruling for all situations,  so it became "no change to game state". 

It is BOTH players responsibility to make sure that the game state is correct.

The judge at this particular event did not ask spectators what card was drawn,  and what was in Player B's hand,  because it would not have affected the ruling that he made on the situation.  It especially would not have mattered since the exact way that the situation was going to be handled if it came up was announced publicly to everyone playing in the event before they started playing round 1.

The 2 questions that people involved in the event want answered are:
1> Is this the correct way to handle a broken game state by both players?
2> Even if it was not,  should the judge still rule that way,  since it was announced at the beginning of the event that exactly how the situation would be handled?

I think that you definately want to play 4 cabal rituals in your deck.  They make it so much easier to go off on the first or second turn of the game.  Playing cabal ritual will allow you to cast night's whisper and still have mana left over to continue casting other spells and potentially combo out your opponent.

Another thing,  i noticed that you seem to have a lot of faith in casting night's whisper on turn 1.  If you don't use a ritual of some sort to do this,  generally your turn will end with you having played a land,  and spent 2 cards to draw 2 cards.  I understand that this does get you further into your deck,  but i think your almost always better on turn 1 casting duress,  or passing turn and casting brainstorm in your opponents end step.

Ultimatley though i think there are a lot of changes that could be made to improve this deck,  at the moment though,  i suugest the following:

-2 esg
-4 mana drain
-4 mental note
-3 underground river

+4 duress
+4 cabal ritual
+2 some variety of bounce spell,  such as but not limited to - echoing truth,  rushing river,  hurkyl's recall,  rebuild
+3 basic land 2 and 1 swamp and island basing which to play 2 of and which to play 1 of on the final spells that you choose.