The essentials are not there.
1. There is no mention of the wine, the cup of communion. Without the wine, it's not the Lord's Supper.
2. There is no mention of any type of ceremony. No mention of any reverence associated with it. No blessings asked. No mention of taking it "unworthily".
3. It's not even called the "Lord's Supper". Clearly the term "kuriakos deipnon", the Lord's Supper, is known to be extant since it's mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11. But it IS not used in Acts 20.
This was an unremarkable meal. Something that happened, and happens, all the time. That's not even the point. The only reason it's mentioned at all is that it was a testament to God's healing powers, through Paul, because on that night God used Paul to bring a dead boy back to life.
What is really conspicuously missing is any mention of a synagogue or worshiping on the last day sabbath of the Jews in Acts 20.
Who cares? The point was to relate the story of the miraculous healing during a fellowship meal following the sabbbath.
Well that just about sum up this conversation.