[jillybean]

1♣ (1♣) - director!

1♣ is corrected to 1N and the auction proceeds, partner is barred from the auction.

1♣ (1♣ - 1N) X (P)
2♥ AP

Lead penalties apply here, can declarer request or prohibit a ♣ lead from offenders partner if he gains the
lead and when does 26B Other Withdrawn Calls apply?

[pran]

jillybean, on 2011-July-22, 07:30, said:

1♣ (1♣) - director!

1♣ is corrected to 1N and the auction proceeds, partner is barred from the auction.

1♣ (1♣ - 1N) X (P)
2♥ AP

Lead penalties apply here, can declarer request or prohibit a ♣ lead from offenders partner when he gains the
lead and when does 26B Other Withdrawn Calls apply?

Yes, in this case the withdrawn call related solely to Clubs so Declarer can request or forbid a lead in this suit from offender's partner.

Had the withdrawn call not related to any particular denomination, say for instance that it had been 1NT over a 2♣ bid, or an illegal redouble, then Law 26B had been the applicable law.

[jallerton]

Doesn't the meaning of a 1♣ opener in the IBer's system make a difference, Sven?

[pran]

jallerton, on 2011-July-22, 12:33, said:

Doesn't the meaning of a 1♣ opener in the IBer's system make a difference, Sven?

Yes, but we have no indication that it does not relate to clubs?

Remember that I wrote: Yes, in this case the withdrawn call related solely to Clubs so Declarer can request or forbid a lead in this suit from offender's partner.
It is of course my assumption that the IB was related to Clubs, but I think that assumption was well founded?

[jillybean]

Yes. The insufficient 1♣ was natural, the OS muttered something along the lines of "I didn't see your bid"

The director told declarer that he could request/prohibit any lead from offenders partner. If declarer knows/thinks that this is incorrect
should he say anything, and what about dummy?

[pran]

jillybean, on 2011-July-22, 13:54, said:

Yes. The insufficient 1♣ was natural, the OS muttered something along the lines of "I didn't see your bid"

The director told declarer that he could request/prohibit any lead from offenders partner. If declarer knows/thinks that this is incorrect
should he say anything, and what about dummy?

This ruling was obviously incorrect.

The laws are silent about a player's (possible) right to contest the legality of a Director's ruling rather than having to appeal it.

Personally I favour that any player (including dummy) who is aware that the Director is about to make an incorrect ruling should be permitted to suggest that the Director checks his lawbook, preferably with reference to the applicable law, for the purpose of avoiding a Director's error.

After play is completed any side can certainly appeal such an incorrect ruling made by the Director and request a Law 82C rectification.