The wand is 3PP and isn't in the adventure, but I had to come up with something because his wizard is a fire specialist, as was the wizard he was facing off against. When you use the same spells over and over, eventually something has get in your way and prevent you. My doing that was specifically to get him to stop using the exact same spells regularly. You'd think he'd learn that you shouldn't be doing that considering 9 times out of 10 he'll play a wizard.
Obviously, the DM has the ability to modify a published adventure, but if he knows you've modified it in a way to specifically screw him over, him getting mad is actually understandable. You're not doing it to be mean, but to force him to diversify, but from his perspective, he might perceive it as an attack against him.
I don't think any pre-written adventure is flexible enough for too many sideways ideas, let alone homebrew games. There's not really mechanics set up for that, and I'm not going to make some up.
Personally, I see this attitude as a problem. The reason we play D&D instead of a board game is, in part, because it can represent a much larger play space. The rules written only cover much of the most likely things that can happen, but there are plenty of voids (like fanning smoke into a room). While there may be many legitimate reasons for you to say no to a tactic, the fact that there aren't rules is no excuse in and of itself. My advice would be to pick some similar existing mechanic, and go from there. Sure, it will involve a fair amount of MTP (at least the first time the rule is used), but you could figure that X squares are filled each turn, then at some point, people become sickened (DC X), then as the smoke thickens, they become nauseated, and eventually, they can suffocate. Sure, you have to make something up for rates of smoke spreading and setting a DC, but there is plenty of traction in the rules for smoke sickening, nauseating, or killing people.
If you feel the dwarven craft of the place would stop him from doing so, explain that up front, but don't use it as a justification to look for reasons to shut him down, simply because you don't want to make an ad hoc ruling on something. I've played in games where the DM slowly reveals more and more details to shut down any tactics that aren't The One True Path, and it's frustrating.
That being said, he is being a complete tool as far as not acting on his turn, and he should be called out on that.
TL;DR: Don't say no just because there aren't rules, if the idea is otherwise feasible, and don't let the player just sit there in combat because he's throwing a hissy fit.
