In an OTB game what happens when you want to promote to a 2nd queen & theren't any spare queens arou

I feel the title of the thread is self explanatory. Suppose your original queen is still active on the board and you have the chance to promote a pawn to a 2nd queen and there just aren't any spare queens around. What do you do?

Is there a FIDE guideline on this.

I think I read that you're not allowed to use an upside down rook and say 'this is a queen' which is what I would do in my house.

You put the pawn on the square, stop the clock and ask for another queen.

You can, but if you try to move it along a diagonal your opponent is entitled to complain: "sorry but rooks don't move in that way".

But it's upside down! The international symbol for 'my set didn't come with a spare queen.'

That's fine for friendly games but in tournaments they always say before you start, that you mustn't use an upside down rook for a queen, instead as Pulp said you pause the clock and ask for another Queen, or take one from an empty board next to you.

Could be there isn't any rook available either anyway.

@Pulpofeira - "You put the pawn on the square, stop the clock and ask for another queen."

That makes a lot of sense. However just one clarification. I read that the way to promote under official rules is that you don't push the pawn to the last rank. Instead you just put the piece you are going to promote on the final rank ahead of your pawn and remove the pawn.

So if you push the pawn to the final rank and stop the clock then are you not violating the rules of promotion?

It can be done in both ways. Take a look at this article of FIDE laws of chess for example:

4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is then considered to have been made:

a. in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand

b. in the case of castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal

c. in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player's hand has released the new piece after placing it on the promotion square. If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has reached the promotion square, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square. 

I suppose you could stop the clock before moving the pawn if you prefer, though, but this could lead to confusion since there are other moves available.

aerodarts wrote:

Quite simply, GM Sambuev grabbed the enemy's queen few minutes before, after an exchange, and it was not within a reach. I want to stress it clearly - GM Sambuev held it for several minutes, and NOT when IM Noritsyn started pushing pawns. So, there is a good reason to believe it was unintentional.

I emphatically disagree. There is EVERY reason to believe it was intentional.

1. It is a well known "tactic" employed by "cheaters" in every skittles room.

2. He was holding two pieces, making deniability easier to accept that his intent was to withhold just the Queen.  

3. He hid the pieces and held them for minutes. If the opponent noticed and called him on it, they could be returned with no penalty, as more than 2 minutes remained.

4. His "slight of hand" returning of the pieces to the table, acting as if they were present, pointing to the Queen as available.

5. He took no accountability as to having held the pieces. 

All these facts point directly to an obvious attempt at deception. He is a professional having played 1000,s + blitz games. He knew exactly what he was doing. The question is whether the inept conduct of the arbiters (They had to be summoned from another section) resulting in a breach of "Fair Play Rules" outweighs whether Noritsyn should have stopped the clock is the issue. There is precedence for arbiters incorrect rulings being overruled and results changed.

Because he palmed the Queen immediately after exchanges and minutes left on each clock is reason to suspect deceptive intent, not the opposite, that of "innocence". It is much easier to spot someone palming a Queen if it were on the table, not much time and a pawn race. Hence, the well known "tactic" is to palm the Queen after an exchange and never place it on the table. Unfortunately, Noritsyn was too caught up in the game and the time pressure. However, he should not be penalized for an "honest" mistake. He announced Queen. Sambuev was not adhering to "Fair Play" rules before nor after the event. This can take priority if an arbiter were present to witness (which they were not) during the game or after it's conclusion.

It was a sly trick, but not against the rules.  The guy promoting should have stopped the clock, plain and simple, to locate another queen.  If he didn't do that he can't complain.  It's his fault for not knowing the rules

There is not a specific clause regarding the hiding of pieces. (You can bet there soon will be). It would be impossible to list all the things that constitute unfair play and bad sportsmanship. But this is why arbiters are hired and needed. To enforce such policies with unbiased rulings based on good common sense.

Sambuev was not playing with good sportsmanship and violated fair play rules for the entire  2nd half of the game. Arbiters should have been present to correct this. They had to be summoned from another section after the incident occured, and again proceeded in an unprofessional and incorrect manner. The video evidence is abundantly clear. But since when is FIDE known for doing the right thing ? It'll most likely stand behind their inept arbiters and deny all responsibility.

The crux of the matter is simple. Results can be overturned. A clear example is cheating with an engine. If it is found after the conclusion of a game, there is no hesitation in disqualifying the offender. It is a violation of fair play rules. There exist several such violations that could result in forfeit. The question is will the intentional hiding of pieces, the clear attempt at deception of an opponent AND the arbiters be deemed a flagrant enough infraction of fair play rules to warrant a reversal. ADD to this the incompetence of the arbiters in not being present to prevent the occurrence, much less making a 2nd Queen available to begin the match.

But cheating with an engine is against the rules.  Bad sportsmanship, by definition, isn't against the rules.  You can't prove that the hiding of the pieces was intentional, and even if it was, there isn't a rule I'm aware of that specifically bans it.  The job of the arbiters is to enforce the rules, not to decide that a player's action was unsporting and then overturn the result of a game because in their view there was unsporting behavior.  While I agree that the arbiters didn't do a great job, especially about making another queen available, it's unfair to the winner to overturn the result because the arbiter screwed up.   The arbiter's mistake, while affecting the loser in the actual game, was neutral on it's face because neither side had an extra queen available.  It could have easily been the winner who needed another queen and didn't have one.  

Your comments seem to indicate a near level of certainty that this was willful and deliberate or abundantly clear, which I disagree with.  I agree that it was probably intentional, but there isn't enough evidence to prove it.  Plus, I don't think it was "flagrant enough infraction" because the losing player still could have stopped the clock.

The player who lost had a simple recourse: stop the clock and locate a queen.  That recourse is in the rules and he failed to do it.  In my opinion, his failure to follow a rule that would have completely avoided the situation bars him from arguing that the arbiter should have acted differently and that the result should be changed.  While the arbiter should be disciplined, the loser had a clear chance to avoid the bad outcome despite the arbiter's error and failed to do so.  

It's also not guaranteed that had the loser promoted to a queen he would have won the game.  In a time scramble, who knows what would have happened?  I think that giving the loser the win is absurd and the most drastic action that could be enforced is replaying the game.  That said, I think the result should stand.  There isn't strong enough evidence of an actual rule being broken to justify changing the result.  The possibility (even probable likelihood) of non-illegal but unsporting behavior isn't enough to warrant a result change, in my opinion