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

Fairly clear I would say, Prof!

If bad sportsmanship were against the rules, it wouldn't be called bad sportsmanship, it would be called cheating.  Bad sportsmanship is when a person does something that isn't against the rules but most people would look at as distasteful.  The arbiter can warn someone not to do something and many of the rules are broad, like rules against annoying the opponent, but what happened here isn't enough to warrant flipping the result

Anyone who subscribes to the idea that hiding a Queen from an opponent in a blitz game does not constitute poor sportsmanship is clearly in error. This tactic has been around since blitz began. It can never be assumed to be innocent, especially by a professional who has played 1000's of games. The "proof" is in his "slight of hand" returning of the pieces to the table and committing himself to deniability or taking any responsibility, in fact declaring the Queen was available. He stated "he knew the rook would not be allowed as a Queen". What other facts do you need? You'd probable have acquitted OJ ! 

Sambuev did hide the queen intentionally, why else didn't he intervene when the arbiters said there's a queen on the board? He casually returned it and acted like it was there all along..

Again, you haven't proven that he intended to hide the queen in order to harm his opponent.  You also haven't demonstrated that it's against the rules.  Arbiters follow rules, not their personal beliefs about what is and isn't proper conduct.  Some of the rules allow for the arbiters to invoke their judgment, but if something isn't against the rules there's nothing the arbiters can or should do.  Their job is to follow rules, not make them.  If the loser had stopped the clock none of this would have happened.  You also haven't (and can't) demonstrate that the loser would have won had he promoted to a queen.  Your posts seem full of opinion and emotion rather than actual rules and regulations.  The undeniable fact is that the loser should have stopped the clock but didn't and wrongly thought an upside down rook was a queen.  Two fatal errors on his part.  He has no one to blame but himself

Read it again knightour. "It is impossible to describe all things that are unsportsmanlike or not adhering to fair play". There is no list of this is or that is not bad sportsmanship. That is why arbiters are trained and employed. Is there a rule that states it is improper to kick your opponent under the table ? Of course not. Common sense and good judgement guides the decision process.  

There are rules that prohibit intentionally distracting your opponent. Some are explicitly defined such as "talking" to your opponent. If an arbiter is present, he can stop the clocks, give a warning and possibly default a player for a 2nd infraction. The arbiter does not need a complaint made by an opponent if he views 1st hand the infraction. If he is called to the table, a warning is given and it is his responsibility to make further observation.

The offender may try to say he wasn't talking to his opponent, but to himself. It does not matter. The behavior is distracting, no proof is required of his intent. The talking must end or default the game. Of course, no "absolute" proof of Sambuevs intent can be made. Only he can answer that. But it is clear he was deceptive. That is all the evidence needed to reach a fair decision.

Kicking your opponent is covered under "things that annoy your opponent" which is a rule, as I noted above.  I also agreed that many of the rules require or allow the arbiters to use some judgment.  However, kicking your opponent is different because there's no rational reason why anyone would do it other than to disturb their opponent or try to get an advantage.  Here, however, players hold pieces all the time.  Many top pros like to have a piece in their hand while they think.  While I agree that the winner was probably doing this on purpose, there's enough of a possible non-illegal motive that the result should not be overturned.  If this behavior was something that no one ever did without trying to cheat, I'd probably agree with you, but the act of holding a piece during play is fairly common and is probably innocent most of the time.  And I'll say again, the loser should have stopped the clock and should have known that an upside down rook is not a queen under FIDE rules.  He could have mitigated or completely eliminated the harm he suffered but didn't.

Think of it this way: is holding a piece in hand always or nearly always an attempt to cheat?  I don't think so.  Are there players who do this regularly with no intention to cheat?  Of course.  Because of the possible legal motives I think making a call that forfeits a player would be giving too much discretionary power to the arbiter.  They should only act if it's clear and unambiguous, which isn't the case here

I don't actually have a problem with Sambuev holding the queen intentionally or unintentionally, the problem is when the two arbiters point to the queen and said there is the queen.. He didn't say anything, in my opinion he should have said something..  Nikolay on the other hand should have known the rules.. 

The act of holding the opponents Queen in a Blitz game is not probably innocent nor is it fairly common. It is a well known tactic used with the clear intent of distraction and or deception. You want to believe otherwise. Go right ahead. You won't find more than a handful of 1000's of players who would agree with you. 

1. It was a blitz game

2. It was a Queen (and a 2nd piece, making deniability easier)

3. He lied to the arbiter, deceptively replacing the pieces on the table.

4. He held onto the pieces for the several minutes, giving ample time to be aware he was palming the Queen which the arbiters had failed to provide.

5. He said afterwards "he knew the upside down Rook would not be allowed as a Queen", proving he was aware he held the Queen in his hands making it not available.

6. When the arbiter arrived, having returned the Queen to the table, he pointed to it saying it was available. Flat out LIED

What more "evidence" is required to determine the intent? 

Whatever the rules, Sambuev's future career will be watched with interest.

Nowhere in FIDE's rules does it state intent needs to be proven.

The act itself is the issue. (As a persons intent can never be proven, except by the person themselves, and then they'd have to taken at their word)

It is NOT a normally accepted standard of courtesy nor proper chess etiquette to hold the opponents Queen in your hands, hiding it from view, especially in a blitz game. His intent needs not be proven ! 

It is the act itself that violates generally acceptable standards.

I watched the video a 3rd time and noticed something I had not seen. Sambuev, during the arbiters explanation and the clocks were stopped, reached across the table, picked up the White Queen, palmed it in his left hand, and hid it from everyone's view under the table. 

He knew exactly what he was doing the whole time. While holding the Black pieces, he was not "feeling the pieces while thinking" as some suggest. They were in his left hand, hand under the table, hidden from view, no movement what so ever for a minute, until the exact moment Black took the Rook and announced Queen, is the EXACT moment he returned the pieces to the table in a quick, rapid almost slight of hand flourish. He was looking the other way, let his left hand linger and shuffle in the pieces. 

In the commotion, the palming of the White Queen, can be questioned as legal. On his move he then had the Queen already in hand for promotion, before his pawn made the 8th. This was done while the clocks were stopped. A violation. The guy was "slick". Knew precisely he was deceiving his opponent and arbiters.

Yet another example of the arbiters incompetence. With the clocks stopped and while they were making a ruling, they "allowed" Sambuev to reach across the table and palm the White Queen, saving himself precious time on the clock, as he was very low in a time scramble. Not a single action of his lends itself to "innocent behavior".  Everything points to intentional deception. 

Yes, the rules are clear. But it's hard to follow such a rule in blitz with adrenaline running. As Sutovsky pointed out, the arbiter failed in several ways in this game. 

With any luck, the people reading this thread will know in the future that they have the right to stop the clock to promote, even in blitz.

pretty much this!

in our house we put the pawn that got promoted on top of a rook because it more resembles a queen so it's easier to look at it and think "queen"