This would get a warning in Bughouse. for a first offense.
While it’s generally true that once the game is over the result will stand, that isn’t carved in stone tablets. Verified player cheating or TD error could cause me to change a posted result. A problem in this specific situation is that neither of those apply.
White should not have been fiddling with Black’s Queen, but that doesn’t rise to the level of cheating. The Arbiter’s could have been more on top of their game than they were, but their actions or lack thereof don’t rise to the level of TD error.
A second problem is that Black had a remedy for his trouble within his grasp, and he failed to avail himself of it. Stopping the clock and demanding his Queen back, or a new one from the Arbiters would have done the trick. Instead he elected to place an inverted Rook on the board, and under FIDE rules whether the Rook is right side up, upside down, or sideways it is still a Rook.
Rules exist to help you make sense of a situation, but you can only do that if you know them and are willing to invoke them when necessary. Don’t expect an Appeals Committee to bail you out when you don’t.
Having played in Canada several times, I can tell you that Canadian players and arbiters have a different sense of what is right and wrong when a game of chess is played. Americans are quick to rush to the Rulebook to find some “black letter” rule to define which behavior is acceptable not acceptable. When such a section cannot be found, the offending player can crow “Victory!” and triumphantly rub his hands in glee that he has gotten away with something because what he did is not covered in the sacred Rules, FIDE or otherwise. In Canada, if you do something wrong, the arbiter might be polite about it, but he is going to tell you that what you did is wrong and that it will not be tolerated. What was wrong may not be explicitly written or stated, but if the players and/or arbiter thinks you did something underhanded, sly, on the borderline, crafty, shifty, or unethical you may have a problem.
Since they are using FIDE rules for the tournament, it is probable on appeal that the cheating player will get away with it. But being Canadians, they will take their own measures to make sure the scales of justice are balanced. The offending player will likely find it more difficult to get “conditions” to participate in future tournaments. The free hotel room, spending money, etc. might not be so easily had. The generally friendly attitude that Canadians have for all competitors will be granted to this fellow more sparingly. Arbiters will watch his games more closely for infractions.
Likely the individuals who will take the unofficial brunt of the appeal will be the arbiters. Some of these guys are really dedicated to chess and agonize over every little detail to make things good for the players. The arbiters are probably kicking themselves for not anticipating that someone would break the unwritten rules of decency and chess etiquette. Most of the players that they deal with would not even think of hiding a Queen or do just about anything to win. I have seen Canadians call their own flags and admit to their opponent that they had touched a piece while he was away from the board. They tell opponents to press the clock button when they forget; some even press the button themselves so as not to disturb the other players. I saw one arbiter deal with an incident where the player may have released a piece on a square, but then picked it up to place it on another square. The arbiter looked at him and he placed the piece back, apologizing to the arbiter and his opponent for his breach of manners. To cheat, or even come close to the line of cheating, is just not done. Canadians pride themselves on their ethics and fair play.
Your first paragraph leads me to believe that you are laboring under a common misconception, namely that the rulebook is an enabling document. Many people seem to believe that it is, and that the TD can only enforce rules or mete out penalties explicitly stated in the Rules of Chess. Not true. There is no rule that says I have to show you a rule.
In fact the Rules of Chess is a limiting document, not an enabling document. The TD can take any action or mete out any penalty s/he feels is appropriate to the situation at hand except where a specific action or penalty is stated in the Rules of Chess. Just because an action you take isn’t explicitly stated in the rules doesn’t necessarily mean a competent TD in the US is going to let you get away with it any more than will one in Canada.
No, it is NOT a rule. You will not find that in the rulebook:
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=207&view=article
It is a merely a note in the Arbiter’s Manual (p. 15): http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2016/Arbiters-Manual-2016.pdf
The player’s can be expected to read the rules, but they should not have to read the Arbiter’s Manual, too.
I can see the reason for the debate.
3.7.5.1 says that a pawn can be promoted to a piece and does not indicate the piece orientation, so an exacting reading would include an upside-down rook being a rook.
3.7.5.2 says that a player is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously, so an accommodating reading (when such uncaptured pieces are not available) would include using a substitute piece and stating what it is.
The arbiters’ handbook note indicates you should use the exact language of 3.7.5.1 rather than an interpretation of 3.7.5.2.
Bughouse is not chess.
I used to think that Bughouse was not “real chess”. However, if anything were to replace what has been termed “classical chess” in the minds of the public, it very likely would be Bughouse rather than Rapid, Quick Chess, or Blitz. We see more Bughouse than blitz at our club, and when I see a group of kids at big tournaments, they are much more likely to be playing Bughouse than blitz.
Bughouse has its own rules and a developing set of customs and norms for how to play. The kids tell me that there are even Bughouse openings. They say it helps them to think forward and improves their tactical skills. The social quality of the game lets all rating levels play together on a more equal basis. One of the customs is to not hide pieces in your hand or under the table. Another is to slide pieces across to the partner rather than hand them to him as it saves time. The players police the game themselves. Yes it is noisy, and an occasional adult will complain, but on the whole the energy it brings to the club’s social environment is a plus. As a team game, the pain of losing is diminished. Whacky things happen, groans and squeals of joy are common. The kids, ages 5 to 75, are bonding better together and eager to try “real chess”, too.
Playing Devil’s Advocate: for generations, it has been the custom for players to use an upside down Rook as a Queen when her majesty is already in use or extras are unavailable. In a practical setting, there may not be extra Queens for a number of reasons, including the sets may not come with an extra Queen, the organizer has put the other sets away at the end of the session or the finish of the tournament, and players refusing to allow the Queens from their sets to be used in another game. It is not easy for players or TDs/arbiters to follow a “best practice” when the needed pieces are not available. If the players know and agree that an upside down rook may deemed a Queen, speeding up the process and flow of play, it seems unnecessary for the TD/arbiter to intrude.
I have seen large tournament setups where all of the extra Queens are taken from the tables, placed in boxes, and squirreled away somewhere. In a playoff, one set is used. All of the other sets are or have been put away by the players or by an organizer who provides the sets and boards. While the TD/Arbiter should anticipate the need for extra pieces, he may not have that luxury at hand. For the sake of expediency, it seems logical for the players to assume an upside down Rook can be deemed a Queen. As TDs, we have seen players do that frequently during their games, and have not intruded, in order to not disturb the players conduct of the game.