Henry:
Yours is not the common interpretation. The applicable part of the CQWW
rules reads:
C. Multi-Operator Categories (all band operation only).
1. Single Transmitter, only one transmitter and one band
permitted during any 10 minute period defined as starting with the
first logged QSO on a band. Exception: One-and only one-other band
may be used during any 10 minute period if-and only if-the station
worked is a new multiplier. Logs found in violation of the 10
minute rule will be automatically reclassified as multi-multi.
The phrase beginning with "Exception" permits the 20 meter operator to make
the new-multiplier QSO CONCURRENT WITH the 40 meter operators run. The two
transmitters may be keyed concurrently.
I agree with you that this isn't strictly "single transmitter" in the
obvious sense of the phrase. It's one of the quirks of CQWW that makes
contesters' lives interesting! I would argue that what is permitted is
what the rules actually say, not what the common-sense interpretation of
"single transmitter" means.
OIher contests have different rules for their Multi-Single category.
I confess that it took me a few readings of the rules and a talk or two with
more experienced folks to understand. I took it as a rite of passage, one
of contesting's "mysteries of the ages".
By the way, I have in the past operated multi-multi with two guys and two
radios simply because we didn't want to be constrained by the 10-minute rule
and wanted to be able to work anybody we came across. We had a lot of fun
and made more QSOs and points and suffered less "QSO envy" than we would
have as multi-single. We did very well for our country.
73 de Dick, K6KR
CQWW M/S operator at K6IDX and GB5CW
-----Original Message-----
From: HENRY <n4vhk@summitschool.com>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] M/S questions
>Agreed, except that you said "other than for multiplier purposes". Here's
my
>2 cents..
>
>An example... If a M/S station is working on 40 (S&P, or run, makes no
>difference), and they find a new mult on 20 , they MUST NOT, by virtue of
>the intent of the rule, call the mult on 20 while working on 40. If they
>are, the intent of the rule seems to put them M/M. Of course, I may be
>wrong, but I understand Martin's frustration. Then again, maybe that's why
>my numbers are not in the top 10, hi.
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|