Kids SquINT (Kids Contest)

John A. Ross, IV wb2k at
Sat Apr 1 04:38:52 EST 1995

>Do the kids need to be operating under there own call?  Or do we controll
>op for them?  My 10 year old is still hacking her way through the  tech +
>book and I dont think she'll be general by April 15

Hi George...
Most of the folks simply have their kids sit in their laps and use the
adults call. In your case (with a 10 year old), you may want to give her
her own chair (hi).
73, John

John A. Ross, IV  - WB2K / VE2TJA [Zone 2]  (wb2k at
Bell Atlantic Business Systems Services

>From p_casier at (Peter Casier)  Sat Apr  1 08:39:21 1995
From: p_casier at (Peter Casier) (Peter Casier)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 10:39:21 +0200
Subject: 9Q5TT - Arrl DX phone test result (late)
Message-ID: <199504010839.KAA02164 at>

                 ARRL INTERNATIONAL DX CONTEST -- 1995

      Call: 9Q5TT (ON6TT, op)        Country:  9Q
      Mode: SSB                      Category: Single Operator 
                                     All band - high power


      160        0        0           0
       80       21       63          12
       40      244      732          36
       20      519     1557          49
       15      594     1782          49
       10      168      504          27

     Totals   1546     4638         173  =   802,374

Equipment Description:
- FT900 + FL7000 500w amp
- R7 and homemade 18m vertical toploaded for 80 and 160

Club Affiliation:  Rhein Ruhr DX Association (RRDXA)

"CQ contest - from the refugee camps in Goma." 
Though being DX, I did have trouble finding a clear frequency 
... and keeping it.
Real bad propagation the 2nd day. Only had openings to the US for 
2-3 hours.

p_casier at

>From p_casier at (Peter Casier)  Sat Apr  1 08:39:28 1995
From: p_casier at (Peter Casier) (Peter Casier)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 10:39:28 +0200
Subject: 4U9Q WPX phone test results
Message-ID: <199504010839.KAA02168 at>

                  CQ WORLD WIDE PREFIX CONTEST -- 1995

      Call: 4U9Q  (ON6TT,op)         Country:  Zaire
      Mode: SSB                      Category: Single Operator
                                               All band - low power


       20      210      436   2.1      136
       10      152      452   3.0       71

     Totals    362      888   2.5      207  =   183,816

Equipment Description:
- FT900/AT barefoot 100 W
- R7 vertical + toploaded vertical homemade for 80/160

Comments: too many generator problems to be competitive

Club Affiliation: Rhein Ruhr DX Association (RRDXA)

p_casier at

>From p_casier at (Peter Casier)  Sat Apr  1 08:39:25 1995
From: p_casier at (Peter Casier) (Peter Casier)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 10:39:25 +0200
Subject: 9Q5TT - WPX PHONE TEST results
Message-ID: <199504010839.KAA02166 at>

                  CQ WORLD WIDE PREFIX CONTEST -- 1995

      Call: 9Q5TT (ON6TT, op)        Country:  Zaire
      Mode: SSB                      Category: Single Operator
                                               High power - 
                                               Single band 15m


       15     1494     4388   2.9      504

     Totals   1494     4388   2.9      504  =   2,211,552

All reports sent were 59(9), unless otherwise noted.

Equipment Description:
- FT900/AT - Ameritron Amp (400W)
- R7

Club Affiliation: Rhein Ruhr DX Association (RRDXA)

Comments: loads of 40 Kw generator problems limited my time on the 
radio to a very minimum. By the end of the contest, the generator 
caught fire and went up in flames. Not before spitting out 400V and 
blowing up the amp though.

p_casier at

>From Kurt Pauer <0006743923 at>  Sat Apr  1 14:42:00 1995
From: Kurt Pauer <0006743923 at> (Kurt Pauer)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 95 09:42 EST
Subject: Multipliers
Message-ID: <03950401144230/0006743923ND3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

This is a retransmission of a message I received:
For all real contesters,                          April 1, 1995
As I sit here and read some messages about diluting the effects of CQing
on the final score, it occurs to me that there is an easier solution.
If multipliers could only be counted in the S&P mode and could not be
counted when answering your CQ, there might be a lot less CQing.  The
argument, often seen here, that packet does not help the top operators
would no longer be valid, as it would be important to acquire multipliers
by calling them.  Having access to a packet spotting network would be
crucial to achieving a high score, whether you claimed "assisted" or
not.  Another deep thought is that of equalizing the country count in
each continent.  Taking into account the activity level in each country,
European multipliers might count as 1, South American multipliers as
2, African multipliers as 5, and Asian multipliers as 9.  I must also
admit that some of these ideas came from my good friend, Emil Heissenluft,
K6VG, who has stopped contesting because of all the CQing that goes on 
(he can't hear the Europeans through the east coast QRM) and because the
east coast has a distinct advantage to multipliers (lots of European
countries close by).  He dismissed Trey's idea (single European multiplier)
as being too radical.   Even though these are great ideas, I don't think
the CAC will adopt them, because all those guys just want to continuously 
push the F1 button to make high scores.
                                  Jack Handey, W1KP

>From Dr. Eugene Zimmerman" <ezimmerm at  Sat Apr  1 15:00:04 1995
From: Dr. Eugene Zimmerman" <ezimmerm at (Dr. Eugene Zimmerman)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 10:00:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CQ CQ CQ CQ
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950401094735.3190B-100000 at DGS>

Trey -- you have a marvellous idea!

> I think Tom is on the right track for sure.  The clear solution to the 
> problem is cut down the number of multipliers in these contests.  Given 
> the direction the European Community is moving, I think a logical first 
> step would be to count the entire EC as a single country for multiplier 
> purposes.  This step alone would be a huge stride toward making the 
> QSO/mult ratio less favorable favorable for CQing and make the bigs guys 
> spend more time looking.
> PS:  :-)

To encourage S&P even further, let's also modify the scoring such that 
the first 50 Q's in a given country count the usual point value, the next 
50 Q's count half that much, and all above that point count for 1/10 as 
much.  This would make the CQing vs. S&P an even more difficult choice to 
make and might require that special software be included in the logging 
program.  Just think, another window to encourage the program to crash. :-)

More seriously, a real alternative would be to give disproportionate 
value to the first contact with a given multiplier on each band, e.g., 
the first JA you work on 20 would be worth 30 points instead of 3.  This 
is an old idea I heard voiced first by Tom Peruzzi W4BVV builder of one 
of the original multi-multi superstations.  Tom said that the DX contests 
had degenerated into a Sweepstakes with the JAs replacing the WB2's and 
DLs replacing the WA6's.  You called CQ day and night and it really was 
not much fun.

73  Gene  W3ZZ

>From George Cook <george at>  Sat Apr  1 15:02:09 1995
From: George Cook <george at> (George Cook)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 15:02:09 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: WPX Improper operation..what to do?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950401150021.5418B-100000 at>

If you call the ARRL they will tell you to inform a local OO.  I would 
suggest the same.
Also confonting him directly is good.  And if you tell me who he is I 
personally wont work him out of band.  I have a black list of ops that I 
will not work for any reason.  It may hurt my score by a point or two but 
I don't work lids.

* George Cook   AA3JU  Bangor, PA  FN21         *
* george at  AA3JU at N3IQD.EPA.USA.NA *
* If you're not FRC remember:...............    *
* .......There's no shame in being 2nd best!    *

>From John Pescatore <jpescato at>  Sat Apr  1 15:16:11 1995
From: John Pescatore <jpescato at> (John Pescatore)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 10:16:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: autek
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9504011007.B25783-c100000 at>

On Fri, 31 Mar 1995 bill.lumnitzer at wrote:

>    => Quoting Jallyn at
>  Ja> Any company that doesn't listen to their customers deserves to be in
>  Ja> the  class of the now defunct Telrex.  There is simply no excuse for
>  Ja> the kind of 
>  Ja> treatment that Autek gave to OE6MBG.
>  Ja> If Autek continues there policies of poor customer support, a lousy 
>  Ja> attitude, not delivering working products and failure to support them
>  Ja> with  fair policies, then I have no sympathy for them.
>  Ja> In this hobby, it is especially important to keep customers happy if
>  Ja> you  want to keep them at all. After all, communications is what it is
>  Ja> all about, 
>  Ja> and the word spreads fast. Fortunately we don't have to put up with
>  Ja> this  crap..there are many other more customer oriented suppliers that
>  Ja> would love 
>  Ja> to have the business.  The hell with Autek.
> Maybe so, but as far as I know, no other instrument in the same price class
> can compare to the RF-1.  Bill told me that they were selling like hotcakes
> in Japan so maybe he simply doesn't need our business.  I wouldn't spite
> myself though, because the RF-1 is a very handy device. I also have an
> MFJ box but it's usually left on the shelf.  I'll admit that Bill can be
> a tad snippy on the phone at times. :-)
> 73 Bill N6CQ  (n6cq at
Some years back I had an unpleasant experience with Autek.  I bought
one of their keyers (and still have 3 working in 1995) but never
received it.  They were uncooperative and had a bad attitude when
I contacted them about it and informed me that "You signed for it!"
I said, "No, I didn't!  I haven't gotten it yet!"  They insisted
I HAD gotten it.  They read to me my address, which was incorrect.

As it turned out, it had somehow been delivered to a different
Richard Boyd in my town.  I went and knocked on his door and he
admitted he had gotten it, signed for it, etc., and his dad being
a ham, had sent it to his dad.  He was reluctant to give it back
but eventually did.

Autek was very uncooperative in the affair and left a bad
impression on me.

(Rich Boyd KE3Q)

>From John Pescatore <jpescato at>  Sat Apr  1 15:20:25 1995
From: John Pescatore <jpescato at> (John Pescatore)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 10:20:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: WPX Improper operation..what to do?
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9504011023.D25783-b100000 at>

On Fri, 31 Mar 1995 dhs-dlr at wrote:

> Several times during last weekends WPX I found a local amateur operating as a 
> contestant, out of his license class privileges. I have known for quite a while that 
> this is routine to him in both contests and chasing DX. And yes he does submit 
> his scores and sometimes places quite high for his category/region.
> Inthis particular instance the station was being operated as a multi and one of the 
> ops will verify in writing as to the improper operation.
> My question is what should I do about it? Obviuosly the FCC is not going to 
> chase someone down for this. But are there actions that can be taken either by 
> other amateurs or the contest committee that can let this individual know that 
> fellow contesters are not going to put up with it.
> Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
> You may reply direct if you'd like. Tnx and 73
> Doug Scribner - KD1GJ
> email: dhs-dlr at
Were any of the other ops of the appropriate license class.  Is it possible
it could be legal if one of them technically was the control op,
regardless of which callsign they used?

(Rich Boyd KE3Q)

>From D.C. Henderson" <n0dh at  Sat Apr  1 15:31:55 1995
From: D.C. Henderson" <n0dh at (D.C. Henderson)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 07:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Cushcraft vs Butternut
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950401072916.2676A-100000 at comtch>


Have used roof mounted B'Nuts for years..they work great at least on 40M 
and above. On 80 and 160 they ara little short but I did manage to work 
Peter I island last year on 160m SSB so go figure.

I have never used any of th R series verticals by Cushcraft so cant compare.

n0dh at comtch>

>From Larry Tyree <tree at>  Sat Apr  1 16:10:20 1995
From: Larry Tyree <tree at> (Larry Tyree)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 08:10:20 -0800
Subject: CQ CQ CQ
Message-ID: <199504011610.IAA19959 at>

Well, I am not sure making multipliers count for more is going to decrease
CQing.  You have to realize that a fair number of rare mults answer these
CQs.  Also, if someone is using two radios, it is no problem continuing 
to hold a CQ frequency while S&Ping for mults on another band.

For the same reason, making mults only count from S&P QSOs won't solve
the problem, plus that would be a hard one to really enforce.

One idea that always goes through my mind is to be able to listen to
someone CQing, and if they have called 10 or 20 CQs in a row without working
someone, be able to call them on it and they have to give you the frequency.

Perhaps a new Q signal:

QCQ #? : You have called # CQs in a row without an answer and I would 
like a shot at trying some CQs.  Would you please QSY so I can have your

QCQ : I recognize your request and will honor it because I am a good sport.
I will go do some S&Ping for awhile and then call CQ somewhere else.

Working someone on your other radio doesn't count obviously.

If you hear me call 10 CQs without an answer and you want my frequency,
give it a try.

Tree N6TR
tree at

>From John Pescatore <jpescato at>  Sat Apr  1 17:04:41 1995
From: John Pescatore <jpescato at> (John Pescatore)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 12:04:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CQ CQ CQ
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9504011239.A22010-b100000 at>

On Sat, 1 Apr 1995, Larry Tyree wrote:

> Well, I am not sure making multipliers count for more is going to decrease
> CQing.  You have to realize that a fair number of rare mults answer these
> CQs.  Also, if someone is using two radios, it is no problem continuing 
> to hold a CQ frequency while S&Ping for mults on another band.
> For the same reason, making mults only count from S&P QSOs won't solve
> the problem, plus that would be a hard one to really enforce.
> One idea that always goes through my mind is to be able to listen to
> someone CQing, and if they have called 10 or 20 CQs in a row without working
> someone, be able to call them on it and they have to give you the frequency.
> Perhaps a new Q signal:
> QCQ #? : You have called # CQs in a row without an answer and I would 
> like a shot at trying some CQs.  Would you please QSY so I can have your
> frequency?
> QCQ : I recognize your request and will honor it because I am a good sport.
> I will go do some S&Ping for awhile and then call CQ somewhere else.
> Working someone on your other radio doesn't count obviously.
> If you hear me call 10 CQs without an answer and you want my frequency,
> give it a try.
> Tree N6TR
> tree at
This might work if the op you give the freq to has to give it back to
you 10 minutes later when you return and say QCQ?

(Rich Boyd KE3Q)

>From Pete Stafford <mxyztplk at>  Sat Apr  1 18:33:35 1995
From: Pete Stafford <mxyztplk at> (Pete Stafford)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 13:33:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Contester Rating System
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9504011153.C29888-0100000 at>

Now that Ward, N0AX, has put together and published a well-considered 
approach to the thorny problem of contester rankings, and especially 
since the contest season is now pretty well done, I figure it is a good 
time to finally post some of the reponses to the thread I started back in 

Some similarities exist to Ward's proposal, but I guess the essence of 
the difference is that it is my feeling, (and some others), that instead of 
trying to calculate who the best contester on the planet might be (with 
all the attendant difficulty inherent in this), let's just focus on 
achievement over time.  


I finally got around to reading NCJ for Nov/Dec, and I read Trey's 
editorial.  In it he talked about some similarities between Duplicate 
(competitive) Bridge and radio contesting.  I found the comparisons 
interesting, since some years ago my XYL and I played a bit on the Bridge 
tournament trail.

But I got to thinking that perhaps some other features of Duplicate might 
have some applicability to what we do here, and perhaps provide a new way 
to measure contest performance.

Most of you have probably heard the term "Life Master" pertaining to some 
lofty achievement of Bridge players.  It is not an easy rank to attain, 
but it does not necessarily mean that you are a fantastic player.  
Master status comes with placing ( I forget exactly, but some percentage 
of the number of players "place") in tournament "sections"( typically 
15-16 pairs).  Placing yields "master points", the higher the place the 
more points.  Points (higher numbers) are given when your scores place 
over all sections put together.

The idea here is that winning points can occur without actually winning a 
tournament with hundreds of players.  In radio contesting we place in 
sections, or perhaps top 10, but when the results are printed we go on to 
the next test.  No one tracks the cumulative accomplishments over many 
events over many years.  Much of the allure of tournament Bridge comes 
from earning points with the goal of becoming a Master, National Master, 
and so forth, up to Life Master.

Perhaps, with the controversies surrounding the comparison of stations 
with differing hardware, we could refocus our contesting goals to 
attaining some longer term status.  QRPers could earn points placing 
within QRP categories, ARRL section or CQ Zone, and national or world 
winners can earn higher numbers 
of points placing in national/world categories.  A different 
scale can be used for each 
category that measures the level (not just the number) of participants, 
and that then impacts the awarded points.

Life Master status does require some special points ("Gold Points") which 
can only be earned in National or Regional tournaments and only in 
certain high-level events.  CQWW top 10%, perhaps?

Multi-multi efforts might be great ways for lesser stations to gain 
points since the scores would be divided in some way (especially "Gold 

I can see lots of possibilities here.  Whaddya all think??

73 de Pete, K2PS  <mxyztplk at>


- I like the  idea, Pete.  If there is enough support, perhaps you
could present a proposal to the CAC.  73, Walt, W0CP
- Pete, sounds like a great idea.  Go for it!73,   Jim   WY0J
- I think the master points and title idea is great (the same
thing is also done in chess BTW).  
Probably the easiest thing to do would be to assign points
for 3rd, 2nd, and 1st place finishes in each category with
multipliers of 1, 2, and 3 for sectional, divisional, and national
finishes.  I suppose we also need national and international categories.
Let us know what you propose.  It could be done on a private
basis if no national org wants to take it up. Ed Jensen, K5ED, El Paso, TX
- Sounds like an answer to the 'regional inequities' thing.  And a way to
increase participation in the 'unfavored regions', perhaps. K5GN
- I appreciated your posting.  One of the things that makes the masterpoint 
system and its associated ratings go is the major role of ACBL in administering 
its operation. We would have to start much smaller than that.  You may be 
interested to know that a group chaired by Ward, N0AX (hwardsil at,
has been developing a Rating System for Contest Operators.  With luck
a description of it will appear in NCJ before long.  It has the notion
of a Lifetime Rating, but operators would not accumulate points in the
way that bridge players can.  I don't know how much allure such a
cumulative system would add to radio contesting.  If we can get the
Rating System off the ground, it will be interesting to see whether
the response pushes it in the direction of tracking cumulative


Just before the holidays I posted  a message comparing Bridge and 
Contesting, with an eye to adapting the Duplicate (competitive) Bridge 
scheme of ranking players to radio contesting.  Basically I suggested:
  Track performance over a lifetime of contesting
  Accumulate "points" based on performance within categories (State, 
Zone, SOA, QRP - however the sponsor sets it up 
  Award points for placing in the top x% of particpants in the category, 
with most points to 1st place, fewer to second, etc.
  Rank the category so that more important contests award more points for 
placing highly.
  Placing nationally or globally award more points.
  Award rankings "Master Contester", "National Contester", "World 
Contester", etc. to attainment of certain point totals.

I got only five responses: W0CP, WY0J, K5ED, K5GN, and K8JLF.  All were 
supportive.  I found out that competitive Chess does much the same 
thing.  It was recognized that the scheme will reward consistent 
participation regardless of category, and perhaps address the regional 
inequities problem, and increase participation in 'unfavored regions'.

Perhaps the greatest impediment here is that a program such as this must 
be administered by someone or some organization.  I think doing it 
privately would doom it to failure, so ARRL, CQ, maybe a big Contest Club 
would have to handle it.

According to Dave, K8JLF, N0AX is chairing a group developing a rating 
system for Contest Ops, but points would not accumulate, so it probably 
would emphasize the big guns.

Frankly, I was surprised that only 5 responses were received.  This could 
be a major change in contest incentives, and I think would greatly expand 
participation and interest, but when 20 people respond to a question on 
Vertical antennas but only 5 to this, I come to the conclusion that it's 
not ready for prime time.
73 de Pete  mxyztplk at


- He who has the most fun is the best contester.  Any system to try to define
who the best contesters will never be perfect and the results will never
be accepted unless they support the current thinking of who is hot (ie:
KR0Y, OH2MM and so on). Creating this system is a different hobby than 
contesting.  The N0AX think is doomed to fail for the same reasons.] 
This doesn't mean it is hopeless.  There is a pretty good feeling amoung
people who have been doing this for awhile about who is good and who 
isn't.  The way to get noticed is the same as to achieve a high rating
in a system: be active and work lots of guys.  W5NR isn't a contest winner,
but he is always there and he is known for it.  N6AA has some of the 
most puny scores around, because he keeps operating from strange places
where you can't win, but we all remember his domination of the CQ WW
contest in the 70's and understand he could probably do it again if he
wanted. Tree N6TR

	K2PS: Thanks for your response.  Actually, I wasn't looking to determine 
who the "best" operator is, since that is really impossible to determine.  
Rather, it just seemed to me that interest and participation might be 
increased if people have goals to attain. 
This is not a new concept.  We do it in terms of license class.  The Army 
does it, corporations do it.  Provide a way for people to work hard and 
gain small increments of success which ultimately add up to large success 
and ranking and you appeal to more than we can possibly do now on a 
single contest basis.
Actually, DXCC and WAZ reward success over time too, and those are 
immensely successful, attracting much interest.  We both know that it is 
really diligence and hard work which is rewarded, not (primarily) skill.
Does that make my suggestion clearer?

- This seems like at very difficult venture.  In duplicate bridge the biggest 
variable is your partner.  All other variables have been removed i.e. location, 
equipment, hands, etc.  In ham radio contesting there are variables galore:        
Regions (propagation),Attenna locations within regions, Size of attenna 
farms,Quality of station,etc. It will be hard for someone with one or no towers 
working high power to beat K1AR @ K1EA.  I'm not knocking John's operating skill 
I'm convinced he's damn good.  But it just seems like there is no good way to 
normalize the points.  Do other contesters feel that the current categories are 
sufficient to recognize all the best operators or is there a sense that there 
might be some really good contesters out there who never make the top ten 
because of their lack of equipment? Jeff, N1OEK

	K2PS:Well actually I'm not trying to compare stations per se.  I think 
the current systems do that.  What I'm suggesting is quite the opposite.  My 
thinking is that stations can compete within whatever category (QRP, LOW PWR, 
New Jersey, etc) the contest sponsor sets up, and award points for placing (not 
only winning) in that category.  So even if a station 
finishes 6th, if 18 stations were competing in thgat category, he would 
win points. 
These points would be accumulated over a lifetime of contesting, and 
effectively award hard work and perseverence (kind of like DXCC or Honor 
Roll), and not just one time efforts, soon forgotten.
Does that make things clearer?

- I think it is a really good idea.  I like the idea of having "grand master"
status to shoot for (yeah right!).  This difficulty of course is coming
up with a way of treating each individual contest for rank.  Bridge and
Chess have the advantage of always having the same rules and point
accumulation game to game.  I think this system is something we should
work towards with lifetime accumulation. 73 de N1PBT...Ron
- In your system, how would you handle operators that are regulars at multi-op 
stations ??  There are an AWFUL LOT of REAL GOOD op's out there who, by choice 
or by lack of home station, staff all those kick-butt multi's.  I would say 
that any system that overlooked these people would not be a true reflection of 
the "state of contesting".  Keith WB9TIY
	K2PS: Absolutely, Keith.  I discussed the issue of multis in my initial 
missive.  As long as callsigns are reported to the contest sponsor a 
division of the score would certainly be appropriate.  We could argue 
about whether the station owner gets additional shares, or whether it 
becomes too complicated to divide shares in some other way, but I 
perceive multi-operating as perhaps a way for people to make scores on 
National or International scales.
In Bridge, Life Master status requires some number of points to be earned 
in Regional and National tournaments, in addition to those earned in 
smaller, local competitions.  So, if 300 points are required, maybe 50 
must be high level points ("Gold points").  Multi's might be the way for 
some to earn those "Gold" counters.
- I thought it was a great idea. Make it 6 in favor!  73! --Glenn - KB1GW
- I was tempted to respond to your initial posting that suggested
that the ranking system for duplicate bridge be adapted to
radio contesting.  Thinking your proposal to be a dead issue,
I overcame the temptation.  Perhaps the issue is not as dead
as I had believed.
This issue has been developed in the past on this
contest reflector.  As I recall, the response was generally
negative.  In bridge, the big variable is the player.  In radio
contesting, the equipment, the antennas, the local topography 
in which the antennas are installed, the geography, and so on, can be
as decisive a set of variables as operator skill.  Contest
results, therefore, are not as "pure" a measure of the player as are
tournament results in bridge.  For this reason, the
analogy to bridge rankings was found, after due analysis, not to 
be a good one. 
Proposals were made to apply a set of adjustment factors to
the variables, in an effort to isolate operator performance.
This proved to be a rather unproductive debate, as it did not
seem to lead to any consensus whatever. 
Without the adjustments, lifetime rankings are apt to turn on
the happenstance of one's access to good hardware, and the like.
and no consensus on appropriate adjustments seems to be forthcoming.
Now, if you want a system that does not attempt to factor out
the variables, go ahead.  But many "underprivileged" operators
are not going to be big fans of the result. 73 de Bob, K0KR
	K2PS: I appreciate your response.  Perhaps some clarification is in 
order.  The contrast where Bridge is "pure" is far from the truth.  One's 
partner is enormously important (I'd have had a much tougher time without my 
XYL!). Some people actually pay for "hired guns" to play with them in 
As far as attempting to eliminate variables I agree absolutely:  It ain't 
possible.  Rather, I envisioned this scheme just bcause this is true.  
What ends up happening is that since we know we can't compare, we trade 
single contest head-to-head competition for the grind it out lifetime of 
accomplishment.  One can attain "Life Master" status without winning 
contests, or even finishing in the Top 10.  But over years of finishing 
4th or 5th in a section, or jumping to QRP to perhaps place higher (or 
single bands, etc) within that category, the little pistol can attain 
status as well.  Multis divide scores in some way.
Bridge Life Masters must win "gold" points in National or Regional 
tourneys.  This tends to make it more difficult for weaker players, but 
they join teams of stronger ones to compete in high-level, "gold" 
awarding tournaments.  Multi-operations would be perfect!  We might even 
see more interest in joining these teams.

	K0KR: Contests wouldn't be much fun if the only participants were top-ten
types.  As a result, it is assuredly sound policy to encourage participation and 
enthusiasm in those who are apt to finish 5th in their section, or who prefer 
for any of a host of reasons to enter one of the less competitive (or less 
hardware-intensive) categories.
So, the *principle* that underlies your proposal is one I accept.
Also, for a host of reasons, the trend seems to be toward multi-op
competitions and away from individual efforts.  Thus, I understand 
the point of your following comment:
>Bridge Life Masters must win "gold" points in National or Regional 
>tourneys.  This tends to make it more difficult for weaker players, but 
>they join teams of stronger ones to compete in high-level, "gold" 
>awarding tournaments.  Multi-operations would be perfect!  We might even 
>see more interest in joining these teams.
Let's talk about this a bit more.  Would you make the lifetime
achievement system prospective only?  Or would it be retrospective,
looking at past, published results?
You and several others have observed, correctly, that many of the
inhabitants of this reflector are the driven, head-to-head-
competition types who won't be impressed by a consistent string of fifth-place 
finishes in, say, the Missouri Section.  I understand that your proposal is 
designed, however, to offer goals to a different constituency.  
The gung-ho types, though, will in my opinion be justified in
thinking that it typically takes many, many times more skill and effort
to finish no. 1 than it does to finish no. 5.  The order of finish
is not at all a linear proposition.  I ask, therefore:  is it
your primary purpose to honor and reward real performance or, rather,
merely to encourage participation and consistency at even a
mediocre level of performance.  
Perhaps the first purpose is already well served, while the second has been 
neglected.  I have to wonder, though, whether the pins-mugs system
doesn't already inspire as much activity as a "life master" system would.
73 de Bob, K0KR

	K2PS: Your comments are well-taken.  As to retrospective-ness(?) that's a 
good question.  Certainly it would be very interesting, and would give this 
thing a good kick start.  It would also be intersting to see if behavior would 
change in subsequent contests.  I suppose the important factor here (and is 
generally) would be who sets it up and who maintains it.  
Since a no. 1 is MUCH harder than no. 5, it might make sense to weight 
the higher places.  Would you include comparison of actual scores to 
decide?  No. 5 might have 50 QSO's with an hour or two of participation.  
Bridge ignores actual scores, but differences are typically not very 
I'm glad to see we're getting beyond the basic philosophy here.  Judging 
from other responses I've been getting, I think we're moving in the right 

- With regard to your contest ranking system idea...My very good friend 
and often multi-op partner Jerry (WM2V) and I had the very same thought 
while trying to locate a new multiplier during a recent contest. Frankly, 
I LOVE the idea. Not only would it establish a new definition of 
excellence, but it would surely entice many of the more casual ops to 
participate in a greater variety of contests. I think the reason your original 
posting got "overlooked" is because this reflector is comprised mainly of so-
called "big guns," and I don't really think they find this of significant 
interest. But all the other ops - the smaller shooters - would probably invite 
the proposal. You need to propagate this concept to a greater populous of more 
"common" contesters and sideliners. I'm not one of the big guys or a little 
pistol, but I do earn my share of local (section/district) certificates here on 
Long Island. I'll never take top scores world, but it would be simply wonderful 
if I could accumulate scores comparable to or besting my more local brethren. 
Don't give it up. 73 de Jeff WA2SYN
	K2PS: Thanks for your reply.  I have gotten more replies, and I think 
your assessment of the lack of interest by big guns is on the mark.  I've 
never worried much about them.  They get the plaques and certificates, so 
change is not so important.  But if you can create a competitive 
environment that lengthens the time-frame (i.e., a lifetime!), like DXCC 
really is, I think interest could get very big.  After all, DXCC is like 
one big lifetime contest.  No one knows (or cares) that it took someone 
40 years to make Honor Roll.  Why not for contesting?
- Hundreds of people have thought about their verticals a lot.  Very few have
considered ranking processes. You should communicate directly with Ward, N0AX, 
because his efforts actually have much in common with your ideas. PS You're also 
right about the need to have an organization to accomplish the task.  Ward may 
be building just such a group. Dave K5GN
- WN4KKN's NCJ editorial about his visit to a world bridge championship was good 
reading for this bridge playing radio contester.  I even showed it to my wife 
(and bridge partner) who couldn't imagine why I was asking her to read something 
in the NCJ. (She still doesn't like radios.)  
I agree with K2PS's reflector comments on a bridge-like ranking system, and 
would like to add to his suggestions.  In addition to the cumulative 
Life Master 
program Pete described, there are various ongoing bridge "Masterpoint Races", 
competitions based on most master points accumulated in a year.  There are 
categories for different levels of players, based on their number of points
at the beginning of the year.  The levels begin at the rookie level, with less 
than 5 MPs, and include classes for less than 20, 50, 100, 200, 1000, 2500, and  
5000 MPs, as well as an unlimited class.  There are also races for players under 
age 18, under 25, and over 55.  The applicability to the radio contesting
world should be obvious. 
The most common way of duplicate bridge scoring is called "matchpoint" scoring.  
As on any hand in bridge you score points based on the number of tricks you win, 
or the number you defeat the opponents. Using this score a pair is then awarded 
1 matchpoint for each pair they beat and 1/2 matchpoint for each pair they tie.  
There are no points for the pairs which beat you. The margin doesn't matter. For 
example scores of 980, 480, 420, 420, 400, and 100 would get 5, 4, 2.5, 2.5, 1, 
and 0 matchpoints for that hand.  The sum of matchpoints for all the hands in an
event (typically 24 or so) determines the winners, and by some formula beyond my 
knowledge master points are awarded to the higher scoring pairs.  
In the radio world a "matchpoint" system seems to make the most sense to me.  
For each person you beat in a contest you get one point. Ties are sufficiently 
rare so as not to bother with half points; give a full point in case of ties.  
This matchpoint system gives an automatic valuation for a given contest.  The 
more popular the contest, the more entrants and therefore the more potential 
points.  Win CQWW and you get 2000 or so points, win the North Dakota QSO party 
and you get 15. Place second and get 1999 or 14 respectively.  
What to do about multiop scores?  There is no parallel situation in the bridge 
world, so we're on our own.  I haven't done the research, but think the solution 
would be in the form of considering the number of operators and the category (MS 
or MM): each op of a two man M/S might get points based on 85% of the
score, a 3 man M/S 75%, 4 man 70%, etc. If computerized contest score results 
are available matchpoint totals would be easy to maintain. A basic spreadsheet 
sort routine could be set up to reduce the work for awarding points for past 
contests to one of data entry.  If a few hundred hams would volunteer to enter 
the data for one past contest a "Life Master" program for contesting 
could be put in place immediately.  
As noted in the NCJ contesting and bridge have many similarities. I'm a relative 
novice in the competitive bridge world, but look forward to doing more in the 
future.  In 30 years of radio contesting I've come to a pretty good idea of 
where I stand, while bridge remains an unexplored frontier.  Sleep deprivation,
which grows less appealing each year, is not an issue in bridge. And most 
significantly, my wife likes bridge but hates radio.  
BTW,  the national organizations in the USA for bridge and ham radio have the 
same first and last names, American and League. Only the middle names, Contract 
Bridge and Radio Relay, are different. Jim   K8MR
	K2PS:Thanks for your missive, Jim.  The XYL and I haven't been on the 
tournament trail since the kids (16 years ago), so I wasn't aware of the 
new MP competetitions.  They apply to radio quite well.  I shouldn't be 
surprised about that cuz the similarities with radio contesting are so 
I keep hearing (and I'll summarize later on the reflector) that these 
ideas have been discussed before, but the reasons given for their failure 
don't make sense to me.  So perhaps the discussions were not so similar.
- I think it is a great idea.  However, it will take an individual (or 
small group of people) to define the rules, test drive it for a few 
years, and then try to find an organization to take it over.  I think you 
can give up on ARRL.  I am sure the NCJ would be happy to publish the rankings.
So, to get started, post some rules.  Then set up a database to keep all 
the records.  It will either grow or die. Randy Thompson, K5ZD
- Yes it is a bit disappointing that you only got five replys.  But I think
really is more interest than that, but someone needs to take the initiative.
I think your idea is GREAT, but (as someone said) it it must be administered
by someone other than the individual contest organizers.  It reminded me of
the effort to set up a world-wide contest sanctioning body following the
WRTC in 1990.
I understand that Ward Silver is also looking into some of there issues.  I
talked to Martti Laine last weekend in Las Vegas and he is supportive.  So
maybe we will get something going again.  I will make an effort to at least
talk to several people to get an idea of what interest exists.
I really think the contest ranking idea is a good one.  I hope we can do
something which is relavent.  Keep in touch and keep thinking! 73,  Wayne, N7NG
	K2PS: Thanks for your response, Wayne.  Actually maybe my problem was one 
of timing, having put out my missive just before the holidays.  Since I 
recapped the minimal response I've gotten a bunch more replies, most 
positive.  Some were confused about my explanation, but hopefully my 
responses to them cleared those up.  
Still issues to be resolved, and I will again recap where we are, but I'm 
cheered for the moment. 

That's the lot of it!  I'd be happy to help out anyone willing to grab 
the ball here, but I'm just not in a position to spearhead something of 
this potential magnitude.  Any volunteers?

73 de Pete, K2PS

>From Ken Wells, V73C" <v73c at  Sat Apr  1 19:42:59 1995
From: Ken Wells, V73C" <v73c at (Ken Wells, V73C)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 09:42:59 -1000 (HST)
Subject: Two Radio Contesting Question
Message-ID: <Pine.S40.3.91.950401092602.27256C-100000 at>

I have never contested with a two radio setup. What I have noticed 
recently is that an apparently clear frequency on a band suddenly comes 
to life for no apparent reason. I always ask (usually twice) before I 
begin to use a frequency. When there is no reply, I begin calling. Next 
thing I know, there is a big signal either on or very near me. The 
operator "sounds" like he has been on that frequency for years. You know 
that CQ rhythm! Maybe these folks are good contesters or good actors to 
make me believe they were there first. I do not mention the problem or 
cause cause a problem. No need for a arguement about a frequency.

My question is, is it possible he was using the S&P radio when I asked
about the frequency? I often read messages posted about how easy it is to
hold a CQ frequency while S&Ping on another rig. How do you hold the
frequency? Is holding considered calling CQ once a minute (or 30 seconds,
or what?) while in a pileup calling a multiplier somewhere else? 
Obviously, you can't transmit on both radios at the same time; so what do 
you do when the mult just came back to you and someone "steals" your held 
CQ frequency? Does that situation ever come up?


Ken Wells

>From Celia Tony Becker <becker at>  Sat Apr  1 19:52:03 1995
From: Celia Tony Becker <becker at> (Celia Tony Becker)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 11:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CQ CQ CQ
Message-ID: <199504011952.LAA17618 at>

Tree N6TR, tree at wrote:
> QCQ #? : You have called # CQs in a row without an answer and I would 
> like a shot at trying some CQs.  Would you please QSY so I can have your
> frequency?
> QCQ : I recognize your request and will honor it because I am a good sport.
> I will go do some S&Ping for awhile and then call CQ somewhere else.
> Working someone on your other radio doesn't count obviously.

A great idea.  Might work if some incentive were attached, say
extra points like the QTCs in WAE.  How about awarding a multiplier
credit for each time you relinquish your run frequency for 10 minutes or

AE0M, Tony Becker - becker at - Silicon Valley, U.S.A.

>From George Cutsogeorge <0006354141 at>  Sat Apr  1 23:34:00 1995
From: George Cutsogeorge <0006354141 at> (George Cutsogeorge)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 95 18:34 EST
Subject: Multiplier Mania
Message-ID: <75950401233457/0006354141PK3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

K1KPs posting started me thinking about the geographically
challenged scoring problem again.  I think that changing the
multiplier number for the various continents is a good idea.  It could
have the effect of increasing the activity level world wide, no t just
in the western USA.  Suppose VK (or any other Oceania country) was a
multiplier of, say, 10 or some other number that was much larger than
multipliers from heavily represented areas.  This would make
contesting much more fun for people in Oceania a s they would be in
great demand, and that would stimulate activity. 

Large multipliers for the rarer countries and/or continents would also
help cut down on the CQing by big stations as they would have to S&P
more to win.  Its easy to implement and check, not like some other
suggestions such as the 5 minute rule.  No time is lost by  the
operator and in my opinion, the fun level is increased. 


While the multipliers suggested by K6VG/K1KP look wonderful to me
living on the west coast, I thought the ratios were somewhat skewed. 
To see what the relative score possibilities might be from the various
continents, I took the results from the CQ WW C W in October 94s CQ. 
It certainly is enlightening to look at the numbers.  The total logs
received were about 2600 and half were from the US.  The numbers look
like this: 

	Continent	#Logs		#Ctys		


	Africa		22		12

	Asia		319		21
	Europe		843		51

	N.A.(DX)	86		23
	Oceania		34		13
	So. Am.		63		17

	US  approx	1300


			2667		137

Now, if a US operator worked everyone that submitted a log in
this contest and each QSO counted one point and each country
counted as a multiplier of one, his score would look like this: 

	Continent	QxC=Score

	Africa		264
	Asia		6,699
	Europe		42,993
	N.A.(DX)	1,978
	Oceania		442
	So. Am.		1,071


Obviously, Europe is the place to work to maximize score in
the US.  If the multipliers were increased so that the amount of
score were equal from each continent we would have the following

	Continent	Factor

	Africa		162.8
	Asia		6.4
	Europe		1.0
	N.A.(DX)	21.7
	Oceania		97.3
	So. Am.		40.1

Now, I am not suggesting that these should be the multipliers, but
am pointing out the inequity of the present system of multiplier

Think about the possibilities.  More world wide activity. John
might actually lose once in a while.  Randy could move back to Texas
and still win.  The west coast would reenter the major DX contests. 

George, W2VJN.      gcutso at

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list