[CQ-Contest] M/S CQing

[Felipe J. Hernández]

Hi,

You guys could keep it forever, is like the Bible, many interpretations
but It all comes down to your values.
On the other hand, would you consider not doing it for the sake of
unnecessary QRM? Why double the QRM from you station or maybe make it three
or four times times worse by having stations
on every band calling CQ zone 34?

The unfairness and unsportmanslike attitude kills Amateur radio
not the internet, nintendos or Wall street.

Felipe
NP4Z


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
[mailto:owner-cq-contest at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Tim Totten, N4GN
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:13 PM
To: Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] M/S CQing



Ken, K2KW, is right on track on this subject.  The short answer is that
CQing by the mult station is perfectly acceptable in CQ WW.  It is not a
violation of the rules, nor the spirit of the rules.  The CQ WW Committee
has indicated so very clearly, and in writing (more on this below).

There are potentially a few cases where it is even to one's advantage to
CQ with the mult stn.  I remember doing this once from the Caribbean in WW
SSB when the run station was working zones 27/28/29 on 10-meter LP.  I
made a few "CQ Long Path" calls on 15 (the "mult" station) and netted some
new mults like VK6, 9V, and even a 9M6, which I passed to the 10-meter
freq.  There were also a few YBs that called in and ended up being
zero-pointers.  Overall, it was a beneficial tactical move.  That said, I
agree with Kenny that most often it's NOT a good strategy.

Now, a general comment on interpreting the rules . . . for the vast
majority of participants, a quick glance through the rules is sufficient
to jump into the contest and have some fun.  Over the years, many
questions of interpretation have arisen; mostly from more serious
contesting competitors.  Several interpretations have been discussed here
ad nauseum.  Such discussions are healthy, but in the end, what really
counts is how the contest sponsor or ajudication committee interprets the
rules.  I might have my own interpretation of some local traffic law, but
it doesn't mean much if the judge interprets it differently!

To (finally) get to the point, the "Supreme Court of the CQ WW" has
published a big book dealing with all matter of rule interpretations (I
believe this is now part of the "WW records" CD-ROM).  Again, the vast
majority of contest participants don't need to study all these rulings
from on high.  But this is required reading for anyone who has a strong
interest in or opinion about such things.  It is particularly advisable,
in my view, to read through these interpretations before weighing in on
such matters with one's own opinion.

If you agree with the official interpretation, great.  If you disagree,
that's fine too.  Feel free to work toward a change in the policy.  If a
particular issue appears to have never been addressed, you are equally
free to campaign for the adoption of your own interpretation (or rule
change).

For you W/VE types (and especially VY1JA!), I'll see you in SS CW this
weekend.

73,

Tim Totten, n4gn at n4gn.com
http://www.n4gn.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com



--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com