[CQ-Contest] IARU test newbie question

[Mark Bailey]

Hello, all:

"QSO B4 QRZ" mystifies me.  Or, maybe, "B4 PJ2M"
or "DUPE PJ2M" or whatever, which seems more efficient.

Why would the run station EVER send this?  

Is the run station going to send QSO B4 and then WAIT for 
an answer and start to negotiate? This appears to make sense
only in the rare contest where both stations are penalized for
an error.  And, it's not QSO B4 QRZ?, its QSO B4 (wait for
answer).

There are only three cases  :-) :

Case 1:  The S&P station busted the call the first time.

If he's serious, he'll probably argue about it, especially if you
are a multiplier. It will take longer to look up and send a QSO
time or whatever than to just complete another QSO.  You
don't get penalized for a duplicate QSO in your log, and he'll
get credit at least for the second QSO.  (Of course, both of
you log ALL QSO's).  He gets penalized for the first bad QSO
but you don't.

Case 2:  You busted his call the first time.

Well, you lose credit for the initial QSO whatever happens, unless
you spend a lot of time negotiating with the other station and
figuring out what happened.  However, working him again then
gives YOU a good QSO.  You get the penalty for the bad
initial QSO anyway.

Case 3:  Other!

It's another mistake.  Who knows?  :-)  Computer or operator
confusion?  Busted packet spot?  Maybe the other station
realizes the error and doesn't send anything else.  Still, completing 
and logging the QSO benefits the run station and is just about as 
fast as listening to the other station sending "SRI" or whatever.
They always seem to send "SRI", right on top of a weak
multiplier calling you.   :-) 

BTW, Operator confusion can affect the running station too. 

So, why would anyone EVER send QSO B4 QRZ?  
Maybe in Sweepstakes, with the long exchange?  
But, then negotiation starts to seem appealing...so you 
send "QSO B4" and wait for the response.

Still slower than just completing the QSO!  And, it isn't 
sending "QSO B4 QRZ?."

Awaiting enlightenment...

73,

Mark, KD4D

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Wetjen" <wd4ahz at gte.net>
To: "Bob, N5RP" <N5RP at pdq.net>
Cc: <Timothy.Urban at wc.ey.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU test newbie question


> "Bob, N5RP" wrote:
> 
> > If you can work him again without too much effort, and without 
> > costing yourself whatever contest asset(s) you consider important, 
> > do so.
> 
> More than likely, you'll get "QSO B4 QRZ" and be SOL for a second QSO
> (which again, is a reason to work dupes ... just in case one of the two
> made an error).
>  
> > I would scrub the busted 1st QSO from my log.  No matter what, 
> > QSO #1 was not completed, based upon what you were given as an 
> > acknowledgement.
> 
> On the other hand, if you count the QSO ... you'll get credit for it ...
> he'll lose and get penalized for it as a busted QSO!
> 
> The guy sort of deserves that because:
> 
> a) not getting the info correct the first time and 
> b) probably not going to work you a second time for a "good" QSO
> 
> As Bob said "Set a standard for yourself that is proper, and enjoy it 
> properly".  Whatever way you go, at least be consistent.
> 
> Ron
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>