[CQ-Contest] QRZ with no call

Mark Beckwith mark at concertart.com
Sat Apr 5 17:10:04 EST 2003

It is easy to oversimplify this question.

Larry, N7DF said:

>I disagree that calling QRZ without a call increases the effective rate.

I never said I send "QRZ."  I send "R".

>My policy is to listen for one go around to see if the station
>gives his call.  If he doesn't give it after one more QSO I
>will call him and ask for his call.  If it is a dupe he has lost
>at least one contact and his rate is therefore reduced.

You're fooling yourself to equate your not working me with reducing my rate.
You're also making the assumption in the above that I will always work you
when you call me, which is not that case, because there are always other
stations calling when I am using this technique.  They could be louder, have
better timing, or be closer to the frequency I'm monitoring than you are.
Besides, since you QSY before hearing me ID, you don't know who I am, so
you'll probably ultimately work me later when things have slowed down and I
am sending my call after every QSO.  After all, you need me for the
multiplier because nobody else is on the air from my country.  (This was the
case during the specific contest my comments applied to).

>The time saved by not giving the call is virtually zero since
>it takes about the same length of time to give the call as
>to call QRZ.

I didn't measure the amount of time it takes to send "QRZ" because I send
"R".  I determined that "R" takes substantially less time to send than
"HC8U", in fact, I measured it accurately and determined as previously
posted that it saved me a minimum of 37.5 minutes of actual sending time.
Of course, when I'm not sending, I'm receiving.

You're right, Larry, it is a bad choice to do this when you don't have a
pileup and you're in a common country.  My comments only apply to operating
from a rare location with a decent pileup.

Mark, N5OT

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list