[CQ-Contest] Partial Exchanges

[Paul O'Kane]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Levin" <djl at andlev.com>

> This brought to mind a question that has been
> bugging me of late: what I perceive as an increased
> tendency to send only partial exchanges in contests.
> For example, in WPX, stations would, with fair
> frequency, only give me their serial number, and no
> signal report.

Since computer logging became the norm in contesting, and
especially since CT made it impossible to send any report
other than 59(9), RST has effectively become redundant in
all major contests.

After all, it has no meaning, it never varies, it wastes
time, contest loggers default to 59(9) and bypass the RST
field, and it's not needed on QSLs for any ARRL operating
award,

In CQWW 2002 I had 440 CW and 319 SSB QSOs, and I did not
give 59(9) in any QSO unless specifically asked.  In my
entries I stated what I had done and invited the organisers
to disqualify me or acknowledge that the actual exchange
(as opposed to the logging) of RST was optional.  I wasn't
DQ'd, so you can draw your own conclusion.

> It seems pretty clear to me that the exchange must
> be communicated in its entirety, even if part of it
> is "pro-forma."

The rules also say that callsigns should be exchanged.
If I'm running, and you call me, chances are you'll not
actually say my callsign - but you'll log it and claim
credit for the QSO.

> I won't log a contact for which I
> don't get a complete exchange.  Am I just being
> a stickler for the rules, a hard headed conservative?

No - it's the rule about "exchanging" RS(T) that could
do with being updated.

73,
Paul EI5DI