[CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics

Tonno Vahk tonno.vahk at mail.ee
Thu Aug 4 11:32:10 EDT 2005

nice to have some clear views on this thing.

Maybe Timo is right and this QSO is not legitimate though I don't see why 
Run station should give full call of the other station and S&P station does 
not have to. Anyway, of course in most of the cases I confirm the call as 
well and very seldom do not. In CW, yes, the logging program sends N1 TU 
anyway and that completes it. I absolutely agree with Timo that this is 
ususally the best way.

Steve, you're mostly right predicting my answer:) Still, for that scenario 
to happen not only has N2IC to be 20db weaker but his transmittion time has 
to match N1IK's. Otherwise somebody will notice that something is wrong. In 
reality such a coincidence happens very rarely and provided that the QSO is 
legitimate (?) it would be rational not to repeat long calls sometimes. I am 
sure CT1BOH would agree with me in the cost-benefit analysis as he is also 
alot into probabilities:)

I am sure more BADs and NILs happen due to S&P station acting on wrong spot 
or just miscoping the call but I am not going to ask each of them "whom are 
you calling?". Lot more BADs happen on 40m SSB when EU stations listen on 
the same frequency and the callers do not give the call of the station they 
are calling.

So contesting is about compromises still and taking some risks and the 
pluses and minuses of those risks are set by the rules so you cannot go 
hedging all risks 100% like asking from S&P stations your call as it is too 
costly. After all, if the station that calls me trusts me in getting his 
call then I actually save his time also by not repeating it fully so you 
cannot quite say it is at the expense of them but sometimes rather 

Anyway, it was knowingly a bit provokative case from me so just food for 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve London" <n2ic at arrl.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: 3. august 2005. a. 20:51
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics

> Let's take this scenerio a half-step farther....
> NN2I1CIK (2 stations, very similar calls answer)
> IK 5NN A5
> N1IKN2IC5NN5NN45  (2 stations, N2IC and N1IK respond, both give exchanges)
> TU
> You haven't clearly made a QSO with either N1IK or N2IC !
> I can foresee your response - you're going to say that if you think there 
> is any
> question as to who you were working, you would have confirmed the QSO by 
> signing
> "N1IK TU".  But what if N2IC was 20 dB weaker than N1IK (a not uncommon
> occurance !) ?  You would have simply ignored the weak "background" signal 
> of
> N2IC and sent "TU", leaving N2IC and N1IK thinking they have both worked 
> you.
> IMHO, not signing the corrected, complete call of the station you were 
> working
> is another example of poor, high-rate operating, done at the expense of 
> those
> who work you.
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> Tonno Vahk wrote:
>> I don't quite agree that you should always demand for you call 
>> repetition.
>> For example:
>> N1IK
>> IK 5NN A5
>> N1IK 5NN 5
>> TU
>> In that case I clearly say that I have got your call and I am sure abt 
>> it.
>> Why would you question me? It is exactly the same way I trust you when 
>> you
>> answer my CQ and do not say my call, I trust you have got it correct. I 
>> do
>> not demand you to repeat my call, do I?
>> Actually I find it more beneficial in SSB not repeating the full calls 
>> all
>> the time when I am 100% sure, especially with 6 digit EU calls and they 
>> very
>> rarely ask for confirmation.
>> 73
>> tonno
>> es5tv
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list