[CQ-Contest] CW abbreviations

[Mike Fatchett]

Then I believe it will be the responsibility of the ARRL to publish the
official cut list so that all may have an opportunity to convert what is
sent to what should have been sent.

Punishing a station for copying what is sent is just wrong whether you or
the ARRL dictates it or not!  How is a casual op supposed to know all the
cut number abbreviations?  Wouldn't it be easier for the ARRL and log
checkers to include the possible translations in the log checking routine?

I think the ARRL is completely wrong on this one.

I am making it official that T is now the cut abbreviation for W0MU.  I will
be registering it with all appropriate registration entities.  I guess I
will have to send my call at least once every 10 mins for FCC regs but other
than that if you hear T calling it is me.

T



 

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Pruett
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:27 PM
To: José Nunes CT1BOH
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CW abbreviations

All:

On a related note, keep in mind that it is the ARRL logchecking position
that when receiving a serial number, it is the responsibility of the
receiving station to translate any received cut numbers into numeric digits
in the log.  K9TM and I do the logchecking for the ARRL 10M Contest where DX
stations send RST/serial numbers as their exchange.  If CT3NT sends "VVN"to
you as his serial number, it is your responsibility to turn it into "339".
If you put "VVN" in the log, your QSO will be scored as invalid.

Now before anybody begins wringing their hands or starts a thread
complaining that you should "log what is sent", the topic is not open for
discussion.  I've confirmed this direction with the ARRL HQ Contest
Department, and this is the way the 10M Contest Logs have been scored since
1998.  There is logic to this; cut numbers exist solely to help CW operators
convey numeric data quicker over the air.  It is not the logchecker's
responsibility to decode these numbers to "interpret" your log.

Just trying to be helpful here, not start a controversy (which we seem wont
to do on the reflector these days).  And I'm only speaking for the 10M
contest, which I'm on the logchecking team for.

Dave/K8CC


José Nunes CT1BOH wrote:
> MR Tree says
>
> "PS: What about sending VV for "33" - anyone have a problem with that?"
>
> Well I don't since I used it from CT3NT.
>
> Do you have a problem when you send 5NN and use N for 9? Guess not cuz 
> you are doing it all along.
> If you don't why should you have a problem when I use V for a 3? Or 
> some abbreviations are OK and others are not?
>
> As far as CW numbers go I see the following abbreviations:
>
> 1=A
> 2=U
> 3=V
> 4
> 5=E
> 6
> 7=B
> 8=D
> 9=N
> 0=T
>
> CW is a mode where abbreviations are common and are there to save time.
> Probably you are not aware but:
>
>  transmitting "33" times 7.000 at 40wpm = 105.73 minutes transmitting 
> "8" times 7.000 at 40wpm= 54.59 minutes Transmitting "VV" times 7.000 
> at 40wpm= 76.56 minutes
>
> And I'm still 22 minutes behind the zone 8 guys, transmitting just the 
> zone for every QSO made
>
> EE CT3NT
>
> Ohh do you also have a problem I send EE instead of TU?!
>
>   


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest