[CQ-Contest] Use of di-di-dah-dah-di-dit in CW Contest

VE2TZT ve2tzt at arrl.net
Thu Jun 5 14:53:31 EDT 2008

As a regular, lowly attractive callsign CQing guy, after a CQ, it, sometimes, happens to have several simultaneous answers. In this case, I can suppose that  all the answerers know my callsign. Then, to minimise their  waiting time, it is logic to send only a TU without the callsign to invite the next one to transmit.


 An additional advantage to that is to give a luck to a weak station (that may be a qrp or a new mult for me) to be heard, because the next local and strong  comers in the pile-up do not already knows my callsign and have to wait a few more seconds before calling me, the time for me to put the weak callsign in the log.


 In another hand, to re-fill the pipe and to avoid waste of time to S&P guys (including SO2R) ,  It is also logic to send the callsign as often as possible.


 I think that a good trade-off is to send  the callsign every 2 or 3 qso during the multi callers situations.


It is true that some very busy (highly attractive callsigns) running stations send  their callsign only once every  10 to 15 qso, which is really abusing, because they know that most of casual participants are using spotting. This behaviour makes real S&P(including SO2R) guys  angry.


To react to that, some, started to send some "?" thinking: "if he makes me waste my time, I'll make him waste his time". The consequence of this reaction is that a new hateful fashion has appeared for few months: Systematic "?" senders.


This new sort of cop does not let you voluntary miss any sending of callsign after the TU without sending a ''?".  So bad, because while sending his "?", the cop has jammed the weak caller to whom I was trying to give a luck by just sending a TU, inviting him to transmit before the pack.


Conclusion : Systematic "?" senders  :  a side effect of the side effect of spotting effect...

de Gilles, VE2TZT 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list