[CQ-Contest] multi-contesting

Michael Coslo mjc5 at psu.edu
Mon Mar 23 10:29:47 PDT 2009

On Mar 22, 2009, at 1:18 AM, Dick Frey - K4XU wrote:

> I tried to play in all three state QP's but was frustrated by VA's
> requirement for a SN. I got N1MM to accept all the different county
> exchanges by modifying the QSOParty.sec file. But when I worked a VA
> station it would not take the number so I just copied the county and
> will not turn in the VA log. Most were happy to get my OR mult.
> While I agree that the RST=599 part of the exchange is completely
> superfluous, unless all the concurrent weekend parties replace it  
> with a
> serial number, you're odd man out, Virginia.
> The Oregon party, now 7QP, had SN in the exchange until the NEQP
> started. We decided to change so NEQP, IN and 7QP would all use RST.  
> The
> results have proved beneficial to all.

The idea of what to have as an exchange has been an issue for a while  
now. As a person who's first several contest efforts were with  
serialized exchanges, I was kind of surprised by the 599 automatic  
exchange. If it is automatic, it means it wasn't exchanged at all.

The advantages of serials, such as every QSO having a unique exchange  
that no one else in the contest can have, and the really great  
advantage at log checking time is well worth the loss of people who  
won't participate because of the serial number.

If everyone used serials, log checking software would be so much  
easier to implement.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list