[CQ-Contest] SS CW question

[Rick Lindquist, WW3DE]

>This business of sending the other station's call with the exchange is 
> a relatively new phenomenon in SS (and other domestic contests, I 
> note). The only time I will send the other station's call is if I 
> detect there is ambiguity...For example, if two guys are running, very 
> close in frequency, and they both respond to my S&P call. Otherwise, 
> sending the other station's call is a waste of time for both of us.

Huh??? Waste of time? Sending the other station's call sign has been a part
of the SS exchange for as long as I can recall - going back some 30 years
since SS became a "must" event for me - no matter what I had for gear or
antennas. 

As someone has noted, a "few" stations failed to include their call signs as
part of their SS exchanges. Most, thankfully, did, however. 

My own current call sign tends to get miscopied on occasion, so I not only
included it in my exchange, per the SS rules, but I made a special effort to
make sure the other station "got it" as well. I also used the other
station's exchange to double-check the call sign I thought I had received.

Beyond this, the rules state (note item 4.3):

1. Exchange: The required exchange consists of:

4.1. A consecutive serial number;

4.2. Precedence;

4.2.1. "Q" for Single Op QRP (5 Watts output or less);

4.2.2. "A" for Single Op Low Power (up to 150 W output);

4.2.3. "B" for Single Op High Power (greater than 150 W output);

4.2.4. "U" for Single Op Unlimited;

4.2.5. "M" for Multi-Op;

4.2.6. "S" for School Club;

4.3 Your Callsign;

4.4. Check

4.4.1. The last 2 digits of the year of first license for either the
operator or the station.

4.4.2. The same Check must be used the entire contest.

4.5. ARRL/RAC Section

4.6 Exchange Example: NU1AW would respond to W1AW's call by sending: W1AW
123 B NU1AW 71 CT, which indicates QSO number 123, B for Single Op High
Power, NU1AW, first licensed in 1971, and in the Connecticut section.)

 -  -  - 

I don't find this too difficult to understand. In addition to including my
own call sign in my exchange, I made an effort to make clear my call sign if
I had reason to believe the other station had miscopied it. I know it's not
"my" problem if another station miscopies my call sign, but I'd rather they
get it right, just on principle. If they ignore my effort, THEN it's the
other operator's problem.

73, Rick / WW3DE


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Neil & Heather
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:06 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS CW question

On 11/8/2010 6:15 PM, Steve London wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 08:54 AM, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:11 AM,<KI9A at aol.com>   wrote:
>>
>>> Is it just me, or  more and more stations skipping the callsign part  of
>>> the exchange??  I noticed this a couple years ago, and, this year, I had
>>> maybe 20 or so do this.
>>
>> To me, it seemed that more stations failed to send MY call than failed
>> to send their call embedded in the exchange.
>
> The rules require that the station sending the exchange put their call in
the
> exchange. There is no rule that requires the other station's call to be in
the
> exchange. Apples and oranges comparison.
>
>> If I send the exchange,
>> and all I hear back is "###<prec>   etc." then I have no idea if they
>> got my call right, if they doubled with me, or are working someone
>> else.
>
> Oh, I bet you have a pretty darn good idea.
>
> This business of sending the other station's call with the exchange is a
> relatively new phenomenon in SS (and other domestic contests, I note). The
only
> time I will send the other station's call is if I detect there is
> ambiguity...For example, if two guys are running, very close in frequency,
and
> they both respond to my S&P call. Otherwise, sending the other station's
call is
> a waste of time for both of us.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3245 - Release Date: 11/08/10
>
>
As a Younger, less experienced contester,
I'm caught in the catch-22 of which is right
and proper.
General consensus is that saving precious
time is more valued that protocol...
after all,it is a contest...
Correct???

73
Neil
AE1P
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest