[CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

[Jukka Klemola]

2012/8/28 Ward Silver <hwardsil at gmail.com>:
>> Option 1: DX quits and goes to beach.
>> Option 2: DX tries calling someone on the same frequency.
>> Option 3: DX starts S&P and never tries to resume running
>> Option 4: DX asks up 3
>> Option 5: DX asks up 5
>> Option 6: DX asks up and listens 3-7 up
>
> Jukka, there is another option that will surely become more popular: DX QSYs
> and starts another smaller pileup.
..
> it may result in
> a higher net rate than trying to manage a simplex pileup that is out of
> control for reasons not of the DX station's making.
...
> In contesting 1.0, the strategy is to be loud (thank you, N2AA) but
> in contesting 2.0, the strategy must change to be both loud AND workable.


Hi Ward (AX) .. Hi Tom (JI) and Hi Lloyd (LC), and also others


Yes. there are other possible tactics han what I listed.

On SSB this Ward's tactic produces results as long as nobody spots the poor DX.
20 seconds after the spot, the chaos resumes if the DX tries simplex.

On CW, contesting 3.0 (Skimmer+RBN), the game is over for that tactic
if he uses normal computer generated CW.
The chaos is back in 20 seconds after the DX sends his call with some
form cq on any frequency.


Tom suggested to use some kHz split for both, CW and SSB, but not
spreading around the pileup.


Lloyd suggested to keep the pileup just next to DX frequency.
Reasoning was many-fold.
Primary thought was the pileup will stay better in line if the split
is as narrow as possible.
And the spectrum usage is clear, as there is 'one place' for the
activity about logging that one great multiplier.


I think, if the split would be like 3kHz for CW, the people will try
any trick to get through the pileup. They will call at least 300Hz up
and also down the announced 3kHz.

So Tom's theory of equal spectrum usage should be not-precise?
I mean, if the announced split is 25kHz for SSB, the same thing
happens. People will try calling a bit up and down from the 25kHz ..
maybe just some 1 to 3kHz up or down.


I was expecting some un-assisted to give a comment.

I think, some added value comes from minimizing confusion for the un-assisted.
If the DX is next to the pileup, it is more logical.
If pileup is somewhere many kHz away, it adds to difficulty finding
the multiplier.


My suggestion for the DX behavior is to try to manage the pileup close
to the own transmitting frequency and try to keep the listening on a
very narrow area. Spreading out the pile up will be bad for everybody.
The suggestion to people in the pileup is they should try to
understand the whole situation and try to behave when ensuring the
multiplier comes back to them.
The people in the pileup decide the QSO rate. DX tries to be as
accurate and as fast as possible (in that order).


Nobody commented about the worst case scenario either.
It was a trick question.

The worst scenario is not listed in the original set of choices.
The worst scenario is the DX would announce up and give a good span
for the listening frequencies .. and then actually listen for calls on
a very wide spectrum.

That sure would ruin many things for many contesters.


73,
Jukka OH6LI


> Given that we now have the tools to know so much about who is operating
> where, running strategies must evolve to limit the pileup size to maximize
> rate.  In contesting 1.0, the strategy is to be loud (thank you, N2AA) but
> in contesting 2.0, the strategy must change to be both loud AND workable.
> The optimum tactics for implementing workability are yet to be determined.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest