[CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

Clive Whelan clive at gw3njw.net
Tue Aug 28 18:53:44 EDT 2012


Well yes and no.

Firstly using split in contests is selfish, period. You are a big gun, 
well just suck it up, that's one of the downsides thereof.

Do I understand however why some do it; yes I do that's just the way it 
is, some things will never change as Bruce Hornsby once sang.

Even I with a ( real ) 400w and punk antennas can generate unmanageable 
pile ups, but only when the cluster ( expletive depleted ) operators all 
descend. I normally have two tools to filter pile ups viz frequency and 
strength and the cluster removes the former completely. So the cluster 
operators are being selfish in not using their own ears, which leads to 
the syndrome which this thread is all about. Are clusters going away any 
time soon; absolutely not- see Bruce Hornsby above.

So frankly I do not blame big guns for frequency hopping, and even as a 
tiny pistol I do it myself at the drop of a hat ( about which nobody 
will care ). Is that in itself selfish; yes it is, but it's all about 
survival and the changes we have to make to ensure that. I will survive 
as Gloria Gaynor once sang.

Life is a minestrone as Ten CC once sang, or a cold lasagne depending on 
your p.o.v.. ;-)



On 28/08/2012 19:05, Steve London wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 08:09 AM, Ward Silver wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> "We" have the tools ? Who is this "we" ?
> You mean, those who operate in the multi-op or single-op assisted categories
> that have DX spotting and Skimmer access, right ?
> For the rest of us traditionalists doing S&P, a frequency-hopping running
> station is nothing but a frustrating headache for several reasons:
> 1) If I work the station quickly, before they QSY, I have now marked them in the
> bandmap as worked. I go back on the hunt, and a few minutes later, find another
> pileup. But, alas, it's the same station I just worked. Time wasted, especially
> if they are using the so-called pileup-reducing technique of rarely signing
> their call.
> 2) If I can't easily break the pileup, I mark them in the bandmap as unworked,
> and come back later. But, drat, they are gone. I can only hope I stumble across
> them again.
> Please, let's not promote frequency hopping as a recommended operating technique !
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

( de GW3NJW )

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list