[CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

Tõnno Vähk tonno.vahk at gafm.ee
Wed Aug 29 06:12:54 EDT 2012

I am a bit amazed on the how the main advantage of split operation is
being neglected here.

It is NOT for the DX to be able to manage his huge pile up better. This
can surely be done simplex (like K4BAI writes) or semi-simplex picking up
guys a few hundred hertz up or down provided the DX is strong enough and
can control the pile up.

The main purpose is to actually make DX QSOs possible at all especially on
low bands where the DX is marginal and is immediately covered by pile up
when it becomes noticed. Working a Pacific or African station from EU on
80 or 160 meters during CQWW is often impossible without split because
there are always stations calling on top of DX and no chance to make any
Qs or one will take 10 minutes. We have seen countless of times during the
contest the DX just giving up without a single QSO unless he is smart
enough to go split which is always welcomed by the callers.

So it has nothing to do with DX being selfish, Clive! Opposite to that. It
is essential for the sake of callers to enable those marginal QSOs to take

Secondly, I feel that most people fail to realize that 1 DX + 20 callers
are absolutely entitled to have more spectrum than one big gun calling CQ
without answers. Come on guys and think. It is at least fair for this DX
running split and with 20 callers to occupy 2 channels. It is 21 stations
on 2 channels versus 1 station on 1 channel. The argument that he should
not occupy the space it really needs is simply ridiculous.

Thirdly, stop whining about space in CW contest. There are always tens or
even hunders of free KHz's. Move up 50 KHz and you are in the clear. There
is no reason to try to fit inside the first 30. Some exceptions are there
of course like JA window on 160m, etc. And that is what I am saying about
sensible and considerate split operation. DX should of course not announce
1810-1825 as his RX window. But that of course is a general expectance
form any contester that he is rational and considerate and split operation
is no different from any other operating practice. And any DX announcing
simply UP in contest is simply stupid because he will not be able to
identify stations calling him in the mess.

I am sorry to see such blunder in the CQ Magazine and of course no one
will ever make a rule against split operation or prohibiting N6TJ to sign
with his call rather than TU. There are muplitple much much more important
issues to be dealt with regarding CQWW rules and management and hopefully
they will be dealt with rahter sooner than later.


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Clive Whelan
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:54 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW


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
> 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 )

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list