[CQ-Contest] What's your Opinion on 2BSIQ ?

Jeff Clarke ku8e at ku8e.com
Tue Jun 2 12:42:36 EDT 2020


You totally missed the point. I never proposed that the ARRL (or CQ) 
allow dual CQing on the SAME band. The fact is that this practice was 
allowed in the ARRL DX contest up until about 5 years ago because it 
wasn't addressed in the rules. Someone on this reflector called out a 
well known contest station in the Caribbean who was doing dueling CQ's 
on the same band in the ARRL DX SSB as to suggest they were cheating. 
They weren't because they were taking advantage of a loophole in the 
rules, like every competitive contester does. Someone who has a lots of 
clout with the ARRL pointed out this inconstancy in their rules as 
compared to other contests and the rule was changed the very next year. 
If I'm not mistaken I believe this practice was also allowed in the CQ 
contests for a long time before the rules were changed to ban it. The 
examples I used in my comments were for a station doing dual CQs on two 

That being said I'm not proposing that 2BSIQ or SO2R be banned. It 
should just be a separate category. The rational I'm using is the same 
that was used to separate SOLP, SOQRP, SOA from the traditional SOHP 
category in most contests. The same could be said for the Classic and 
Tribander/Wire categories in the CQ contests. Think about this analogy 
in motorsports.  Would it be fair for a Formula One race car to compete 
directly with a NASCAR. Those of you who follow auto racing know the 
answer to that question. That's why all motorsports have different 
formulas (i.e different racing series). It seems like some people seem 
to think it's fair to group all single-operators together whether they 
are using one radio or two. Having a 2nd radio to do dual CQs on 
separate bands or to just look for stations/multipliers gives someone a 
huge advantage just like using a spotting network as SOA does.


On 6/2/2020 09:22 AM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> "The rules for ARRL contests prohibit dual CQing on the same band:"
> This is also true for CQ sponsored contests. It is general rule IX 7.:
> "Only one signal on a band is allowed at any time. When two or more
> transmitters are present on the same band, a hardware device MUST be
> used to prevent more than one signal at any one time. Alternating CQs
> on two or more frequencies on a band is not permitted."
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:05, Richard F DDonna NN3W <richnn3w at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jeff, I'm going to have to disagree with you.  The fact of the matter is
>> that the current rules fully allow 2BSIQ operating.  The rules of most all
>> contests for single operators state that only one transmitted signal is
>> allowed at one time.  2BSIQ operating fully complies with this
>> requirement.  This is simply a progression of traditional SO2R operating.
>> SO2R is pretty common at stations these days, and the ability to do 2BSIQ
>> operating is simply an evolution of operator skill and practice - as
>> opposed to an additional hardware feature that is not available
>> to any ham.
>> Lets remember also that most all other categories are more than simply one
>> operator and one radio.  Multi-single entrants often have three radios:
>> radio #1 that is running on one band, radio #2 that is picking off mults on
>> a second band, and radio #3 that is working in-band S&P on the same band as
>> radio #1.  As long as there is only one transmitted signal and the rules
>> permit a mult hunter radio, there is again no rules violation.  Multi-2
>> stations often have four radios.
>> The rules for ARRL contests prohibit dual CQing on the same band: "alternating
>> CQs on two or more frequencies using the same band and mode is prohibited."
>>   The rules are absolutely silent on dual CQing on the same band, which
>> clearly implies that as the ARRL general rules specifically prohibit
>> in-band dual running, the rules contemplate two band running.
>> I personally am not up to nuff on 2BSIQ on CW. I can do it on SSB.
>> Probably because I havent practiced it enough.  I will say for certain that
>> I have done some 2BSIQ on CW - but usually when one band is runnable and
>> when one band is just getting going.  I find it to be a valid technique in
>> assessing which band is "hotter".
>> Could the rules be amended to expressly prohibit simultaneous "CQs"?  Sure,
>> go ahead and try.  I'm not sure how it really helps anyone.
>> 73 Rich NN3W
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:39 AM Jeff Clarke <ku8e at ku8e.com> wrote:
>>> I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are about 2BSIQ ? Do you think
>>> it's fair to group those who operate this way in with a traditional
>>> single-operator or should it (and SO2R) be a separate category? I've
>>> found by looking at the 3830 claimed scores that those who do 2BSIQ come
>>> close to doubling the score of everyone else.
>>> There's also a technically in the rules for most contests that you
>>> aren't really on a band unless you are transmitting. I just happened to
>>> come across a video on YouTube of a well known contester who recorded
>>> himself operating 2BSIQ. What he did is when he was operating on one
>>> band and in the middle of a QSO  he would be CQing on another band. So
>>> he was basically doing a Multi-2 minus transmitting at the same time
>>> with one operator and managing two pileups of stations calling him. Also
>>> consider that if you are Multi-Single you're limited to how many QSY's
>>> you can make on a 2nd radio while doing Single-Op SO2R there is no
>>> limitation. Is that really fair?  For M/S why not just allow unlimited
>>> QSY's on your 2nd radio  if you're only working multipliers on that
>>> station. It would be pretty easy to for those checking your log to
>>> validate this.
>>> CQ kind of addresses these issues but why are the Classic rules
>>> different between CQWW and CQ WPX? I want to operate more than 24 hours
>>> in CQWW.  There isn't anything classic about only allowing 24 hours in
>>> CQWW. It's basically a category for old guys that can't do more than 24
>>> hours anymore. Also why isn't there a Tribander/Single Element category
>>> in CQWW?  Plus this category in WPX says you can't use a receive
>>> antenna. What's going on with that?
>>> Why not make these categories consistent between all CQ sponsored
>>> contests using the WPX definition of Classic and Tribander/Single Element ?
>>> *CQWW Rules :*
>>> /1. Classic Operator (CLASSIC): The entrant will use only one radio, no
>>> QSO finding assistance, and may operate up to 24 of the 48 hours – off
>>> times are a minimum of 60 minutes during which no QSO is logged. If the
>>> log shows more than 24 hours of operation, only the first 24 hours will
>>> be counted for the overlay score. The one radio must not be able to
>>> receive while transmitting. Single Operator Assisted entries are not
>>> eligible for this category./
>>> *CQ WPX Rules :*
>>> /1. Tribander/Single Element (TB-WIRES): During the contest an entrant
>>> shall use only one (1) tribander (any type, with a single feed line from
>>> the transmitter to the antenna) for 10, 15, and 20 meters and
>>> single-element antennas on 40, 80, and 160 meters. Separate receiving
>>> antennas are not permitted in this category./*
>>> *
>>> /3. Classic Operator (CLASSIC): The entrant will use only one radio, no
>>> QSO finding assistance, and the one radio must not be able to receive
>>> while transmitting. Operator Assisted entries are not eligible for this
>>> category./
>>> /
>>> /
>>> *ARRL DX Rules :*
>>> The Multi-Single rules for ARRL DX are even worse. You have to take time
>>> away from your run station to work multipliers on a 2nd band. But there
>>> aren't any QSY limitations for a single-operator. So like the CQ
>>> contests you can operate like a traditional multi-2 station in a CQ
>>> contest without any limitations. ARRL - Why not add a Classic -
>>> Tribander/Single Element category like CQ has?
>>> /3.4.4 Band Changes. Single Transmitter and Two Transmitter sub-category
>>> entries are limited to six (6) band changes per clock hour per
>>> transmitter./
>>> /
>>> /
>>> I hope those who operate 2BSIQ in contests  don't take my comments
>>> personally. I'm not against the technological advances we have in
>>> contesting these days. I just think it's fair to those who don't have
>>> the means to have all the equipment necessary to do this not be grouped
>>> in with those who do.
>>> Jeff KU8E
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list