[CQ-Contest] Assisted vs "Unassisted"

[chris quale]

In recent years' CQWW I have used SO2R, with alternating (or dueling) CQ in some periods and S&P on second radio in other periods, depending on band conditions, stage of contest, etc. When CQing on both radios, if on occasion I am lucky to obtain callers/runs on both radios, the pattern intuitively turns into what has been classified as 2BSIQ, although not facing the pile-up abundance (and challenges) that stations on rare locations are blessed with.

I'd merely call it SO2R, where those with never-ending pileups distinguish their variant 2BSIQ due to continuous customer access (48 hrs). And hence, no need to trigger (dueling) CQs. If no callers, however, even 2BSIQers must delve into a dueling CQ or two. Then, at that point, maybe it is 'just' SO2R?

My 2¢, 73
Chris / LA8OM

-------------------------------------------------

Fri Mar 19 15:37:59 EDT 2021 Martin, LU5DX lu5dx at lucg.com.ar<mailto:cq-contest%40contesting.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BCQ-Contest%5D%20Assisted%20vs%20%22Unassisted%22&In-Reply-To=%3CCAFi2tqj5w-ESRoRY-p-qBunk5iyaoOyyCJ%2B2%2B8mCZ6dbd7WxEQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E>

No. That is not how it is setup.

You wouldn't want dueling CQs.

Dueling CQs mean after a CQ has been sent another will start on the
opposite radio.

CQs on the opposite radio should not be automatically triggered most of the
time under 2BSIQ.

73,

Martin, LU5DX

El vie., 19 mar. 2021 2:38 p. m., Jeff Clarke <ku8e at ku8e.com<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>> escribió:

> I've never done 2BSIQ but I think most people who do it setup N1MM
> Logger as SO2R and alternate CQ's between the two radios like N2IC said.
> When they are working someone on one radio and copying the exchange they
> call CQ on the other radio. It's important to have a lockout so you
> don't transmit two signals at a time because that would break the rules
> and put you in the Multi-2 category. It's very similar to SO2R with the
> exception being you are running with two radios on two different bands.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 3/19/2021 09:51 AM, Steve London wrote:
> > The N1MM dueling CQ feature has nothing to do with 2BSIQ. It simply
> > flip-flops CQ's between two radios.
> >
> > 73,
> > Steve, N2IC
> >
> > On 03/18/2021 09:55 PM, rjairam at gmail.com<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest> wrote:
> >> Calling it “dueling CQs” like N1MM does it makes it instantly
> >> understandable.
> >>
> >> Ria
> >> N2RJ
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:09 PM Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest <
> >> cq-contest at contesting.com<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In Jim’s defense... I can believe him. I didn’t know what the acronym
> >>> stood for, either.
> >>>
> >>> And, I’d wager that we’re not the only ones.
> >>>
> >>> 73, ron w3wn
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 18, 2021, at 6:07 PM, OZ1BII Henning <mail at oz1bii.dk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> @K9YC Jim
> >>>> And you really do not know what the meaning of "2BSIQ" is - or
> >>>> would you
> >>>> just point something out !
> >>>>
> >>>> Categories and Assisted and SO2R and . . . .
> >>>> Isn't it all about the way results are presented to the public ?
> >>>> Why is it so hard to make OVERLAYs and put the results on-line?
> >>>> I think it is all about sorting the final results.
> >>>>
> >>>> Take a look of the listings in the SAC Booklet 2020 -
> >>>>
> https://www.sactest.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Booklet-2020.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----------------------------------
> >>>> * Vy 73 de OZ2I  Henning *
> >>>> -----------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Den tor. 18. mar. 2021 kl. 17.11 skrev Jim Brown <
> >>> k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
> >>>>> :
> >>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/17/2021 2:06 PM, ko7ss--- via CQ-Contest wrote:
> >>>>>> It seems the top scores in CW contesting from now on will be
> >>>>>> dominated
> >>>>> by those ops capable of 2BSIQ.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is 2BSIQ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 73, Jim K9YC