[CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's

[Chris Plumblee]

Hello Barry,

The problem that Jack is alluding to is specific to QSO’s on a second and
third band when you’re running. You really only need the caller’s number;
you already have their name and state. At one time, unscrupulous ops would
copy the number and tune away, leaving the report unacknowledged and the
person who’d inherited the frequency unsure if they should log the QSO or
not.

I’ve been a middling sprinter for a little while - the software makes it
difficult to flub the order of the exchange elements and there are always
edge cases (Tnx W1NVT and VE7ZO for the sprint QSOs when you weren’t in the
Sprint, for example). I would not be in favor of mandating the order of the
exchange because that suggests that you throw out QSOs that weren’t
completed in the proper order.

For a while, the fashion was to send just a “dit dit” as an
acknowledgement. Peer pressure has worked to make the standard
acknowledgement either “X” (“TU” run together) or “R”. It’s still an art to
detect whether you got an acknowledgement when you have a couple of new,
loud callers.

73,
Chris W4WF

Chris Plumblee
407.494.5155


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:55 AM Barry Jacobson <bdj at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Jack, I don't think Steve's issue is the same as yours. Suppose
> everybody followed the format as you suggest. There is still a problem. In
> a normal contest when running, and after getting the caller's info verified
> correct, you would say TU QRZ W6FB. That let's the previous guy know that
> you copied him correctly, and let's the next guys know when it's time to
> jump.
>
> In the sprint, you are not allowed to say QRZ without 5 KHz QSY. So how
> does the responding station know that the CQer copied him correctly and
> doesn't need a fill just because the responder concluded with his own call.
> And then if everybody jumps at that point, the caller may not be able to
> get a fill that he needs. This is what I believe Steve is addressing.
> Before jumping, one needs to hear from the previous CQer some type of
> acknowledgement that he copied the responder properly and is finished with
> QSO. Only then should people jump in.
>
> This is how I understand Steve N2IC.
>
> Best,
>
> Barry WA2VIU
>
> --
> Barry Jacobson
> WA2VIU
> bdj at alum.mit.edu
> @bdj_phd
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 7:48 AM Jack Brindle via CQ-Contest <
> cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
>
> > Nice troll, Steve, but I’ll bite.
> >
> > There actually is a problem in NA Sprint. It involves the exchange order.
> > It seems the Sprint format has evolved over the years, and that has been
> > brought into NA Sprint in the form of “unwritten rules”.
> >
> > The NA Sprint rules, for the exchange, state:
> > "7. Exchange: To have a valid exchange, you must send all of the
> following
> > information:
> > The other station’s call sign, your call sign, a sequential serial
> number,
> > your name,
> > and your location (state, province or country). You may send this
> > information in any order.
> > For example:
> >  N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
> >  K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
> >
> > Note that it fully states that either format (or any other) is perfectly
> > OK. But, in practice, this is not the case. The unwritten rule states
> that
> > when you send CQ, you must send the exchange as follows:
> > N6TR K7GM 154 RICK NC
> > and when doing the S&P role, your exchange must take the form:
> > K7GM 122 TREE OR N6TR
> >
> > I used the second form for my exchange. Eight very experienced Sprinters
> > responded over the end of my call, so that I did not hear the beginning
> of
> > their transmission, including the serial number. I managed to get a fill
> > from a few, but the rest will look forward to a NIL.
> >
> > One of the rules we push to new contesters is to read the rules before a
> > contest. In this case the rules lead you astray.
> >
> > The SSB Sprint has the same rule, but they also have a tips section that
> > explains the format you should use for the exchange whether you are
> running
> > or S&P. That tips section is referred to in the exchange rule.
> >
> > My suggestion is that it is time to take a good look at the NA Sprint
> > rules and bring them up to date with these new unwritten rules which have
> > evolved over time. If the order matters (and it is clear that it does),
> > then the rules should say so!
> >
> > Otherwise we have a contest that is very unfriendly to new contestants
> who
> > don’t know the unwritten rules. This type of contest will eventually die…
> >
> > 73,
> > Jack, W6FB
> >
> > > On Feb 4, 2024, at 5:02 PM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's been some grousing about Sprint QSO's not being acked, or the
> ack
> > > getting covered by other stations calling.
> > >
> > > May I suggest we all use RR73 to ack in the September Sprint ?
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Steve, N2IC
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>