[CQ-Contest] Acking Sprint QSO's

[David Hoaglin]

>
> This thread has gone in several directions.


The order in which a station sends the parts of the exchange is not a
problem. It's a matter of good practice. I see no need to formalize the
"unwritten rule." After Julie W1DL (SK) introduced me to the CW Sprint, in
1992, a little experience (and reading) convinced me that the two orders of
the parts made it easier for someone tuning across a QSO to determine which
station would inherit the frequency and decide whether to hang around or
continue tuning --- an important choice for this low-power station.

The most common problem for me is ops who simply send no acknowledgment. I
usually assume that they copied my exchange, and I log the QSO; but I could
take a tougher line and wipe it. If the latter were common practice, the
larger number of NILs would give those ops enough incentive. Skipping the
acknowledgment is a false economy.

I doubt that the NCJ Sprint should count only QSOs that are correct in both
logs. That "double-edged" approach was a feature of the Internet Sprint,
which I enjoyed from 1993 to 2000. That little contest had another feature,
for which one's memory of operators' names was no help: The name you sent
was the name that you received in the previous QSO. Most of the writeups,
by K2MM and N6TR, included traces of the names from QSO to QSO, and they
made amusing reading. One's memory also does not apply when participants
honor a recent SK by using that op's name instead of their usual name. So I
just copy what is sent.

As others have written, the CW Sprint is challenging and intense, even with
only one radio. It quickly became my favorite contest. I will miss it: I am
moving to a continuing-care retirement community this spring.

73, Dave K1HT