[UK-CONTEST] Contest exchanges

[Andy Cook, G4PIQ]

An interesting discussion - and maybe the rule was written back in the days
when Ian was VHFCC Chairman so he may know more of the intention of the rule
than I. However - our current practical interpretation is that the following
exchange is perfectly acceptable.

PIQ : CQ Contest G4PIQ
SEK : GM3SEK
PIQ : GM3SEK, 59184, JO01MU
SEK : Roger, 59224, IO85ST
PIQ : Roger, 73. G4PIQ Contest.

Interestingly, for MS or EME contacts, I accept that this is slightly less
than the standard requirements for what makes a good QSO in that I have not
copied my callsign back from Ian. EME happens to be explicitly excluded, and
I can't think of the last traditional MS contact that I've seen in a contest
log (as opposed to the odd random QSO which happens to occur by MS), so it's
basically a moot point at present. 

Maybe we need to look at the wording of that clause when we revise the rules
for 2007....

73,

Andy, G4PIQ
(who doesn't really care what info someone sends him in a contest - just
happy for anyone to call and give points!)

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ian White GM3SEK
Sent: 27 February 2006 09:07
To: uk-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Contest exchanges


Justin Snow wrote:
>>>From: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk>
><snip>
>Once again, I am not setting this up in opposition to the standards 
>that apply on HF. They're just different rules that only apply in their 
>own territories.
>
>Fair enough Ian, but my point is that in my experience of VHF contests, 
>VHF FD, Backpackers and odd events on 2m, I have not experienced this 
>to be the norm. So is there a difference of interpretation or does the 
>majority choose to ignore these details of the rules?

Most people don't actively "choose" anything. They just follow the 
examples they hear from the rest of the herd... which is where we all 
came into this discussion.

>In the RSGB VHF rules at
>least, I consider it to be open to interpretation as to wether both 
>parties have to give both calls or just that the two callsigns have to 
>be exchanged.

This is one for Andy & Co to resolve.


-- 
73 from Ian GM3SEK

_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest