Interesting thread about QSYing to other bands.
I agree that is okay for the guy who answered the CQer to suggest a
new frequency for a second QSO. It isn't proper for the CQer to
do so. After that second QSO is complete - it is anybody's guess
who owns the frequency. I guess I don't feel that a rule is required
here. It isn't something that is going to happen that often, and
I just don't see it as that big of a deal.
I have won my share of sprints (on either mode) and I can't say that
QSYing stations to another band has really figured into my strategy.
The case where this is more troublesome is when someone is bouncing
between two frequencies and says something to indicate to the people
on the frequency that he will be right back - or that he is going
up five. This goes beyond the limits of what the intent of the QSY
rule was. I think it was about 7 years ago that we made it very
clear that this would not be tolerated. And yes - we even had
referees listening to make sure it was adhered to.
As K5ZD said - this is pretty much only an issue on SSB.
There are lots of people breaking the rules in the phone sprint, but
the top operators are pretty clean. If any of them won the contest
without being clean, there would be plenty of people naming names.
73 Tree N6TR
tree@kkn.net
PS: For more sprint information, check out
http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/sprint.html
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Ward Silver <hwardsil@WOLFENET.com> Thu Feb 8 15:56:26 2001
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil@WOLFENET.com> (Ward Silver)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Sprint QSY Rules
In-Reply-To: <200102080102.RAA06849@loja.kkn.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010208073752.4695Z-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
> I agree that is okay for the guy who answered the CQer to suggest a
> new frequency for a second QSO. It isn't proper for the CQer to
> do so. After that second QSO is complete - it is anybody's guess
> who owns the frequency. I guess I don't feel that a rule is required
> here. It isn't something that is going to happen that often, and
> I just don't see it as that big of a deal.
>
> 73 Tree N6TR
> tree@kkn.net
As long as the solicitation is made by alternating stations and the
frequencies on which the QSOs take place are separated by 5 kHz or more, I
don't see a problem. This often occurs when you run into a local on 75...
1 - Me: CQ
2 - Local: W7DX
3 - Me: W7DX from N0AX exchange
4 - Local: N0AX exchange QSY to 7260? W7DX
5 - Me: Roger
6 - we QSY
7 - Local: N0AX from W7DX exchange
8 - Me: W7DX exchange QSY to 14280? N0AX
9 - Local: Roger
10 - we QSY
11 - Me: W7DX from N0AX exchange
12 - Local: N0AX exchange W7DX
W7DX owns the frequency after line 4 or 12, N0AX owns the frequency after
line 8. What would NOT be okay is for me to suggest a QSY in line 3 or
for W7DX to suggest the QSY in line 7. This is definitely not the same
thing as a round-robin QSO where the original CQ-er makes successive QSOs
on the same frequency with one or more intervening QSOs.
All that is needed is for the QSY rule to be amended to state that it is
prohibited to provide information during a QSO or solicitation for a QSO
that indicates the frequency of any *subsequent* QSO or solicitation for a
QSO. Saying "see ya on 80" is fine because it doesn't tell you where on
80. This takes care of the "back in a minute" and "up 5" problems without
restricting normal operation or the ability to move around during a QSO to
avoid QRM.
I also don't think we should place undue chastisements on stations
currently using those techniques because the rules are not very clear in
that regard, as evidenced by this thread.
> As K5ZD said - this is pretty much only an issue on SSB.
Most things are... :-)
73, Ward N0AX
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com Thu Feb 8 17:30:31 2001
From: Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com (Michael Tope)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: QSY solicitation in Sprints
References: <sa7fd013.055@gw.bsu.edu>
Message-ID: <041c01c091f4$d64d1ec0$6401a8c0@neptune>
Hi Pat,
Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing this practice, just playing
devils advocate. In fact it never occured to me to do this until I
heard some people on 3830 after the last phone sprint talking
about "moving people". I was in my usual foaming at the mouth
put me in a straight jacket post sprint condition, so it didn't quite
sink in until this thread came up.
The fact that I have had several replies to me email (including
yours) each with a different interpretation of the rules, suggests
that a clarification to the rules might be in order, else the practice
may contain to spread. That would be bad for me as the guys
who suit me up in the sleeveless jacket after the contest might
take me back to my padded cell before the end if I have to start
worrying about "moving" people. :)
73 de Mike, W4EF..........................
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Barkey" <PBARKEY@gw.bsu.edu>
To: <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: QSY solicitation in Sprints
> >> As Ken aptly points out, there is nothing wrong with the
> station who answers
> >> a CQ to use his right to "solicit a qso" on that frequency to
> move the station
> >> he just worked
>
> Excuse me, I disagree quite strongly.
>
> It is not allowed by the rules, since the old station must QSY
> at least 1 kHz before he answers a solicitation. Your
> "solicitation"
> was on the same frequency, even if the QSO takes place on
> another band.
>
> You must work for that new QSO by attracting someone, not by
> taking further advantage of what you have "in the book."
>
> The beauty of the Sprint is that it is chaos. Arrangements such
> as
> these that yield extra QSOs are not permitted.
>
> - Pat
> N9RV
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|