I always say I'm not going to get involved in these arguments and then I do
anyway, so here goes:
CW contest:
1. Me: CQ TEST NC6K
2. Them: W1AW
3. Me: W1AW 5NN SDG (for example)
4. Them: TU 5NN CT
5. Me: TU QRZ NC6K
No 73 anywhere and he confirms my report by sending mine (and TU if he feels
like it, but not everyone does. I often get "5NN CT" and nothing more). I
confirm with TU QRZ, but again the "TU" is a courtesy and not required.
Contesters tend to know that if the running station sends CQ, the Q is
complete and logged. Rate is key, and no one's trying to be rude.
On FT8:
1. Me: CQ TEST NC6K DM13
2. Them: NC6K W1AW FN31
3. Me: W1AW NC6K R DM13
4. Them: NC6K W1AW 73 (I consider this optional, but it makes me feel better
to see it as I know they got my last sequence)
5. Me: CQ TEST NC6K DM13
Why is this a problem? As long as both sides have indicated explicitly or
implicitly that the other's exchange was received, all should be FB. Why
belabor the process by adding another pair of 73 exchanges that might not
get decoded? In a contest, you're killing 30 seconds on FT8 and 12 seconds
on FT4. We certainly don't do it on RTTY.
At the risk of being rude, I really don't understand ops with the attitude
that they won't log a QSO unless everyone sends 73. This is a hobby. We're
here to have fun. Lighten up.
73 de NC6K
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Ed Muns
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 12:17 PM
To: 'Tim Shoppa' <tshoppa@gmail.com>; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WWDIGI Contest Testing...
Yes, "73" is not explicitly required. However, that's only part of the
issue here.
Long-time QSO convention is that both sides QSL (confirm) the contact,
specifically that they received the required exchange. In the case being
discussed, W9ET's 73 message served as his QSL. Otherwise, N9UDO would not
know if W9ET copied the report. In the classic modes, the 73 could have
been 'R' or 'QSL' or "thanks", etc. But W9ET needs to send something that
conveys the report was received from N9UDO. '73' satisfies that
confirmation convention.
Ed W0YK
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa
Sent: 30 July, 2019 09:25
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WWDIGI Contest Testing...
On the subject of "it can't be a valid contact without a 73, can it?", there
was a QST "The World Above 50 MHz" column on the FT8 contest operations,
that led off with the re-assurance that there is no contest or DXCC rule
that requires 73 be sent or received to have a valid contact.
I did a spit-take when I read that and looked to make sure it wasn't an
April issue! But it wasn't an April issue!
Joe, for sure, "stalled out" FT8 contacts where the two sides are out of
sync results in wasted time and often you often don't get the same "meeting
of minds" that a two-way QSO had been completed that you get from the other
modes. At some point you have to decide whether to put the stalled out Q it
in the log or not and move to the next Q. And often 3 or 5 minutes after you
put it in the log and moved on, the guy comes back with the final
confirmation you wanted to hear (undoubtedly after you've made another
couple Q's.)
Tim N3QE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|