[CQ-Contest] WWDIGI Contest Testing...

[rjairam at gmail.com]

Today, "RR73" is usually the end of a FT8/FT4 QSO. IT's faster and you
don't need a separate 73.

I also doubt anybody is going to be activating grid RR73

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:30, <egruff at cox.net> wrote:
>
> 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 at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Ed Muns
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 12:17 PM
> To: 'Tim Shoppa' <tshoppa at gmail.com>; cq-contest at 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 at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa
> Sent: 30 July, 2019 09:25
> To: cq-contest at 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 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