[CQ-Contest] WWDIGI Contest Testing...

[egruff at cox.net]

Good point, Ria. I should have used that in my FT8 example for Line 4. Same end result, but more appropriate given the way WSJT-X is set up.

-----Original Message-----
From: rjairam at gmail.com <rjairam at gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:32 PM
To: Eric Gruff <egruff at cox.net>
Cc: Ed W0YK <ed at w0yk.com>; Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com>; CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WWDIGI Contest Testing...

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