[UK-CONTEST] RST - who needs it?

[Dave Lawley]

This one has been done to death on the cq-contest reflector over the 
years. Incidentally, for those uk contest reflectorites who aren't aware 
of it, the cq-contest reflector has been running for nearly 15 years, 
and if you're interested in subscribing or just viewing the archives 
please visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

One point that has been made on that forum is that 5NN serves as a 
'synch' transmission and means "the Morse characters that follow are the 
ones you need to copy, because they're the serial number". One of the 
gratifying things about the 80m CC contests is that they have attracted 
many newcomers to contesting, and on CW it is probably of especial 
benefit to those who aren't very familiar with the format to use the 5NN 
to get themselves ready. Some more 'advanced' contests such as the 
sprints have indeed done away with RST.

In last night's session I gave 559 to several stations, and indeed I 
felt forced to give 597 to G3xxx who likes to transmit some sort of MCW. 
I also sent "RST?" to another G3 who worked me but didn't send an RST. 
So Paul, I submit that RST is neither invariant, meaningless nor redundant.

Dave G4BUO

Paul O'Kane wrote:
>  
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bob Henderson" <bob at cytanet.com.cy>
> 
>>I'm only responding to this because you claim you are being
>>serious in your suggestion.  Had you not done so, I would
>>have been convinced you were having a laugh.
> 
> 
> I was 100% serious.  However, I made the mistake of taking it two
> steps forwards (or backwards, depending on your point of view)
> rather than one.
> 
> We're all agreed that the major contests require RST to be sent
> and received - or so they say in the rules.
> 
> In practice, it can be somewhat different.
> 
> I remember the time when it was normal to vary RST.  The rot set
> in, in particular, in the late-80s when CT was introduced and did
> not have the facility to vary RST Sent.
> 
> Since then, anything other than 59(9) is or has been unusual. It
> doesn't matter what value you log for RST Sent or Received in the
> major contests because these fields are not cross-checked by the
> organisers - and that's fact.
> 
> The result is that RST in major contests has no significance,
> value, or meaning.
> 
> Just to stick with CW contests for a moment - there was a time
> when 599 was sent in full.  These days, 5NN is the norm.  Soon,
> ENN will be the norm. After all, if it's good enough for CT1BOH,
> it's good enough for the rest of us.  In my previous post I went
> one step further and suggested didahdidahdit - ENN without the
> gaps.  I should have stopped there.
> 
> 
>>However that it appears irrelevant is in itself an irrelevance
>>if the rules call for you to send it.
> 
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, the RST rule is a little dated? 
> 
> 
>>Contests are simple things.  If the rules state your exchange
>>must have particular content then you should see to it that it
>>does or risk disqualification.
> 
> 
> When I'm trying to draw attention to what (to some of us) is self-
> evidently an obsolete and irrelevant part of the exchange, I'm
> quite prepared to risk disqualification.  In CQWW (both phone and
> CW) a couple of years ago I had a total of some 700 QSOs in which
> I sent no RS(T) whatsoever.  In my entries I stated what I had done
> and specifically invited disqualification.  I wasn't disqualified. 
> 
> 
>>The rules for some contests say RST must be exchanged while
>>others say it need not.
> 
> 
> Presumably you stick to the rules, so let's hear what RST shortcuts
> you think are OK and what ones, if any, contravene the rules - as
> you interpret them. 
> 
> 1.  Do you give "real" reports?  If not, why not?  Isn't RST
>     intended to signify Readability, Signal Strength and Tone?    
> 2.  Do you send 599 in full?  If not, why not?
> 3.  If you send 5NN, is it OK to send this faster than the rest
>     of the exchange.  If so, why?
> 4.  Is it OK to send ENN?  If not, why not?
> 5.  If someone sends you anything other than 599, do you log
>     it, or just leave the 599 the software has already entered?
> 6.  If it is OK to send ENN, is it OK to send it faster, and to
>     reduce the spacing between letters to save time?  If not,
>     why not?
> 
> I maintain that none of the above options or practices contravenes
> the "rules". Does anyone think otherwise?
> 
> I'm not sugesting anyone should break the rules - I'm trying to
> highlight the absurdity of a rule which requires every entrant to
> send, receive and log, for every QSO, an invariant, meaningless
> and redundant combination of characters.
> 
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI