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
|