I've recently observed the increasing prevalence of a practice in
WSJT MS work that I think needs to be nipped in the bud. This is
the practice of responding to a CQ by immediately sending Tx2,
skipping Tx1.

On the face of it, yes, you do already know the CQing station's
signal report, so why not send it? The reason is this: When you
send Tx2 without having sent a Tx1 first, the CQing station never
gets the opportunity in this fractured protocol to confirm who he
is talking to by sending the calling station's complete callsign
himself. The exchange goes something like this:

STN A [50260]: CQ W1ABC DN5 CQ W1ABC DN5 ...
STN B [50255]: W1ABC 26 W5DEF 2626 ...
STN A [50255]: R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 ... [encoded OR Sh]
STN B [50255]: RRR RRR RRR RRR RRR ... [encoded OR Sh]
STN A [50255]: 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 ... [encoded OR Sh]

In this case, the CQing station (STN A) never sends STN B's
callsign AT ALL.

A random exchange on the calling frequency might go like this:

STN A [50260]: CQ W1ABC CQ W1ABC ...
STN B [50260]: W1ABC 26 W5DEF 2626 ...
STN A [50260]: DEF R26 DEF R26 ...
STN B [50260]: ABC RRR ABC RRR ...
STN A [50260]: DEF 73 DEF 73 DEF 73 ...

In this case, STN A at least sends STN B's suffix, but not his
whole call. The definition of a QSO requires BOTH stations to
exchange BOTH call signs so there is NO DOUBT that a QSO has been
established between those two stations.

Here's the thing. People who haven't learned what WSJT is all
about often perceive us as bending the rules of what is a QSO and
what is not. Let's make sure those perceptions are NOT true --
even though we all know that phone and CW operators bend the rules
in contests and DX pileups all the time. How often have you
listened to a DX station running a pileup and waited interminable
minutes for the DX station to give his callsign? How often does
the calling station in the pileup give the DX station's callsign?
Usually never. Same in contests. "W1ABC." "W1ABC, Delta Mike 6 5."
"QSL, Delta Mike 1 3." "QSL, QRZed?" How many times have you heard
THAT? That's not only bending the definition of a QSO, it's
blowing it to smithereens. Yet the would-be "discreditors" of WSJT
complain that we're not making "real QSOs"! A clear case of the
pot calling the kettle black, if ever there was one.

Let's not give them anything to discredit, guys. Press that F5
key, and right there, it's clearly spelled out how to operate the
WSJT QSO protocol. It is completely unambiguous. Let's make sure
we follow it to the letter! :-)

Bill W5WVO
DM65qh