From JudgeNet Wed Mar 17 13:56:08 1993 From: uunet!AZCC.Arizona.EDU!JLIDDIL (Jim Liddil) Subject: BJCP Exam Study sessions I am looking for help, suggestions etc. on how to study for the BJCP exam. A group of us want to prepare for the exam as there are currently no certified judges in Arizona. Can anyone provide some input as to how to go about this. Is the exam all that hard? Are old tests availble to review? ___________________________________________________________________________ James D. Liddil Voice (602) 626-3958 Arizona Cancer Center Tucson, AZ jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu ========================================================================= -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Mar 30 05:19:34 1993 From: uunet!bedford.progress.COM!rich (Rich Lenihan) Subject: sharing opinions I've got a question about beer judge "etiquette". Some members of my brewclub served as stewards at the recent NE regional competition in Westport, MA. They were surprised to see some judges talking among them- selves while they were judging entries. They weren't talking about the weather, either. They were sharing opinions about the current entry! Is this kosher? What is the AHA policy? My own (non-certified) opinion is that this is bad practice. -Rich -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Mar 30 05:19:34 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: sharing opinions Rich Lenihan sez... > > I've got a question about beer judge "etiquette". Some members of my > brewclub served as stewards at the recent NE regional competition in > Westport, MA. They were surprised to see some judges talking among them- > selves while they were judging entries. They weren't talking about the > weather, either. They were sharing opinions about the current entry! > Is this kosher? What is the AHA policy? > > My own (non-certified) opinion is that this is bad practice. Ah, a little controversy. Good, the digest was getting too quiet. Most competition organizers actively discourage communication amongst judges. I disagree. If the only purpose of the competition was to get totally independent numerical scores, then perhaps silence would be appropriate. But there are really multiple purposes for judging. One goal is to give the brewer written feedback about the beer. It is my experience that the quality of the feedback improves radically if the judges discuss the beer. It's called synergy. Another goal is to train apprentices. Obviously discussion can help this process. I'm not just talking about the experienced judge giving a running commentary, but rather a two-way discussion. Why do organizers discourage discussion? It seems they think we are so weak-willed that discussion will destroy our objectivity. I find this rather patronizing. Most judges I know are quite capable of participating in a discussion and thinking independently. In fact, I would suggest that anyone without such elementary communication skills should be discouraged from becoming a judge. There have been times when discussing an off-flavor helped me refine my opinion of the beer, and has influenced my score. I think that is appropriate and beneficial. There have also been times when I have tried to be a little persuasive when I thought another judge was off-base. This too is appropriate and beneficial. Finally, as any experienced judge can attest, a full day of tasting beer in silence is extremely boring. We are not drones, nor are we paid professionals. We are volunteers, and if a little discussion makes the day more enjoyable, then don't discourage it for the sake of some misplaced ideal of statistical purity. - -- Chuck Cox Eliminate domestic terrorism - disband the BATF. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Mar 31 06:08:40 1993 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: Silence during judging I feel that it's best to keep silent *at first*, until the scores are down on paper and then discuss the entry. This is especially true when the judges are of widely differing experience. A stray "Good God!" or "Mmmmm!" by a National judge can cause a Recognized or Certified judge to tend to lower or raise scores. This problem intensifies as you sample the 10th, 11th and 12th Barleywines. It's all too easy to just go down the checklist and bash a beer that your partner has said "this smells like hippo dung." Also, when judging the last few Belgian Strong Ales, you may spend more time musing how your fellow judge learned how hippo dung smells than the flavor of the beer. I don't think we can help but be influenced by a fellow judge's mumblings be they positive or negative. Also, noises (or worse, talking) by your fellow judge will also tend to break concentration and increase the time it takes to judge the entry. I expend a lot of energy just concentrating on being fair, looking beyond an off-flavor to find a positive flavor in the background. Even bad beers have some good components -- we need to concentrate on and highlight them as well as the problems. After the numbers are on paper, I feel it is beneficial to compare notes on a beer and add comments or adjust scores if there is too much difference in the score (that is an AHA requirement). You may have missed that fruity flavor or nutty aroma or had a misconception of how the style should taste. Working together helps each judge grow, but let's first get something impartial and fair on paper and then discuss it. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Mar 31 06:08:40 1993 From: uunet!joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us!joseph (Joseph Nathan Hall) Subject: Discussing beer while judging [snip] > I've got a question about beer judge "etiquette". Some members of my > brewclub served as stewards at the recent NE regional competition in > Westport, MA. They were surprised to see some judges talking among them- > selves while they were judging entries. They weren't talking about the > weather, either. They were sharing opinions about the current entry! > Is this kosher? What is the AHA policy? Personally I think that discussing the profile of the beer as well as its relation to style would be helpful in many cases. For example: "Can you taste acetaldehyde in this?" Or: "You've had more experience with Belgian beers than I have. Is trippel really supposed to be this strongly carbonated?" I would avoid using "hedonic" descriptors while judging: "This beer is really good!" Inadvertent smiles and grimaces already perform this function. > Another goal is to train apprentices. Obviously discussion can help > this process. I'm not just talking about the experienced judge giving a > running commentary, but rather a two-way discussion. Right. This makes perfect sense to me. > There have also been times when I have > tried to be a little persuasive when I thought another judge was > off-base. "I know you're a big fan of cask ale, Ralph, but there really are plenty of fine bottled pales that feature at least this much diacetyl." ================O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis================ uunet!joebloe!joseph (609) 273-8200 day joseph%joebloe at uunet.uu.net 2102 Ryan's Run East Rt 38 & 41 Maple Shade NJ 08052 Copyright 1993 by Joseph N. Hall. Permission granted to copy and redistribute freely over USENET and by email. Commercial use prohibited. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Mar 31 06:08:40 1993 From: "Daniel F McConnell" Subject: club competitions Subject: Time:8:02 AM OFFICE MEMO club competitions Date:3/30/93 I don't know if this has been published (it seems our server..........) so here we go again. A question about Club competitions. The Ann Arbor Brewers Guild has been submitting an entry to the AHA Club-only comp. on a regular basis for the last year or so. We have been selecting the best beer at the normal monthly meeting by a variety of methods, some of which now have once again been questioned my club members. We want to encourage the participation of all members, judges-in-training, judge-wannabees and judges. Our club has 6 (?) recognized, 2 certified and 1 national judge. Initially the beers were judged by using the AHA 50 point system (ALL members eligible to judge) complete with score sheets-a mini competition. This proved to be too time consuming (although good practice), so a more relaxed approach was adopted, a one-person-one-vote show of hands. Although the more knowledgeable members have been leading the discussions, it is felt by some that this may not be the best approach to select the best beer. Especially since lately some members of the community have come to the meeting thinking it was the Ann Arbor *Drinkers* Guild. Evaluation by judges only will not work, too snobbish. Other scoring systems (10 or 25 point) are confusing. Are there any good guidelines or suggestions for performing these club competitions with a minimum of time and hassle, at the same time insuring quality selection? I doubt that holding the competition on an alternate night would work. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Our club is Judging the Bock is Best next Sat (national). We have about 50 entries as of Tuesday. This one is easy...just like a real competition, no question on how it should be scored and judged. DanMcC -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Mar 31 06:08:40 1993 From: uunet!spss.com!tony (Tony Babinec) Subject: judging and talking WFH Chuck Cox gives some good reasons for talking. Indeed, judging ought to be fun and a learning experience. Judges ought to talk about the beers to form a loose consensus -- there is the judging guideline that scores across individuals for the same beer ought to be within a range. The type of talking that is discouraged is the initial leading remark. Upon receiving the beers, the individual judges should look at, smell, and taste the beer, and work through the scoring form. I once saw a certain "teutonic" judge do the following: immediately upon distribution of a beer, she would loudly utter a remark such as "No one in their right mind could possibly think this is a nameyourstylehere! This doesn't even deserve a 19!" You and your fellow judges ought to form your own sensory impressions of the beer. Then, make notes on the form and talk about the beer. The talking does tend to pinpoint things. Then, give the brewer some feedback. Occasionally, you'll get a beer with an obvious fault. Someone chuckles and says "whoee, get a whiff of that." It happens. Well, let it happen, and then get on with judging. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Mar 31 06:08:40 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Re- sharing opinions Subject: Re: sharing opinions_ Time:7:41 AM Date:3/30/93 Rich asks about talking in the ranks. Locally we encourage the judges to assess the entry by themselves initially, completing their scoresheets. Then they compare their opinions. We have found that this allows the opinions to form independently and then when the discussion occurs the judges are free to alter their sheets if they feel they need to. This way one's perceptions are not derailed by another's suggestion as to a flavor or other characteristic. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Mar 31 06:08:40 1993 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: sharing opinions >From: uunet!bedford.progress.COM!rich (Rich Lenihan) >Subject: sharing opinions > >I've got a question about beer judge "etiquette". Some members of my >brewclub served as stewards at the recent NE regional competition in >Westport, MA. They were surprised to see some judges talking among them- >selves while they were judging entries. They weren't talking about the >weather, either. They were sharing opinions about the current entry! >Is this kosher? What is the AHA policy? >From my experience judging at both regionals and nationals, the judging process goes something like this: - group discusses style parameters before any beer is poured - elect/assign group leader, who will open/pour unless steward pours, or maybe we want to take turns pouring - serve beers, for each entry: - individually evaluate the beer, comments on score sheet, assign score - discuss scores to make sure everyone is in same ballpark, allow apprentices to ask questions, etc. - discuss candidates for next round or for awards; maybe adjust a score for a beer that held up well (or not so well) over time I prefer to complete my own evaluation and assign the score before any discussion begins, but thereafter we will hold some discussion before we move on to the next entry. All this discussion is more or less confirming with each other that everyone agrees on how well the beer meets the style criteria, that the beer does or does not have a particular flaw, etc. Hopefully it's not for any individual to assert his opinion over the other judges, or to bias their scores for whatever reason. Also, many judges have sensory `blind spots' and regularly miss a particular flavor/aroma. Hopefully they know where this handicap is and can rely on the other judges to pick it up; discussion is necessary for this. Discussion with another panel at another table is another matter entirely. I would only do so to clarify a point on the competition rules or maybe a style question. I would not ask an outside judge `do you think there is flavor X in this beer' -- for all I know, it might be his beer. If I needed an extra opinion, that's the job of the competition organizers to handle. I've also had organizers refuse to give an opinion and leave the decision up to the panel, at which point we could not continue without more discussion among the group. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 --------------------------------------