Return-Path: synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com
Received: from srvr8.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr8.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.81]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA05122 for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 03:01:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id CAA23638 for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 02:58:37 -0500
Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2)
	with X.500 id CAA26341; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 02:58:35 -0500
Received: from uu6.psi.com by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2)
	with SMTP id CAA26336; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 02:58:34 -0500
Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
        id AA13079 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 96 02:33:21 -0500
Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5)
	id AA13804; 17 Jan 96 01:17:43 EST (Wed)
To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1198 (Jan 17, 1996)
Date: 17 Jan 96 01:17:43 EST (Wed)
Message-Id: <9601170117.AA13804 at synchro.com>


JudgeNet Digest #1198				   Wed 17 Jan 1996


                               JudgeNet
			 The Beer Judge Digest

                 digest submissions: judge at synchro.com
          administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com
    send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address
	  messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored

        WWW Archives: http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/judge

                 Editor: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
             Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer at umich.edu>

      Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery

            Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in 
                LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest
           Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com

     For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com


Contents:
  test message                             (919) 405-3632" <danz at edasich.rtp.semi.harris.com>
  Exam controls                            (Scott Bickham)
  style guidelines/newsletter              (Jeremy Ballard Bergsman)
  Multiple Entries by a Single Entrant     (Fred Hardy)
  Wheat beer guidelines                    (kit.anderson)
  Judging Braggot (Guidelines)             (Fred Hardy)
  Multiple entries, travel expenses, bitching/ moaning ("Martin Stokes")

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 09:41:11 EST
From: "George Danz (919) 405-3632" <danz at edasich.rtp.semi.harris.com>
Subject: test message

I have been receiving the net digest from Judgenet, thanks to those
who have been doing this work.

I just wanted to be sure I can send as well as receive, since I 
received no reply for ANY last minute suggestions/help/hints I 
requested a week ago on the subject of the BJCP exam.  I have one
coming up this Saturday and not being a great test-taker, can use
all the help I can get.

Thanks,
George Danz
gdanz at harris.comBest Regards,

George E. Danz                    Snail Mail Address:
gdanz at harris.com                  PO Box 13996
(919)405-3632 Work                Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919)405-3651 FAX             



------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 11:40:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Exam controls

I thank Ed for his comments about the exam format.  He mentioned
the comment in the BJCP newsletter to the effect that making people 
retake both sections of the exam "means we don't trust the validity and 
reliability of our exam."  I think what the BJCC meant was that the
past 10 years has seen over 1500 BJCP exams given, and the format for
the majority of these was combined essay and tasting.  There were
a few exceptions to some of the early exams administered in the
Southwest, but those are the only ones I know of.  Any changes in
the exam format now, logistical problems aside, must be made in
a manner which does not bias the results.

Some statistics have been collected on the exams as a group.  For
first-time takers, the scoring curve has been:

Score	Number
<60:	0-15%
60-69	20-30%
70-79	40-50%
80-89	10-20%
90+	0-5%

This tells us that the majority of the scores are in the 70's, and there
are slightly more 60's than 80's.  There is generally a 5-10 point increase
for retakes, but 1/3 of the retakes do not improve their scores.  Maybe
Ed can help with the statistics, but my guess is that the % improvement is
close to that for retakes of standardized tests such as the SAT and GRE.
I have been paying particular attention to the retakes, and there
seems to be a lack of preparation.  My guess is that when taking the
exam for the first time, people do a fairly thorough job studying but
when retaking the exam after several years of judging experience, they
take the exam too lightly.  In either case, it should be treated like
a university exam that requires, reading, tasting, taking notes and
cramming.

Ed wrote "I propose that the BJCP, like any other certification program, 
should make an effort to evaluate the reliability, validity, and fairness 
of the BJCP exam and to make this information available to BJCP members."

I'm all for this.  I recently revised the scoring guide and it is
now three pages instead of two.  Answer keys are being put together
to narrow down the scope of the expected answer, but the test takers
will still allowed some flexibility in their responses.  Other areas
that are being focused include getting copies of the program guide
to those taking the exam.  On a recent exam, the program guide was
mailed to the sponsor with instructions to distribute it to those
interested in taking the exam.  This wasn't done and several people
taking the exam could not answer the question on the BJCP, so
the graders were instructed to throw the question out.  Some of the
administrators' scoresheets have been poorly completed, which makes
it more difficult to grade the tasting portion of the exam, but
steps have been taken to correct this problem.  There's still some
work to be done, but all in all, I think the Fall exams went very
well with consistent, timely grading.

Scott Bickham
Exam Director, BJCP
- -- 
====================================================================
E-Mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil		FAX:(202) 404-7546
						
Office: Naval Research Laboratories		Home and BJCP:
	Code 6691, Complex Systems		7507 Swan Point Way
	Washington, D.C  20375			Columbia, MD  21045
	(202) 404-8632				(410) 290-7721
====================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 10:53:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeremy Ballard Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: style guidelines/newsletter

Two communications to the BoD of the BJCP:
- -------------------------------------

Tim Dawson has done a great job on the style guidelines.  Consider
this: he has posted a description of over 100 styles and there
has been virtually no argument generated.  In this forum you know
something is good if people don't argue over it.  Congratulations Tim.

Now the question(s): what is the status of the guidelines in the
competition registration packet?  Can these be adopted?  What
needs to happen and what can we do?

- --------------------------------------
I was glad to see the newsletter go out, especially for those
net-challenged judges out there.  I don't know how to say
this delicately, but can I volunteer to be copy editor for
the BJCP newsletter?  This will be one means by which we 
publicize our organization and I think we should look as
professional as we can.  This newsletter left a little
to be desired in that area.

Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:21:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Multiple Entries by a Single Entrant


I have no problem with an entrant submitting multiple entries in the same 
sub-category. We allow this in the Capitol District Open (enter early and 
often!), and plan to continue to do so.

We have awarded multiple places in the same category to a single entrant. 
We will also continue to do this if it is appropriate. If any of those 
folks wish to gloat because they put one over on us, well, so be it.

If someone believes she/he is such a good brewer that they will enter the 
same beer in the same category three times and thus sweep the awards, I 
invite them to try. If they are the only entrant in that category, they 
deserve to sweep it. Otherwise other entries usually have something to say 
about it, 'cause some of them are pretty good as well.

We do check multiple subcategory entries from the same entrant to verify 
that the recipes appear different. So far they always have, but if the 
beer doesn't match the recipe, I'll never know it. We also specify the 
beer must be homebrewed. If it was done in a BOP and the entrant lied, 
I'll never know that either.

Maybe because of our graduated entry fee schedule, I have received 6 or 8 
entries with the same six brewers names on the entry forms. Did they 
falsely claim to be co-brewers to screw us out of entry fee money? I have 
no way of ever knowing.

In short, we rely primarily on the integrity of the entrants to police 
themselves. I think they do. If someone wishes to cheat, I don't think 
I'm the one who has the problem.

Cheers, Fred

==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 14:45:05 -0500
From: kit.anderson at acornbbs.com
Subject: Wheat beer guidelines


                     

I would like to thank Tim Dawson for including wits in the wheat 
category. Now if you organizers could please do the same.

Kit Anderson
Bath, Maine
<kit at maine.com>
The Maine Brew Page  http://www.maine.com/brew
*

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:10:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Judging Braggot (Guidelines)


Beer is an alcoholic beverage made from malted grain(s). It
usually has hops in it, but may not. If the brewer says it's
beer, I agree. If the beverage is made from malted grain(s) and
contains hops and honey it is a specialty beer according to AHA
guidelines. If the honey comprises 50% or more of the fermentable
sugars it is specialty beer with a lot of honey in it.

Braggot is made from malted grain(s) and honey, but should never
contain hops (otherwise it's beer). The AHA guidelines for
braggot show "0" (like in ZERO) IBUs under the bitterness column.
I urge judges to consider this if they are fortunate enough to
judge braggot. It is not beer, and the absence of hops gives it a
character very unlike beer.

Having endorsed one AHA guideline for braggot, let me knock
another. Color is given as 0 to 5 degrees L (SRM). This is, at
best, simply wrong. Braggot made with the lightest of ingredients
will be at least 4 degrees L, and that would be a very
untraditional braggot. The most definitive guideline for braggot
color is: "color may vary widely depending upon ingredients."

I base both comments on the fact that braggot essentially
disappeared from the end of 15th century until the recent rise of
homebrewing. Prior to the 15th century this British (and perhaps
Norse) beverage would have been made with blended (wild) honey
and home kilned malt. Neither of these was likely to have been
light, and braggot was probably deep amber to brown.

During this period, hops were not widely used in British brewing,
and did not become totally accepted until around 1700. Hops in
braggot was possible, but highly unlikely. What is likely, but
which I have never seen addressed, is the presence of spices in
braggot. The guidelines should be expanded to clearly allow
spices, since they certainly were in most British braggots made
during the Middle Ages (450 AD - 1400 AD).

Cheers, Fred


==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:32:07 EDT
From: "Martin Stokes" <mstokes at apollo.umenfa.maine.edu>
Subject: Multiple entries, travel expenses, bitching/ moaning

Happy New Year to all BJCPers:

Steve S. and Brews S. and others have commented recently on the 
rightsand wrongs, advantages and disadvantages of allowing multiple 
entries per brewer in a single subcategory.  Frankly I see nothing 
wrong with it providing (1) the competition can handle the additional 
potential entries and (2) some ---hole doesn't put the same beer in the 
same subcategory 3 times.  The competition organizer obviously needs 
to make the decision about item (1) and there is always the 
possibility of item (2) happening (unfortunately).  I have submitted 
3 completely different IPA's to the upcoming SNERC and would love to 
sweep the category, the chances of which, however, are truly minute.  
These beers are obviously different in color, nose, hops used, and 
malt to hop balance, but they still meet the style criteria.  I also 
have no objection to someone putting the same beer in different 
categories if they think it meets sufficient of the style guidelines.

Like Brews, I also was surprised to see the Boston HBC limitation on 
entries per subcategory.  I had mistakenly thought that one of the 
criteria for this year's NE regional competitions was to make them 
essentially the same, same forms, same categories, etc.  This is just 
my impression from attending only one of the organizational meetings 
and I'm obviously wrong.

There has also been a lot of bitching recently about travel expenses, 
time donated, why do we do this, and all that good stuff.  I live in 
north central Maine, it's quicker to drive to Canada than to any 
other US state.  I can make Boston in 5 hours if I drive like a bat 
out of hell (which I usually do!), Burlington VT will take at least 8 
hours, SNERC could be even longer, but I will judge all the NEHBOTY 
events (except the one in ME. I will be in N'Orlins) because I love 
everything about beer.   Making it, judging it, reading about it, 
sampling new brews, teaching people about it or how to brew it, I 
even like most of the other ---holes who make it and I like to commune 
and interface with them at competitions.  My biggest complaint is 
that the real job gets in the damn way of the more important things 
in life.  So let's quit bitching about driving a couple of hours or 
paying for the overnight accommodation.  SNERC will easily cost me 
$250-300 including entry fees, UPS, travel, etc.  I do it because I love 
it,  If you don't, then don't do it, damn it but quit bitching about 
it!!!.

                  Martin Stokes
                      (The Maniacal professor)
                      
Beer, wine, silage, rumen digestion, it's all fermentation chemistry. 
 Carbohydrate to a waste product of a microorganism.  
   
 186 N Fourth St             Home phone  (207) 827-5659
  Old Town ME 04468          Work phone  (207) 581-2737
 STOKES at MAINE.MAINE.EDU      Work fax    (207) 581-2744

------------------------------


End of JudgeNet Digest
************************