Return-Path: listadm at synchro.com Received: from srvr8.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr8.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.81]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA28692 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 03:09:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA23227 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 02:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with X.500 id CAA10998; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 02:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.4/2.2) with SMTP id CAA10960; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 02:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA23781 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 96 01:57:17 -0500 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05666 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 01:10:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199602290610.BAA05666 at synchro.com> 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 #1224 (Feb 28, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1224 Wed 28 Feb 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 Archivist: Spencer Thomas 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: Sam Adams BJCP Contribution (PGarofal) BJCP fees / record the right people / NO flat fee! (Robert Paolino) Results of the 2nd Annual Boston Homebrew Competition (STROUDS) points per beer (Dr. Beer) Judge weighting (Btalk) Judging comments/Cont. Ed ("Thomas W. Ausfeld") Judging Points ("Manning Martin MP") Re: Bad scoresheets ("Bob Hall" ) Bad scoresheets, revisited (Tom Leith) Bad scoresheets (Renee Peloquin Mattie) Re: Bad scoresheets, revisited (Spencer W Thomas) Re: Points, BOS Panels ("Manning Martin MP") Re: Point Recordation and the Like (Spencer W Thomas) Re: Difficulty (919) 405-3632" Re: Point Recordation and the Like (Fred Hardy) BJCP exam schedule (Scott Bickham) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:04:01 -0600 From: PGarofal at USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com Subject: Sam Adams BJCP Contribution This one's been kicking around for awhile, and I am just remembering to post it: with all the recent chat concerning a followup to the World Homebrew Competition, does anybody know how much, or indeed if, the Boston Beer Co. donated to the BJCP? A donation to the BJCP, as well as the AHA was mentioned in their literature. I think we earned something, considering the workload (almost 1700 entries, with about 85 judges). Finally, though this may fall on deaf ears (or, rather, I may be preaching to the converted), Boston Beer Co. would be better served by incorporating a more creative list of styles, such as Tim Dawson's. While not many homebrewers have attempted a Grodzisk (or whatever that Polish smoked-sour-wheat beer is called), but many of us have refined "lost" styles such as pre-Prohibition. Isn't that what they're after, anyway? The creative urges of homebrewers (and the economic interests of BBC) would seem to be best served by allowing a wider range of styles. Hey, they might even "scoop" the industry with General Pulaski's Grodzisk! Peter Garofalo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:15:54 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Paolino Subject: BJCP fees / record the right people / NO flat fee! "JOHN A. JR. CARLSON " wrote: >Boulder based club Hop Barley & the Aler's. We had a web site and drew >around 190 entries. This was a good turn out for us and the event went Last May, our Big and Huge competition had 75 entries. With a little more promotion than in the past, it was the largest number of entries we've had to date for that event and we gave away lots of prizes generously donated by homebrewing industry sponsors (and this year's event--expected to be bigger and huger--is the weekend of May 11-12, so get those higher gravity beers ready to go!). (John then details the materials he got from the AHA ($25) and BJCP ($20), praising the AHA materials, noting the older BJCP materials, and praising the BJCP homepage.) >I filed an organizer report with both the AHA and the BJCP and paid an >additional $42.00 to the BJCP for point recordation of all who >participated (judges, stewards, etc.). Total cost for BJCP recognition >came to $62.00 the same for the AHA would have been $40.00. Three responses here: 1) When you filed the report with the AHA, did you pay the extra $15 even though the BJCP is the one now recording the experience and administering the judge program? 2) The AHA puts out a decent enough packet of materials, but after you've seen it once (and can pass it on to a new organiser the next year) why continue to pay the $25 when the AHA does not have a judging program? When they were a co-sponsor, it was a different story. When you sign on with the BJCP, however, you're supporting the judge program. Sanction with both if you think it's important to do so, but if you want to avoid the extra $25 or $40, stick with the BJCP. 3) Did you submit points for literally _everyone_ who participated, or only the ones either in the program or expecting to take the exam within a year? Ask them before you have points recorded! My experience has been that there are people in some clubs who simply enjoy participating in the events (as stewards and other necessary and underappreciated support roles) but have no interest in becoming judges. Recording points for them a)does nothing for them, b)means a higher cost for the host club, and c)needlessly enlarges the BJCP database. BJCP participants can receive points for any recorded events as far back as a year before taking the exam; anything older than that disappears (Dennis--do I have that right?). When I've filed reports, I don't ask for a point for the local professional craft brewer who's never going to take the exam or the half-point for the steward who doesn't expect to become a BJCP judge (certainly not in the next year, anyway). I _do_ pay to record points for the BJCP participants and the enthusiastic apprentice judges (or stewards) who express even the slightest interest in studying for and taking the exam during the next year. >Was it worth it? At this point, I think so because the BJCP program needs a >revenue stream, and the judges want their points recorded. Would I recognize >again with BJCP? I am not sure. I think we need to re-evaluate the point ....(text deleted).... >per point is a poor price structure and should be changed to some sort of >flat fee. >I am interested to see how other organizers have gone about this and what >their feelings are on the subject. Is it worth it? YES! See (2) above. Flat rate? No way! One problem I saw before with the AHA fee was that it _was_ a flat rate. You paid $40 whether you had 30 entries or 300 entries, even though the competition entry fee revenue is ten times as high, given the same per entry charge. For that 30-entry competition and a $4 entry fee, sanctioning eats up 1/3 of the revenue, leaving only $80 for postage, copying, ribbons, lunch for judges, and everything else. That same $40 is a tiny fraction of the revenue for the 300-entry competition. Long ago in this forum I proposed a graduated scale for sanctioning fees depending on the size (number of entries) of the competition. The buck-a-judge scale may not be perfect, but larger competitions do require more judges than smaller ones, so it's not a bad approximation. If you had 190 entries and we had 75 entries, you _should_ (and can better afford to) pay more to record the points for 190 entries' worth of judges. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Madison rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Winner of the 1995 Great Dane Challenge Start your (beer) engines! The first pint of NGHAB "American Special Bitter," dry-hopped with Columbus, will be pulled Friday, FeBREWary 9, around 6pm at the Great Dane. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:08:35 -0400 (EDT) From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Subject: Results of the 2nd Annual Boston Homebrew Competition Winners in the 2nd Annual Boston Homebrew Competition Held 2/24/96 - 316 entries total in 21 categories Categories 1&2 (collapsed)- American Light Lager/European Light Lager (21 entries) 1st - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (American Standard) Rockport, ME 2nd - Shekhar D. Nimkar (Munich Helles) Lynn, MA 3rd - Michael S. Branigan (American Standard) East Greenwich, RI Category 3 - Light Ales (6 entries): 1st - John McCafferty (Kolsch) Chelmsford, MA 2nd - Peter Cammann (Blonde Ale) Waitsfield, VT 3rd - Bill Murphy (Kolsch) Brookline, MA Category 4 - British Bitters (20 entries): 1st - Stephen Rose (Ordinary Bitter) Newton, MA 2nd - Stephen Rose (Best Bitter) Newton, MA 3rd - Will Fields (Strong Bitter) South Hamilton, MA) Category 5 - Scottish Ales (6 entries): 1st - Julian Zelazny (Export 80/-) Sunapee, NH 2nd - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (Export 80/-) Rockport, ME 3rd - Bruce P. Stevens (Export 80/-) Winthrop, ME Category 6 - Pale Ales (40 entries): 1st - Jeff Goyette (American PA) New Boston, NH 2nd - Shekhar D. Nimkar (American PA) Lynn, MA 3rd - Jeff Goyette (British PA) New Boston, NH Category 7 - India Pale Ales (13 entries): 1st - Jeff Goyette - 2nd runnerup, BOS New Boston, NH 2nd - Ken Jucks Belmont, MA 3rd - Mike Fertsch Woburn, MA Category 8 - Altbiers (11 entries): 1st - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (Northern German) - BOS winner Rockport, ME 2nd - Jason Kinchen (Dusseldorfer) Winchester, MA 3rd - Ken Jucks (Northern German) Belmont, MA Category 9 - German Amber Lagers (11 entries): 1st - Byron & Iren Ginter (Vienna) Elliot, ME 2nd - Mike Fertsch (Oktoberfest) Woburn, MA 3rd - Steve Vannerson (Oktoberfest) Belmont, MA Category 10 - Brown Ales (17 entries): 1st - Kevin Harvill (Mild Ale) Flower Mount, TX 2nd - Michael S. Branigan (American) East Greenwich, RI 3rd - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (American) Rockport, ME Category 11 - Strong Ales (24 entries): 1st - Bradd Wheeler and John Jaynes (Barleywine) - 3rd runnerup, BOS Somerville, MA 2nd - Mike Fertsch (Old Ale) Woburn, MA 3rd - Frank Goterch (Russian Imperial Stout) Bradford, MA Category 12 - European Dark Lagers (6 entries): 1st - Paul Sullivan (Schwarzbier) NYC, NY 2nd - Greg Bibbo (Munich Dunkel) Bedford, MA 3rd - Shekhar D. Nimkar (Munich Dunkel) Lynn, MA Category 13 - Bockbiers (10 entries): 1st - Drs. Timothy J. Dalton and Heidi B. Hammel (Doppelbock) - runnerup, BOS Reading, MA 2nd - Stephen Rose (Traditional) Newton, MA 3rd - Bill Murphy (Hellesbock) Brookline, MA Category 14 - Porters (15 entries): 1st - Scott Walsh (Robust) Lee, NH 2nd - Justin Evans (Robust) Merrimac, MA 3rd - Thomas Furth (Robust) Beverly, MA Category 15 - Stouts (22 entries): 1st - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (Sweet) Rockport, ME 2nd - Peter Cammann (Sweet) Waitsfield, VT 3rd - Bill Robinson (Foreign Extra) Carlisle, MA Category 16 - Wheat beers (7 entries): 1st - Glenn Roy (Bavarian weizen) Manchester, NH 2nd - Steve Umstead & Steve Fifield (Bavarian hefe-weizen) Manchester, NH 3rd - Lee Menegoni (Dunkelweizen) Hudson, NH Category 17 - Strong Belgian & French ales (16 entries): 1st - Drs. Timothy J. Dalton and Heidi B. Hammel (Tripel) Reading, MA 2nd - Julian Zelazny (Dubbel) Sunapee, NH 3rd - Bob Gorman & Pete Langlois (Tripel) Waltham, MA Category 18 - Other Belgian ales (15 entries): 1st - Jeff Goyette (specialty - Orval clone) New Boston, NH 2nd - Larry M. Stenger (witbier) Royal Palm East, FL 3rd - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (witbier) Rockport, ME Category 19 - Fruit beers (11 entries): 1st - Bruce P. Stevens (Black current Oud Bruin) Winthrop, ME 2nd - Chris Vyhnal (Blueberry weizenbock) Hanover, NH 3rd - Ron Wilkerson & Walt Nason (Cranberry Ale) Orlando, FL Category 20 - Spice/Herb/Vegetable beers (19 entries): 1st - Chris Vyhnal (Coffee Oatmeal Stout) Hanover, NH 2nd - Frank Goterch (Spicy pumpkin wheat beer) Bradford, MA 3rd - Eric Miller (Anchor OSA clone) Newport, RI Category 21 - Smoked beers (6 entries): 1st - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (Smoked porter) Rockport, ME 2nd - Drs. Timothy J. Dalton and Heidi B. Hammel (Classic rauchbier) Reading, MA 3rd - Thomas J. O'Connor III, M.D. (Classic rauchbier) Rockport, ME Category 22 - ciders (20 entries): 1st - Tim Tierney (New England Style) 2nd - Steve Symonds (Specialty - fermented with grapes) 3rd - Bob Gorman (sparkling) Congratulations to all of the winners! Thanks to everyone who entered and all of the judges and stewards who showed up the day of the competition and helped out. Also, thanks to all of the local businesses who donated all of those great prizes. We will be mailing out the judging forms to the entrants within the next week after we have completed reviewing them. We will also be mailing out ribbons and prizes to those winners who couldn't attend the BHC. Steve Stroud entry registrar ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:33:18 -0500 From: drbeer at tiac.net (Dr. Beer) Subject: points per beer One consideration I discussed with Martin regarding this which hasn't been brought forward is strength differences between styles. Good competition organizers typically make panels judging styles like barley wine or Imperial Stout smaller than those judging something like American light lager. Making point awards geared to number of beers judged either discriminates against those who judge these stronger styles or creates a disincentive for judges to judge those styles. Jay - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalt's This is a key free document, no keyboards were harmed in its creation. (The DragonDictate speech recognition system, the CIC handwriting recognizer, or some combination was used. Send e-mail to drbeer at tiac.net to find out more) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:25:13 -0500 From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: Judge weighting Here is a solution to balancing the points per beer problem. Just assign the biggest judges to the biggest categories ;) Later, Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 07:16:59 EST5EDT From: "Thomas W. Ausfeld" Subject: Judging comments/Cont. Ed Scott Bickham wrote: > Bouquet/Aroma (8/10): Butter, smells like a diaper pail > Appearance(6/6): Copper > Flavor (0/19): Very strange > Body (5/5): Thin, ok. > Drinkability (0/10): INFECTED, Watch sanitation/cleaning. > Total: 19 > > The brewer commented that even if the beer deserved a score of 19, > he did not pay a steep entry fee to receive such caustic remarks. > Any comments? If it smells like a diaper pail, why the 8??? Some where in today's Judgenet(#1223) comments were made regarding the ability to articulate or dissertate flavors percieved. This is proof that thet were right. If I received this scoresheet, it would be my last time entering a beer in a contest. What value is it to me? I don't need someone telling me it tastes like sh*t, tell me what the possible causes are so I don't do it again. Lee Bussy sez: > That was not the intent, now was it what I originally proposed. I > proposed that *for a fee* a person could take an *at home* course and > test for a specific style. Then the person would be awarded a > certain amount of experience points for doing this continuing > education. > > This addresses those in remote areas and them wanting to stay > current, it addresses those that would like to have the opportunities > to learn and progress in the program and not being close to > competitions, and those who would just like to learn more. I'm a supporter. Being in a rural area myself, this would be a great help to me. I have not taken the test as of yet mainly because I have not built up the confidence in my tasting abilities because I have not corroberated(sp?) my tastings with someone with experience. As an aside, I'm not sure of the logistics of such a program, but I assume a reference scoresheet would be made by a couple of senior judges. This in itself would be a decent tool to measure quality/consistency. Tom Ausfeld (Thomas.ausfeld at hitchcock.org) Newbury, Vermont Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. - Henry Lawson ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1996 17:11:45 U From: "Manning Martin MP" Subject: Judging Points Al Folsom writes, regarding awarding judging points on a per-beer-judged basis: > 1) After 10 or more beers in a flight, your taste buds (at least >mine!) are pretty well shot. Do we run the risk of encouraging the >awarding of points for bad judging? That's one reason why there should be limits on the number of points awarded on a given day. But, it has already pointed pointed out that such limits exist today, and it doesn't stop people from violating them. If the judging has to be done in one day, and the competition is short of judges, that's what has to be done. If the problem is that the category is really big, it should be split into two rounds. > 2) Organizers rarely have the chance to completely balance all >flights of beers. Should a judge that gets assigned to a flight of 7 >beers be penalized compared to a judge that gets 12? The judge who scores 7 is not being "penalized," he's getting points commensurate with the work done. If he likes to divide the cost of attending the competition by the number of points earned, he might feel cheated. In any case, the difference would be fairly small in a one-beer-one-point system. If one assumes the 20:1 ratio I proposed between current points and the points-per-beer points, the difference between 7 vs 12 beers is only 5% of the point total needed to reach "certified" rank. To reduce this difference further, larger categories can be split. >As a small alternative, how about point awards based on flights judged? >That way the person who has to judge three flights morning noon and >night get recognized for it, without the above problems. I don't see much difference. In fact, this might even increase the spread in points awarded per judge at a given competition, since there will be always be fewer flights than beers, leaving less opportinity for the organizer to level the load. MPM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 09:36:25 -0500 From: "Bob Hall" Subject: Re: Bad scoresheets Scott Bickham presented this non-informative scoresheet: >Bouquet/Aroma (8/10): Butter, smells like a diaper pail >Appearance(6/6): Copper >Flavor (0/19): Very strange >Body (5/5): Thin, ok. >Drinkability (0/10): INFECTED, Watch sanitation/cleaning. >Total: 19 >The brewer commented that even if the beer deserved a score of 19, >he did not pay a steep entry fee to receive such caustic remarks. >Any comments? I think that we judges should consider ourselves as an underpaid beer tasting consultants whose raison d'etre is to provide useful feedback to brewers who pay a lot of money to have their beers reviewed. I enter contests because I like the feedback. I seem to be a poor judge of my own beer (they all taste good!) and comments I have received on scoresheets have helped me with later iterations of certain recipes. After providing this consulting service then we can rank the beers for ribbons. I admit that in a flight of 12 beers that it is tempting to taste a beer that is clearly not going to make a ribbon, and brush it aside with some quick comments in order to move along with the tasting. The above judge seems to not really care about providing feedback, which defeats the purpose of the brewer entering the beer, and is likely to turn off potential entrants to competitions who see is as a waste of their money. Bob Hall ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:25:19 -0600 (CST) From: Tom Leith Subject: Bad scoresheets, revisited Scott writes: >I think this takes the cake. It was filled out by a certified judge >in the English Bitter category at the 1995 AHA first round in >Norwalk. > >Bouquet/Aroma (8/10): Butter, smells like a diaper pail >Appearance(6/6): Copper >Flavor (0/19): Very strange >Body (5/5): Thin, ok. >Drinkability (0/10): INFECTED, Watch sanitation/cleaning. >Total: 19 > >The brewer commented that even if the beer deserved a score of 19, >he did not pay a steep entry fee to receive such caustic remarks. >Any comments? OK, I'll bite. I agree that the remarks were brief, but which were "caustic"? It seems to me that we have a (dispassionate) description of characteristics, a (probably accurate) diagnosis, and a bit of (sound) advice. Now, that said, I sure wish judges were better educated. This would've allowed him to write something more like this: Bouquet/Aroma (8/10): Buttery aroma of diacetyl, appropriate for style. Diaper pail volitile aromatics suggest infection or possibly oxidation. Appearance(6/6): Copper color ~11 L, appropriate for style. No haze, suggests that possible infection isn't from wild yeast. Flavor (0/19): Phenolics and sour flavor mask the malt and hop completely. Body (5/5): Thin, ok. Drinkability (0/10): Infected and/or oxidized, Watch sanitation/cleaning and wort handling in general. If infected, it is most likely bacterial, but I don't know for sure. Total: 19 Of course, I didn't see or taste the beer. I can only assume it was bright and clear because it got 100% for appearance, and that its body was appropriate for style for the same reason. The other baby-diaper beers I've judged tasted phenolic-y and had a sour tang. So yes, I'm making this up for the sake of illustration, but I bet its pretty close. Maybe the judge couldn't distinguish among the "strange" flavors. We don't want him to make statements beyond his experience, do we? If the best a guy can do is say the flavor is "strange" that's all he should write. Maybe "not beer-like" would sound better, but it doesn't really convey any more information. The notation "ok" is, I think, a shorthand for "appropriate for style". Maybe it'd be better if we spelled it out, I don't know. I'm glad to see the focus on the entrant. If people are going to pay us a big entry fee and ship their beer to us, they ought to be able to expect at least some minimum level of technical and stylistic competence. But we can't afford the time to re-write the relavent chapters of TCHOHB or the classic styles series for them. Special to Scott: Please run my version by the brewer and ask whether these comments are less caustic. When you do this, don't show him the surrounding discussion, though -- just the comments. Try to find out what he thinks. I'm sure we'll all be interested... t ============================================================================= Tom Leith InterNet: trl at wuerl.WUstl.EDU 4434 Dewey Ave. CompuServe: 70441,3536 St. Louis, Missouri 63116 314/362-6965 - Office 314/362-6971 - Office Fax Ad majorem Dei gloriam 314/481-2512 - Home + Infernal Machine ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 09:38:42 -0500 From: Renee Peloquin Mattie Subject: Bad scoresheets - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BB05C0.C62E3F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think the sample "bad scoresheet" Scott Bickham presented has two things wrong with it 1) What was said and 2) How it was said. 1) "Very Strange" does not provide any feedback as to what flavors are, appropriately or inappropriately, present. 2) I figure the 19 makes my point (ouch!) and now I need to be encouraging -- suggest possible causes of the infection, finish on a positive note: "Appearance good. This could be a proper English Bitter when you fix the problem." "Diaper pail" is plenty descriptive, but can't we come up with something less crushing? Renee Peloquin Mattie rpmattie at voicenet.com Downingtown, PA - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BB05C0.C62E3F80 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BB05C0.C62E3F80-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 10:16:29 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas Subject: Re: Bad scoresheets, revisited I've seen similar or worse from a couple of local judges. Now that I know who they are, I will always try to pair them with a judge who writes good comments. Why not just bar them from competitions? Two reasons: 1. They are knowledgeable and competent judges, with better palates than most of us. 2. Not enough local judges. Why not "talk to them"? Believe me, we have tried. Unfortunately, it's often the most opinionated, cock-sure judges who do this. Suggestions would be welcomed for a better way to deal with this problem. =Spencer ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1996 10:17:36 U From: "Manning Martin MP" Subject: Re: Points, BOS Panels (This evidently bounced, I'll try again) Al Folsom writes, regarding awarding judging points on a per-beer-judged basis: > 1) After 10 or more beers in a flight, your taste buds (at least >mine!) are pretty well shot. Do we run the risk of encouraging the >awarding of points for bad judging? That's one reason why there should be limits on the number of points awarded on a given day. But, it has already pointed pointed out that such limits exist today, and it doesn't stop people from violating them. If the judging has to be done in one day, and the competition is short of judges, that's what has to be done. If the problem is that the category is really big, it should be split into two rounds. > 2) Organizers rarely have the chance to completely balance all >flights of beers. Should a judge that gets assigned to a flight of 7 >beers be penalized compared to a judge that gets 12? The judge who scores 7 is not being "penalized," he's getting points commensurate with the work done. If he likes to divide the cost of attending the competition by the number of points earned, he might feel cheated. In any case, the difference would be fairly small in a one-beer-one-point system. If one assumes the 20:1 ratio I proposed between current points and the points-per-beer points, the difference between 7 vs 12 beers is only 5% of the point total needed to reach "certified" rank. To reduce this difference further, larger categories can be split. >As a small alternative, how about point awards based on flights judged? >That way the person who has to judge three flights morning noon and >night get recognized for it, without the above problems. I don't see much difference. In fact, this might even increase the spread in points awarded per judge at a given competition, since there will be always be fewer flights than beers, leaving less opportinity for the organizer to level the load. Scott Bickham and Fred Hardy commented on best of show points. I am in favor of placing the most experienced judges available (for the brewer's sakes), and celeb's on the panel. A less senior judge could also be seated for learning purposes. I originally said that points should not be awarded in excess of judging the same number of beers in categories. I haven't looked up what the current awards are for BOS, but I seem to recall they're generous. The comment about no points being awarded for BOS was a little off-the-cuff, but consider this: BOS judges are given the honor of being selected for the panel, and virtually all of the judges present would like to participate. The BOS judges are tasting and discussing the very best beers the competition produced, and they don't even have to fill out a score sheet. A token point award may be appropriate, but giving a big bonus for this "work," I think, is not. Fred also remarked about the burden on the organizer for a points-per-beer system. I don't think this should be that big a deal, balancing the panels and flights is something that should be done already. As for recording points, put that burden back on the judges. Make each one turn in a summary of the beers they judged, listing entry numbers. Then just sort these out by region and send them off to the appropriate database administrators. MPM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:03:58 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas Subject: Re: Point Recordation and the Like How about a point per flight? This addresses the issue of different sized flights (e.g., barleywine vs brown ale), while still recognizing the actual experience more proportionately. I note that points are awarded for "national" competitions on a per-session basis. Quoted from the (old) BJCP bylaws: 2b. Effective March 1, 1994, in accordance with Sections VI-B-9 & 11, judges participating in "first rounds" of National competitions and competitions with at least 500 total entries shall receive 1 point for the first session attended and .5 points for each subsequent session with a limit of 1.5 points per calendar day and a total limit of 3 points for the event. Any judge who participates in all sessions of a National competition at a single site shall receive the total maximum allowable points (within the calendar and event limits), regardless of the total number of sessions judged at that site. =S ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 11:26:12 EST From: "George Danz (919) 405-3632" Subject: Re: Difficulty At 12:28 PM 2/27/96 CST, you wrote: >George-- >You still are missing my point. You said: >>without having to investigate the procedure used to make it? > >Not the procedure, but the difficulty in making the beer taste the >way it does. In a Special Bitter, all you need to really balance is >bitterness, fruitiness and maltiness. Reasonable difficulty. In a Berliner >Weiss, you have the more difficult task of getting the acidity right in >addition to the bitterness, fruitiness and maltiness. In a Barleywine you >need alcohol warmth without harshness. In a Munchener Dunkel, you need a >lot of malt aroma and flavour -- not very easy -- try it. I don't care >if the person made the Berliner Weiss out of extract and 88% Lactic Acid. >It was more difficult to get it to taste well balanced because there were >more variables in the flavour. Sure a triple decoction may be the only >way to get that really, really malty flavour in some German beers, but >the fact that the brewer acheived the difficult task of recreating that >really, really malty flavour should be rewarded, even if their "secret" >was to scorch some malt extract just right. Yes, let me see if I have you right. You're saying that in order to get a good Berliner Weiss, you might have to take more effort... care, etc. than making a good Pale Ale. I definately agree. In addition, I think you're saying also that to win a BOS, some reward should be given a brewer who tackled and succeeded making the best Weissbier. Actually, I tend to agree with you now. But you're going to get arguments from some brewers who would say, "so the only way I can win BOS is to mix it up with the other brewers who make Weissbier." I could live with telling them, "sorry, it is more difficult to make a Weissbier and you'll have to be satisfied with 2nd place." It has been an interesting discussion. I regret not being able to spend the time to pour over each issue of JudgeNet to learn more, but time will heal that. > >At the 1995 HWBTA BOS, I argued that the Eisbock was a more difficult beer >to get right. If the other judges who were there are on-line, I'm sure they >will recall that I was NOT saying it was more *work* to make an Eisbock, but >rather that it was more difficult to acheive that intense level of alcoholic >warmth and strength without the harshness of higher alcohols. Simply taking >water out of a Doppelbock that contains lots of fusel alcohols will give you >a beer that tastes like paint thinner. The base bock was equisitely made >and the the alcohol was clearly almost entirely ethanol. Warmth without >scorching the pipes. Concentrating that only accentuates any errors in the >base beer. The difficulty was not simply because there was more process >involved. I believe the other judges were Rob Reed, Dave Norton and John >Isenhour -- surely they remember me saying this. > >George -- I think that you are probably not the only person who misunderstood >me. If you don't mind having your words included, I urge you to repost this >private email to JudgeNet. I think that many seem to believe that I meant >difficulty in process, when I really meant difficulty in acheiving the >balance (often of many, many elements) or flavour of some styles, regardless >of the process the brewer actually used. Al, I'll post this one to JudgeNet. > >Al. > >Best 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: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:40:51 -0500 (EST) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Re: Point Recordation and the Like On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, Spencer W Thomas wrote: > How about a point per flight? This addresses the issue of different > sized flights (e.g., barleywine vs brown ale), while still recognizing > the actual experience more proportionately. I think this makes more sense than the current point(s) per number of entries. > I note that points are awarded for "national" competitions on a > per-session basis. Quoted from the (old) BJCP bylaws: > 2b. Effective March 1, 1994, in accordance with Sections VI-B-9 & 11, judges > participating in "first rounds" of National competitions and competitions with > at least 500 total entries shall receive 1 point for the first session attended > and .5 points for each subsequent session with a limit of 1.5 points per > calendar day and a total limit of 3 points for the event. Any judge who > participates in all sessions of a National competition at a single site shall > receive the total maximum allowable points (within the calendar and event > limits), regardless of the total number of sessions judged at that site. OK, what's a session? If this equates to a flight, it sorta fits. I have judged more than one flight during a session at a national competition. I am calling a session the period before lunch, another session after lunch, and another the next morning. I can see some additional bookeeping for organizers of regional competitions, but it certainly is not a show stopper like point per beer. Then again, 210 entries with 3 entries per "flight" could make you a Master judge very quickly. Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 13:25:54 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bickham Subject: BJCP exam schedule Here is an updated schedule. Some dates are subject to change, but they are correct give or take a weekend. New requests will not be considered for March through May. Date Location Contact Person Phone Number - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3/9 Sacramento, CA Martin Lodahl (916) 823-0202 3/23 Anchorage, AK Cindy Harrington (907) 345-7408 3/23 Calgary, Alberta Randy Davis (403) 274-5195 4/13 Southern Cal. Brian Vessa (310) 397-8352 4/28 Aurora, IL Frank Dobner (708) 979-5124 4/28 Rochester, NY Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 5/5 Orlando, FL Ron Bach (407) 696-2738 5/11 Washington, DC Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 5/12 Santa Rosa, CA Byron Burch (707) 544-2520 5/19 Fleetwood, PA Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 5/19 Edmonton, Alberta Jeff Kuziw (403) 479-3771 6/9 Idaho Falls, ID Gregg Smith (208) 524-0970 6/6 New Orleans (AHA Conf.) Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 6/23 Reno, NV Rob Bates (702) 345-6740 6/30 Omaha, NE Frank Sobetski (402) 345-6740 8/10 Cincinnati, OH Ed Westemeier (513) 321-2023 11/9 Utica, NY Peter Garofalo (315) 428-0952 Tentative (no date set yet) - --------------------------- Spring Michigan Spring Cranford, N.J. Spring Minneapolis Summer St. Louis, MO Fall Washington, DC Fall Burlington, VT ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------