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 (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA23025 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:56:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.38]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA23732 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:56:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id BAA06187; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id BAA06182; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA17912 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 01:24:03 -0400 Received: (from listadm at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22386 for judge-recipients at synchro.com; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:10:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199604120510.BAA22386 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 #1253 (Apr 11, 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JudgeNet Digest #1253 Thu 11 Apr 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: Re: Experience Points (Steve Hamburg) AHA Sanctioning (Fred Hardy) Re: BOS points (Fred Hardy) BJCP guide posted (long) (Scott Bickham) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:52 CDT From: Steve Hamburg Subject: Re: Experience Points Greetings. It's been a while since I've contributed anything to this forum, but I've been enjoying the lurking, thank you! I sure hope my spelling's OK. You know, I might be going out on a limb, but I don't think Bill Giffin's going to vote to approve the BJCP By Laws. Now, back to the subject. Fred Hardy's suggestions on experience points merit strong consider- ation. While I don't necessarily agree 100% with all of the point allo- cations, I like the fact that the goal is to reward EXPERIENCE. I've always understood why we have offered additional judging points as incentives for larger competitions. But I really believe our craft has matured to the point where we no longer need "point bribery" to attract qualified judges. Indeed, as a result of this practice we now have a system that occasionally misrepresents actual experience. For example, in our region we've had the first round NHC since 1992. Judges have had ample opportunity to "pad." In the first year, the second round was held in nearby Milwaukee. Local judges were able to get 5 points for judging 4 flights (3 in Chicago, 1 in Milwaukee). If you had judged in the AHA Chicago regional since 1992 and nowhere else, you'd have 12 experience points. Compare this to someone who's worked 6 or 7 smaller regional events during the same period. We know who has more points, but can we say the former actually has more experience? Those of us who judged at the Minnesota Brewers Association's first compe- tition in October '92 will never forget it! I recall something like 280 entries. Less than 10 of the judges present were in BJCP, and the size of the whole judging contingent was certainly not enough to zip through the beers. A number of us worked 5 flights (around 10 beers per) over 3 days. Total experience points awarded: 1 (BOS judges got 1 more!). One flight of beers at 2nd round AHA gets you 2 points. An accurate measure of judging experience? Hardly. I favor a system that more accurately reflects how much a judge has judged, in essence, rewarding judges for judging. Through the magic of UPS and other delivery services, brewers can enter competitions all over North America. There are many clubs in less populated areas who are now attracting more entries than ever thought possible. Yet these clubs cannot draw from sizable judge pools, and must rely on a smaller cadre to perform yeoman service. A pre-set limit on the number of points per event fails to recognize those individuals who really do perform beyond the call of duty. Will elimination of point guarantees reduce judge participation at large competitions? We don't really know, because it hasn't been done. But I think it's safe to assume that judges will still be attracted to larger events because they still correlate with more opportunities to judge. And combined with creative educational and social activities, such events can be much more than point factories. As Fred has aptly said, "judges at the smaller competitions often judge more styles than judges at very large events." A system that recognizes this and reduces experience "inflation" is a major improvement. +--------------------+------------------------------+------------------+ | Steve Hamburg | Internet: shamburg at mcs.com | "Life is short, | | Chicago, Illinois | Phone: +1.312.878.0177 | and so are some | | USA | Fax: +1.312.878.9313 | brewers." | | | http://www.mcs.com/~shamburg | | +--------------------+------------------------------+------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:47:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Fred Hardy Subject: AHA Sanctioning I want to second John Carlson's post. We (Capitol District Open) are both AHA sanctioned and BJCP recognized. These "authentications" reach different audiences, both of which are very important to our competition. FWIW, our competition is held in Washington, DC, so our main source of judges is DC and the mid-Atlantic geographical region. Last year the mailing list from the AHA had over a 100 names which we included in our first mailing. Fewer than 10 were returned as undeliverable as addressed. Considering the size of the data base and the inherent difficulty with people moving, etc., I consider 90% accuracy to be darned good. I realize there were judges who were not on the base, and maybe a few who died without informing the AHA, but the information they provided was worth the effort and expense of sanctioning. This year we are also getting a database from Russ (BJCP). I expect it to be somewhat more accurate and complete than the AHA's, but not by much. I will probably rely on the BJCP listing this time. Value added from the AHA is what John posted. They are the source of styles, standard forms, and the like. Well worth the sanctioning fee, IMO. 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: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:46:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Re: BOS points Hi, Randy: I enjoyed your email, and think I understand your reasoning. I agree that being asked to be a BoS judge seems to be its own reward. I also would oppose a formula for selecting BoS judges. It is, and I hope will remain, discretionary for the organizer. I do not agree that the additional points have no incentive value, however. The incentive is not to recruit BoS judges at the competition, but rather to induce top judges to participate in the event. It is a way for the organizer to say thank you to judges that are senior, perhaps travelled a long way to participate, and hopefully will return to help the competition next year. When you get your point sheet from the BJCP, BoS points stand out and provide recognition, if only to oneself. I also believe that BoS judging is a hell of a lot more difficult than flight judging. The 1/2 point I propose is minimal recognition of this. I have no problem with some other universally accepted method (special ribbon, lapel pin, etc.) to recognize a BoS judge. Today that recognition is additional point award. I have no problem with that either. I do have a problem with no recognition at all. My proposal does drop the award to 1/2 point. I think that removes some unfairness (the rich getting richer), recognizes that the award is not an outright incentive, and retains it as recognition of an invaluable service to the competition organizer. It also eliminate the arbitrary assignment of points linked to number of entries. BoS in an 800 entry competition can be reduced to the top 4-5 on the second round. The points awarded for the third round selection of top 1, 2 & 3 out of 5 is not worth more BoS points than a two round competition where BoS comes down to 12 finalists. 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: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:35:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bickham Subject: BJCP guide posted (long) While we're discussing the number of points awarded for various competitions, I thought it would be useful to posted an updated version of the BJCP Guide. In includes some changes made by Russ and me while the BJCC has been working on the by-laws, so while it is our working version, some aspects need to be formally approved before it can be published. The spelling has been checked by Ispell on UNIX, as well as W4W, while the by-laws were spell-checked using MS Word. Apparently some of these programs are not very effective, so any spelling flames should be ftp'ed to 127.0.0.1 Regards, Scott - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE BJCP PROGRAM GUIDE The Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) is an independent non-profit membership organization of beer judges. It was formed in 1985 through the efforts of the American Homebrewers Association (AHA) and the Home Wine and Beer Trade Association (HWBTA). Over 1500 judges are currently active in the program. The purpose of the BJCP is to promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills. THE BJCP EXAM The three-hour BJCP exam is given in two parts: essay and tasting. The essay portion, worth 70 percent of the final score, is designed to determine an individual's overall knowledge of beer and his or her ability to clearly express the information in writing. Essay questions cover the following areas: O Technical aspects of brewing, ingredients, brewing process and possible faults. O World beer styles. O The BJCP. Judges represent the BJCP and should be able to explain the program to potential judges and homebrewers. The tasting portion of the exam is worth 30 percent of the final score. Each candidate will judge four beers as if he or she were at a homebrew competition. The prospective judge must score the beer and describe all significant aspects of it, as well as comment on style characteristics. PREPARING FOR THE EXAM In preparing to become a beer judge you should acquire a broad understanding of beer styles, know different brewing methods and how brewing methods affect style and flavor. Brewing processes should be understood to the point where you can intelligently discuss various techniques and ingredients and how they may have affected the beer being sampled. Frequent tasting of commercial beers will help you gain further understanding of style differences. RECOMMENDED READING Beer Companion, Michael Jackson New Complete Joy of Home Brewing (Avon Books), Charlie Papazian Complete Handbook of Home Brewing (Garden Way Publishing), Dave Miller Zymurgy 1987 Special Issue (Vol.10, No.4) Troubleshooting AHA National Homebrew Competition Style Guidelines ADDITIONAL READING New World Guide to Beer (Running Press), Michael Jackson Simon and Schuster Pocket Guide to Beer (Simon & Schuster,), Michael Jackson Classic Beer Style series (Brewers Publications), various authors Brewing Quality Beers (Joby Books), Byron Burch Beer Enthusiast's Guide (Storey Publications), Gregg Smith Brewing Lager Beer (Brewers Publications), Greg Noonan LEVELS OF JUDGES Judges vary widely in their skill and experience. As a result, the BJCP recognizes various levels of accomplishment. An individual's level of certification is determined by two factors: exam score and experience points earned through BJCP registered and AHA sanctioned competitions. The different levels and the criteria for achieving them are outlined below. RECOGNIZED JUDGE - minimum score of 60 percent on the exam. No experience points are necessary to attain this level CERTIFIED JUDGE - minimum score of 70 percent on the exam and at least five experience points, 2.5 of which must be judging points. NATIONAL JUDGE - minimum score of 80 percent on the exam and at least 20 experience points, 10 of which must be judging points. MASTER JUDGE - minimum score of 90 percent on the exam and at least 40 experience points, 20 of which must be judging points. GRAND MASTER JUDGE - FIRST DEGREE - minimum score of 90 percent on the exam and at least 100 experience points, 50 of which must be judging points. A service requirement for the BJCP, to be determined by the Exam Director on an individual basis, must also be fulfilled. Additional degrees, second, third, etc., can be earned in 100 experience point increments with additional service requirements to be determined by the Exam Director on an individual basis. HONORARY MASTER JUDGE - a temporary designation given by the BJCP committee. Directors and individuals on the BJCP Committee bear this title during their term. ADVANCING IN THE BJCP Because both exam scores and experience points determine the level of recognition achieved in the BJCP, a judge should strive to meet both types of criteria on an ongoing basis. A judge may wish to retake the exam in order to achieve the higher score necessary to advance to the next level. There is a reduced price for participants wishing to retake the BJCP exam. A judge will be placed on an inactive list if no experience points are recorded for two years. After two years on the inactive list, a judge will be dropped from the BJCP roster. This policy encourages judges to maintain their skills and assures competition organizers that they are using experienced judges with up to date knowledge of beer styles and judging practices. Upon certification by the BJCP Committee, the judge receives a handsome certificate showing the date of award and level of recognition. He or she also receives a wallet-size card denoting the same achievement. EXPERIENCE POINTS Experience points are earned through judging at a competition registered by the BJCP or sanctioned by the AHA. Points are awarded according to the difficulty and responsibility of the task, as well as by the size of the competition. Competition organizers and assistant organizers earn points based on the number of entries. POINTS EARNED Number Assistant BoS of entries Organizer Organizer Judge Judge Steward 1-74 2 0 1 0.5 0 75-149 3 0 2 1 0.5 150-299 5 1 2 1 0.5 300-499 7 3 2 1 0.5 500-up 10 5 3 * 0.5 *In competitions having 500 or more entries, judges will receive one point for the first session attended and 0.5 points for each subsequent session, with a limit of 1.5 points per calendar day and a total not to exceed 3 points for the event. For any one competition, points may be awarded to individuals from different categories (i.e. judging, stewarding, BoS or organizing) provided the total points awarded to an individual do not exceed the calendar or event limits for the competition. The organizer may only allocate the organizer and assistant organizer points among staff members in 0.5 point increments. A competition organizer may not submit experience points for more than one best of show judge per 25 entries, with a limit of four best of show judges per event. Experience points are recorded only after the competition organizer has sent a competition report to the sanctioning body, and that report is approved and recorded by the BJCP. BJCP ADMINISTRATION The Beer Judge Certification Program is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven elected representatives of seven regions of North America. This board manages BJCP policy and bylaws. The business of the BJCP is managed by Directors who have different fields of responsibility. They include: Exam Director: BJCP exam program Data Systems Director: BJCP Data Base Competition Director: BJCP competition registration program Communication with test-takers and BJCP members is handled by a Program Administrator, who also handles outside communications. This position is currently held by Russ Wigglesworth. EXAM ADMINISTRATORS Exam administrators are appointed by the Exam Director and earn non-judging experience points according to the schedule below. An additional 0.5 point may be awarded to one BJCP judge who assists in the scoring of the exam beers. NUMBER OF EXAM TAKERS POINTS EARNED 4-6 0.5 7-11 1 more than 11 2 The exam delegate may also allocate his points in 0.5 increments to those who helped give the exam. BJCP CONTACTS This booklet outlines bylaws as amended through March, 1996. The names and addresses of individuals in the program are available to organizers of BJCP registered competitions. Discrepancies in experience points, or in participant records can be reported in writing to: BJCP Program Administrator c/o Celebrator Beer News, P.O.Box 375, Hayward, CA 94543 (415)502-1070 Requests for scheduling BJCP exams should be made in writing to: Scott Bickham, BJCP Exam Director 7507 Swan Point Way, Columbia, MD 21045 (410) 290-7721 e-mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************ -------