Return-Path: owner-judge 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 UAA01244 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:52:08 -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 UAA21768 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id UAA07172; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id UAA07166; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA13821 for ; Mon, 20 May 96 20:17:05 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA05959 for judge-digest-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:01:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 20:01:33 -0400 Message-Id: <199605210001.UAA05959 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1280 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Monday, 20 May 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1280 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Administration: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Disqualifying entries more on this thread... Stewards Help HBCs Look Good ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Paolino Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 00:18:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Disqualifying entries Just to clarify possible confusion about the disqualification for a Big and Huge award. It wasn't a question of checking entries for being outside of _style guidelines_. Guidelines are just that. If a panel of judges gets a 1.070 beer entered as an American Wheat and they think it is an American Wheat and a good one, we may boo and hiss at the brewer for entering a too big beer (it would be hard to imagine that example, of course, given that flavour and aroma are optional in that style :-) ), but if they judged it as such, then so be it. In this case, though, the gravity was a _rule_ for what constitutes a valid entry in the competition, regardless of style. I can see how it could be confusing in that the variable involved is also one central to debate on style guidelines. Step back from that, though, and just consider it as a rule, like the rule that entries can't be brewed in commercial facilities or whatever. No matter how good the beer or how much "in style" it is, it's ineligible for an award. This beer (I didn't taste it, but I'll take the judges word/words/scores that it was a good example of its style) was "in style" by gravity, but because of the RULE that beers had to be a minimum of 1.050 OG, it was ineligible. The guy was still entitled (for having gone to the trouble of entering) to have it judged without prejudice (which is why I didn't remove it and didn't notify the judges), and I hope he finds the comments useful. But he wasn't eligible for an award. It was stated in black-and-white that minimum gravity for any entry was 1.050, and that beers not meeting required standards (eligibility and minimum 25 score) would not receive awards. I was prepared to take a somewhat middle-ground position--no 2nd BOS recognition and no 1st Place "Big Ale" award, but still give him the style award. But after putting the question to other club officials for their support of at least that much (I wasn't prepared to be more lenient without a compelling argument), they left it to me and advised no award, period. I think it would be a bad idea to enforce style guidelines as rules. People miss target gravities, and still have beers that taste like the style entered. Where do you draw the line? For a category that tops out at a 1.055 guideline, where do you draw the line? 1.055? 1.058? 1.060? 1.100?;-) Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino Madison rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Have a beer today... for your palate and for good health ------------------------------ From: "George Danz (919) 405-3632" Date: Mon, 20 May 96 08:19:56 EDT Subject: more on this thread... Commenting further... - ----------------- From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 19:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: more on judge quality continuing on this thread.... Chris V sez: >I am inclined to think that a written warning to subpar judges may be >justified, but that a "period of probation" might be a little severe. - ------------------ I too think the letter approach is the best approach. The letter should do the trick. If that fails, you're probably dealing with a very ornery feller anyway, and there are bylaws to deal with that problem. A person who just got forgetful or had a bad day should get a pleasant reminder, perhaps with some of these examples of great score sheets to boot. As for 'all the money that brewers pay to have their beers judged' it doesn't come close to the cost incurred by judges in travel expenses, etc., so I wouldn't feel too sorry for them. The real thing I think we're talking about here is personal pride in doing a good job judging and in encouraging brewers through quality feedback to brew even better beers. The final goal is to shame the meggabrewers into also doing a better job or face extinction! I think they'll change their ways before that happens. So we perform a very valuable service to the beer drinking society at large and this realization should drive us on to doing the best job we can on the scoresheets as well as continuing our efforts in learning styles, perfection and imperfect- ion in beer. :-) Can anyone tell me what this is.... ;~) ... give up? It's a brewjudge that had his nose out of joint. :-) totally irrelevant to the discussion above. George Danz hoping to brew sooooon ------------------------------ From: Fred Hardy Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 08:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Stewards Help HBCs Look Good OK, I admit I was wrong about stewards playing a roll in auditing of judge's score sheets. Two things have made me a believer. One was the Spirit of Free Beer competition which I judged in last Saturday, and the other was my 1st round AHA NHC score sheets. Spirit of Free Beer is a Washington, DC, area HBC sponsored by BURP. It is always a class act, and this year was no exception. They had the stewards look over the score sheets for correctness, completeness, etc. On several occasions the steward for my flight caught math errors, failure to check experience level, and the like (of course, I made no mistakes :-)). It did not change the judges' perceptions or the ranking of the winners, but it did help the organizers to convey to the entrants that SoFB is a quality competition. Perception is important, as I had reinforced by my score sheets from the AHA NHC. I judged in the 1st round AHA NHC, but in a region other than where my entries were judged. I was part of a well run competition in Lancaster, PA. My entries went to Niceville, FL. At SoFB I was talking with Rhett Rebold who also sent his entries to FL. Rhett said he received one less set of score sheets than he had entries, and wondered where, or who got the other one. I hadn't gotten my scores by then, but they had arrived and were waiting in Saturday's mail. Maybe I got Rhett's missing score sheet, since I got one more set of score sheets than I had entries. Ah, perceptions. The same week my Munich dunkel entry took BoS at the Bluebonnet Brewoff it scored either a 23.5 or a 27.5 in the FL AHA NHC. I say either, since I entered one dunkel, but got score sheets for two separate entries. I don't know if one is mine, but they both aren't. For all I know, mine was attributed to someone else who is now preparing their dunkel to go to the 2nd round. Who knows? I also entered 3 meads in the 25 - Traditional Mead and Braggot category. One was a traditional mead and 2 were braggot - one sparkling and one still. The cover sheets were very informative. Two had no category number, the other had "MEAD" on the category number line. All three had "25" on the Category Letter line. Two showed "MEAD" on the Subcategory Name line, the other left it blank. Which ones were Braggot? Four judges judged these entries: one was BJCP recognized, two were novice, and the third checked the open space between Experienced (but not in BJCP) and Other. Not one of the score sheets mentioned malt. Did the organizers list the braggots as such, or did the judges think they were traditional mead? On the entry which scored a 13, Craig Addison (novice) wrote in large, shaky block print (looked like a second grader's handwriting) "CALL THE PARAMEDICS NEEDS CPR." Al Bourg, the one between Experienced and Other, wrote "Read a few books on mead." I want to thank these gentlemen for their helpful hints. Another mead entry scored a 22.5. Kelly Craig (novice) commented, "Sorry, but I don't think I would drink this beer." The best scoring entry got a 31.5. Kelly liked this one, because the comment was, "Wouldn't mind drinking this beer." Thanks Kelly, but it was a mead. Not one of the 12 score sheets had a subcategory letter or name. Score sheets and cover sheets only indicated category 25 - mead. The comments and scribbles leave the impression that these judges were in the bag, and were looking for rocket fuel that had obvious honey. I also suspect the organizers were more novices than my friend Kelly. FWIW, one of my entries had never been entered in competition. Two have won ribbons in other competitions, and one of the braggots took 1st in the Traditional Mead and Braggot category at this year's TRASH HBC. I suspect it was either the 13 or the 22.5, but who knows? Next year I will take Al Bourg's advice, and instead of wasting $24 - $27 on entering meads in the AHA NHC, I'll spend the money on mead books. A steward check will not eliminate tipsy and/or unqualified judges, or incompetent organizers, but it could at least have gotten the entries correctly identified. I had two entries go on to the AHA NHC 2nd round, but instead of feeling good about it, I am furious over the results. I am not even sure the entries that advanced are mine. Needless to say, this year the Capitol District Open will instruct stewards and judges that stewards will perform sanity checks on all score sheets. I am a believer! ============================================================================== 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 ============================================================================== ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1280 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.