Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:41:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199702121441.JAA01680 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1381
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest            Wednesday, 12 February 1997    Volume 01 : Number 1381

 ============================================================================
       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          <chuck at synchro.com>
 Archivist:        Spencer Thomas     <spencer at umich.edu>
 Publisher:        SynchroSystems     <info at synchro.com>

 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:

 RE(3) -BOS
 continuing ed.
 Re: Communication 
 Re: Communication

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

From: "RICHARD DRAKE" <HARDROCKENGR at msn.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 14:38:32 UT
Subject: RE(3) -BOS

In Digest #1375 Zach Hilgers wrote about BOS judging and big vs. small beers. 
A terse response was issued in Digest#1379 by Francois Spourteille regarding 
"deciding" which beer will win BOS.

I, too, was on the BOS panel for that competition and in defense of Zach 
Hilgers, I believe he is guilty of making a bad choice of words , but not in 
the "deciding" which beer was BOS. The panel selected the Kolsch because it 
was the best beer to style. The problem we had in choosing the winner was the 
lack of familiarity with the Kolsch style. A commercial example of this style 
is not available in our part of the country ( is it anywhere in the USA?) and 
none of the BOS judges have had the good fortune of visiting Koln, yet. This 
beer was an excellent beer and when we compared the flavor profile to the AHA 
style guidelines this beer fit perfectly into the description. The part that 
put it over the top, for me, as BOS was it hit the "slightly dry, winy and 
subtly sweet palate" right on the money, which I believe is no small brewing 
feat. It's selection on was based on merit not on "big vs. small". 

I would agree with Francois that we are there to decide which beer is best, 
not to "decide" which style or which brewer should win a contest.  Judging is 
becoming increasingly more difficult in that the quality of homebrewed beer 
continues to advance with time. More brewers with more knowledge producing 
finer examples of the hobby. I have been active in brewing for 5 years and in 
competitions for 3. In that time I have seen that the quality of brewing 
entries has grown greatly.

In the BOS round, most of the beers there have already scored in the 40+ 
range. The task of deciding which 40+ beer is the BOS is daunting. There may 
or may not be one beer that stands out of the crowd as it probably did in the 
past. So what, then, is used as the selection criteria? 

When it comes to the complaint about "big" beers winning to often, should 
judges be privy to the recipe and discount beers that are brewed too "big" for 
the style? I think that each judge has his/her own method of determining what 
score or placement a beer should receive. This is the subjective part of this 
hobby and will always remain this way. 

Most judges that I have encountered take the hobby seriously and try to do 
their best. It is hoped that, as a judging community, our skills increase at a 
rate similar to the brewing skills of the contest entrants.

Rick Drake
BJCP Certified
hardrockengr at msn.com

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

From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:12:49 -0600 (CST)
Subject: continuing ed.

George de Piro wrote:
>     About my desire to see a syllabus, David suggests referring to 
>     homebrewing and Jackson texts.  While these are good (even essential) 
>     reading for all judges and brewers, I was really suggesting something 
>     more uniform.  In this way the BJCP could be assured that all judges 
>     have at least been trained in the same manner, *especially* in 
>     scoring technique.  The current exam doesn't really do this.  The 
>     essay portion shows overall knowledge, but the tasting portion really 
>     doesn't show much.
>     
This is a good point.  When I took my exam last year, I felt confident on the
brewing and styles part of the exam.  I'm still not so confident in my ability
to taste and report on a beer.  Yet, that's what I do when I am asked to judge
at a competition.  The exam review packet had very little in the way of a
model scoresheet to look at.  

When I got my exam results back, there were a few comments about my
scoresheets, which as I suspected needed work.  But it would have been
really helpful if the scorers could have assembled a "nearly perfect" 
scoresheet for me to compare with mine.  Without knowing the kinds
of comments and depth of feedback that the scorers were looking for,
I still am not sure exactly how I should be filling out a score sheet.  And
I think mine look pretty good compared to some that I get in the mail.

This kind of question would also be answered at some kind of regional
review or judging session that would benefit all of us.  Anyone else in
the Southeast interested?


          - Bryan
            grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
            Nashville, TN


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

From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:55:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Communication 

>>>>> "korz" == korz  <korz at xnet.com> writes:

    korz> So, I think the recommendation is (in the old judge's
    korz> quidelines) to be silent till after the scores have been
    korz> assigned and then discussion is encouraged.

If you feel that a beer is particularly wonderful or particularly
foul, it may be worthwhile gently soliciting an opinion from the other
judge(s), to help avoid the situation of one judge assigning a 45 and
the other a 25 (yes, it has happened).  It needs to be done very
gently so as to avoid "leading" of any one judge by the others,
though.

I recently had an extended correspondance with 2 entrants to a
competition for which I was the organizer.  6 months after the event,
they were still stewing about an apparent injustice wherein score
sheets (for more than one beer!) were marked down severely and very
clearly revised to bring one (relatively inexperienced) judge's score
close to that of the other (experienced) judge.  In this case, some
gentle guidance from the more experienced judge could have prevented
at least the erasures.   Whether the inexperienced judge would have
then written independent comments is still a question.

I will be emphasizing the following instructions to the judges this
year, to try to minimize problems of that sort.
 
    * Do NOT copy or paraphrase judging comments from the other judges.
    Have confidence in your own taste and judgement.

    * The "senior" judge is not necessarily right.

    * Scores should be within 7 points, but if you are far apart to begin
    with, you don't need to revise them to be very closer together than 7
    points.

    * If you really cannot agree, call in a (neutral) third party.

    * If you revise a score sheet significantly, start over on a new one.

    In addition, if we have enough stewards for the judging, I will ask
    the stewards to check the score sheets for legibility, correctness of
    arithmetic, and general appearance. 

Suggestions and (gentle) critiques are welcomed.

=Spencer

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

From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:45:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Communication

Spencer writes:
>>>>>> "korz" == korz  <korz at xnet.com> writes:
>
>    korz> So, I think the recommendation is (in the old judge's
>    korz> quidelines) to be silent till after the scores have been
>    korz> assigned and then discussion is encouraged.
>
>If you feel that a beer is particularly wonderful or particularly
>foul, it may be worthwhile gently soliciting an opinion from the other
>judge(s), to help avoid the situation of one judge assigning a 45 and
>the other a 25 (yes, it has happened).  It needs to be done very
>gently so as to avoid "leading" of any one judge by the others,
>though.

Hmmmm... seems to me that this is a very, very difficult thing
to implement.  It would take great tact and diplomacy to:

1. avoid leading the other judges, and
2. avoid making the other judges feel as if you don't trust them
   to identify this as a truly terrible or truly wonderful beer.

Frankly, given the difficulty of this and the fact that tact is in
short supply after 7 Barleywines, I (personally) would reserve
the use of this technique only if there had already been one major
rift at this session (e.g. 45 vs. 25).

>I will be emphasizing the following instructions to the judges this
>year, to try to minimize problems of that sort.
> 
>    * Do NOT copy or paraphrase judging comments from the other judges.
>    Have confidence in your own taste and judgement.
>
>    * The "senior" judge is not necessarily right.

This should probably be stapled to the lead judges' forehead for each
flight.  Humility is also in short supply after that 11th Doppelbock.

>    * Scores should be within 7 points, but if you are far apart to begin
>    with, you don't need to revise them to be very closer together than 7
>    points.

This needs to be much more specific to be workable, e.g. "if the initial
difference is more than 20 points..." but then who does this benefit?
Does the entrant really benefit if one judge gives him/her a 45 and another
a 25?  I feel that ultimately, the judges should be responsible for coming
to a consensus on the beer (with the help of an additional, impartial judge,
if necessary).

>    * If you really cannot agree, call in a (neutral) third party.
>
>    * If you revise a score sheet significantly, start over on a new one.

Very good point.

This last point reminds me of something... could whoever is putting together
the BJCP Competition Organizer's Booklet add formulas for quantities of
scoresheets and cups based upon entries and judges?  I've always guessed
wrong and ended up with shortages or surpluses.

Al.


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

End of judge-digest V1 #1381
****************************

 Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com.
 Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.